Mempool Observer Topic

[As03]

Hello I wanted to thank you all for this post where I learned many things I didn't know.

There's one thing I'm not sure about :

I read in many places that miners could "choose what transactions they resolve from the mempool" but somebody said quite loudly here that it is impossible ?

what's true and can you explain it ?

[1714640372]

1714640372

[1714640372]

1714640372

[1714640372]

1714640372

[BitcoinsGreat]

Well, seems like the Kramer effect was more serious on the mempool than on the price, at first glance I though Viabtc mined two consecutive blocks but no,



Seems like the fees are back under 50sat/b, not great not terrible!
Of course it's still almost like holiday in the most of the world, it's barely 4 am in Europe so by tomorrow evening they might grow again but still the huge wall of fees is decreasing, from record high of 240Mvb till 10 sat/vb we're down to 185Mvb, although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

Right now we have  257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing.  Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.

[nutildah]

Hello I wanted to thank you all for this post where I learned many things I didn't know.

There's one thing I'm not sure about :

I read in many places that miners could "choose what transactions they resolve from the mempool" but somebody said quite loudly here that it is impossible ?

what's true and can you explain it ?

Sure. Its the mining pool operator that creates a template for which types of transactions they want included in blocks they mine. The miners working with such pools tacitly agree to such templates. If they don't agree with them, they can simply find another pool that uses a template more in line with their principles. Some mining pools allow individual miners to vote on or even set their own templates, but not all of them.

[As03]

thank you @nutildah

So it is possible

[armanda90]

Right now we have  257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing.  Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.

Right now have decreasing with bitcoin transaction and take only 50 Sat/vbyte for sending bitcoin from one wallet to other wallet, my sending last several days have been landed well after decreasing of lower fees transaction and its take more than three days before receiving in my bitcoin wallet.
For ETF approved or not I don't get accurate information because have rumor is fake news and bitcoin drop drastically but we get benefit with fees sending of bitcoin decreasing drastically and use lower fees transaction just take about twenty minutes only.
I don't think in the future have potential with fees transaction for sending bitcoin will up again above 150 Sat/vbyte despite ETF approval or not, if you have bitcoin assets in wallet its right time for depositing in exchange account if you want to sell it and save in one wallet if you hold bitcoin in several wallet due with lower fees, faster transaction not make difficult later when selling bitcoin in the market.

[Learn Bitcoin]

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently.

Jokes aside, I didn't find any logical reason to increase the fee more and more when the recommended fee is way lower than what they have spent. I thought they were average Joe who did not understand the system and they kept bumping their fee until their transaction got included in a block. But, if they are real average Joe who does not understand when they should increase the fee when they don't need it, how do they know that there is an option to increase the fee which boosts up the transaction fee? Or maybe because sometimes it takes a long time to find the next block and they might think their transaction is stuck because of the fee? But the reality is; that their fee was enough already but the next block wasn't found yet.

[franky1]

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently.

Jokes aside, I didn't find any logical reason to increase the fee more and more when the recommended fee is way lower than what they have spent.

in january 2023 core changed its 'bump fee' default from 1s/vb to 5sat/vb for both GUI transacting default and RPC transacting default
they then in summer changed code whereby (not in GUI) in RPC if a user manually chooses a fee, then it ignores the bump fee default

meaning less techy users are pushed to pay more because the gui defaults to bump fees in higher increments than 1sat/vb, or 100sat/kb(0.1sat)
where as those that know how to rpc transact get more freedom to not pay as much

many alternative wallets also messed with their fee estimation defaults too

this is where you see some replacements bumped by 5s/vb increments (core gui created tx)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by 2s/vb increments (not-core gui created)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by many s/vb increments

for instance

both of the replacements were not done via cores gui interface
because both transactions were not replaced by rounded 5sat increment
eg the second tx would have been 1035 or 1040 not 1039

[Woodie]

I wanted to discuss a thing that I noticed for a long time but didn't ask.
Sometimes I notice that some people replace their transactions with fees like 1000 sat/vB even though the recommended fee was around 100 sat/vB. Their previous fee was already enough to include their transaction on a block but it was waiting to be included in a block. But the person keep bumping it from 500 to 600 sat/vB and then 600 to 1000 sat/vB. Should I call them dumb people?
For example, look at the image below  

Dumb people, I don't think so...
Considering the mechanism of Bitcoin transactions is based on next block confirmation is given to the highest bidder,  it's actually a smart way to ensure high fees are maintained...if anything this whole Ordinals spamming the network could be a smoke screen in my opinion.. What if miners were involved in artificially pumping of transaction fees to make some money while the business is lucrative I know  this could be an unpopular opinion but mining isn't cheap for starters and this is one possibility to pay themselves while they can !!

