Mempool Observer Topic

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 39 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 34 sat/vB
• hourFee: 29 sat/vB
• economyFee: 29 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 22 sat/vB

[1714549136]

1714549136

[1714549136]

1714549136

[1714549136]

1714549136

[NotATether]

Most people here have too many utxo because we received recorring small payments for a long time...

Adoption also means that.

My UTXO set is bloated, I think I have about 60 to 70 of them so if I ever have to sweep my funds to another wallet, it's going to be quite expensive to do so, even at 