Besides if this was something like beginners mistakes, why doesn't this happen with other blockchains which have far cheap tx fees ??

[NotATether]

I read in many places that miners could "choose what transactions they resolve from the mempool" but somebody said quite loudly here that it is impossible ?

They can. But if they don't collect all the high-paying fee transactions first, then they will miss out on some profits to a miner who does.

It's like this:

Transactions A,B,C,D and E pay ridiculous 200 sats/vbyte.

But transactions F1...F100 all have a fee rate between 20 and 30 sats/vbyte.

A miner who collects transactions F1...F100 and includes them in a block, will not be able to collect the fees of A,B,C,D and E if there is no more space in the mined block.

[Bright Venus]

I don't think miner are taking advantage of the higher fees, I believe the fees are getting higher because of the boom of the miners, then everyone should get paid. So I believe next two years fees must stop increasing and will be stable with a less rate % of increase per year

[DaNNy001]

I wanted to discuss a thing that I noticed for a long time but didn't ask.
Sometimes I notice that some people replace their transactions with fees like 1000 sat/vB even though the recommended fee was around 100 sat/vB. Their previous fee was already enough to include their transaction on a block but it was waiting to be included in a block. But the person keep bumping it from 500 to 600 sat/vB and then 600 to 1000 sat/vB. Should I call them dumb people?
For example, look at the image below  

Dumb people, I don't think so...
Considering the mechanism of Bitcoin transactions is based on next block confirmation is given to the highest bidder,  it's actually a smart way to ensure high fees are maintained...if anything this whole Ordinals spamming the network could be a smoke screen in my opinion.. What if miners were involved in artificially pumping of transaction fees to make some money while the business is lucrative I know  this could be an unpopular opinion but mining isn't cheap for starters and this is one possibility to pay themselves while they can !!

Besides if this was something like beginners mistakes, why doesn't this happen with other blockchains which have far cheap tx fees ??

hmmm, interesting point there although I know the fact or base to what you are trying to say might be wild but I think a fraction of believe can still be associated to this thought of yours, well atleast that's from my angle. But this issue is really getting out of hand and I think in no time we will see another wave of this nonsense again and yet nothing has been done by the so called Bitcoin developers because I believe the issue has been deliberated and an open discussion has going on for these said developers to actually come up with a way to actually trash the issue at core point.

[Learn Bitcoin]

yet nothing has been done by the so called Bitcoin developers because I believe the issue has been deliberated and an open discussion has going on for these said developers to actually come up with a way to actually trash the issue at core point.

Did you just insult Bitcoin developers? 
Who has constantly been developing the entire network for decades? As you may know, a single developer or a small group of developers cannot make a change if they want. All they can do is propose the development, and most others have to agree with that idea. That's all I know about it. If I am not wrong, Moderator achow101 is one of the developers who have been working for Bitcoin for a while now. I don't criticize what I do not understand. Developers aren't so called.

[franky1]

yet nothing has been done by the so called Bitcoin developers because I believe the issue has been deliberated and an open discussion has going on for these said developers to actually come up with a way to actually trash the issue at core point.

Did you just insult Bitcoin developers?  
Who has constantly been developing the entire network for decades? As you may know, a single developer or a small group of developers cannot make a change if they want.

dont auto give core the ass kissery of god like devotion. you should actually be reviewing scrutinising and criticising them when they make mistakes, instead of pretending mistakes cant be made or things cant happen..

many core devs are sponsored to add code that doesnt benefit the general community but does benefit corporations that want to take advantage of users(promoting that everyone should move over to middlemen managed subnetworks due to annoyances of bitcoin transacting due to changes they paid for to make it annoying)

mistakes have happened, exploits do exist, core could fix them..  core devs have done things and they need to be scrutinised so that it helps reduce chances of them repeating mistakes/exploits/sponsored upgrades
(though they gatekeep moderation to control the flow of information and remove criticism by deleting/banning user access to all discussion platforms THEY control, its still worth challenging them and highlighting their mistakes)

dont go full cult leader admiration.. cults dont end well

maintainers have the keys to create a release candidate and push in code as they please
lead maintainer(singular) has all powers
other devs have keys to "force push" code they created without review, without team 'ack' into the active candidate protocol

also achowe has "transitioned" SHE likes to be called ava now. though il always think of HIM as a wall-e(andrew), because he hasnt changed that much at all

[FeeBuddy]

[bitmover]

Hello guys! My bot is nearly done!! It is working, but I need to do one more step to complete it.

I have to automatically send the image to talkimg. I will have a chat with joker_josue to figure it out how to use his API!

Then I will make the bot post the data here. Maybe 2 or 4 times a day?  I think once an hour like ChartBuddy is too much!

Thanks for suggestion to create this NotATether and stompix and Learn Bitcoin.

A learn new stuffs in the process!

Edit: FeeBuddy just need to level up a bit so he can post images. 30 activity for Jr Member (30 days), right? We can quote him while we wait lol

[franky1]

Hello guys! My bot is nearly done!! It is working, but I need to do one more step to complete it.

the main OP has your API so people can see its live-data by just reading first post
many people in say X years time wanting to look back at historic data would prefer static data on a daily bump or yes even 4 hours as long as this forum doesnt think of its as bump spam

suggestion:
might even be worth the api allowing a cleartext ascii version so the bot bumping the topic can coopy/paste ascii to also write it out as a forum post message incase the image host server goes down..

note:
you may end up having this topic moved to different category (outside of 'bitcoin discussion') if its bumped too much by an obvious bot
so check with forum moderators about 'bitcoin discussion' rules of bot bumping topics

[Luzin]

Did you just insult Bitcoin developers? 
Who has constantly been developing the entire network for decades? As you may know, a single developer or a small group of developers cannot make a change if they want. All they can do is propose the development, and most others have to agree with that idea. That's all I know about it. If I am not wrong, Moderator achow101 is one of the developers who have been working for Bitcoin for a while now. I don't criticize what I do not understand. Developers aren't so called.

All I know is that there are currently two opinions circulating regarding the Ordinal issue on the Bitcoin network that makes transfer fees expensive. Refuse and support. Refusing because it is considered that the Ordinal network that rides on the BTC blockchain adds to the burden of network congestion and tries to eliminate Bitcoin's original functionality.
Support because the bitcoin system with an open network does provide facilities that are used ordinally. In addition, they do benefit because of trust in the BTC Blockchain. As for me, I don't like the density of the mempool which makes the fee higher. It is proven that when there are improvements to the Ordinal network, fees become quite cheap. CMIIW

[NotATether]

Edit: FeeBuddy just need to level up a bit so he can post images. 30 activity for Jr Member (30 days), right? We can quote him while we wait lol

That's 30 posts and 1 merit. But that won't be a problem.

[mindrust]

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently.

Jokes aside, I didn't find any logical reason to increase the fee more and more when the recommended fee is way lower than what they have spent.

in january 2023 core changed its 'bump fee' default from 1s/vb to 5sat/vb for both GUI transacting default and RPC transacting default
they then in summer changed code whereby (not in GUI) in RPC if a user manually chooses a fee, then it ignores the bump fee default

meaning less techy users are pushed to pay more because the gui defaults to bump fees in higher increments than 1sat/vb, or 100sat/kb(0.1sat)
where as those that know how to rpc transact get more freedom to not pay as much

many alternative wallets also messed with their fee estimation defaults too

this is where you see some replacements bumped by 5s/vb increments (core gui created tx)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by 2s/vb increments (not-core gui created)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by many s/vb increments

for instance

both of the replacements were not done via cores gui interface
because both transactions were not replaced by rounded 5sat increment
eg the second tx would have been 1035 or 1040 not 1039

I noticed the same thing. Right now on electrum, The fee is going from 1 to 2, 2 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 50, 50 to 70, 70 to 100 sats... If I remember right, It used to be 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and so on. It feels like they did intentionally to increase the fees even more.

There is  huge difference between 30 sats/b and 50 sats/b fee. Why can't I fine tune it?

This is becoming ridiculous.

[Wind_FURY]

Well, seems like the Kramer effect was more serious on the mempool than on the price, at first glance I though Viabtc mined two consecutive blocks but no,



Seems like the fees are back under 50sat/b, not great not terrible!
Of course it's still almost like holiday in the most of the world, it's barely 4 am in Europe so by tomorrow evening they might grow again but still the huge wall of fees is decreasing, from record high of 240Mvb till 10 sat/vb we're down to 185Mvb, although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

Right now we have  257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing.  Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.

Although it's good to finally see the fees start going down, don't expect it to stay low that long because in China,



 

They are organizing conferences behind BRC-20, and that picture shows that the room is full of investors who come from a wide demographic. It's not merely "crypto-bros", but there's men, women, old, young, fat, thin. ANYONE in China who has money to invest, will invest in BRC-20.

I believe that picture was taken months ago, last year. Therefore if a BRC-20 conference was announced today, it would attract a lot more people.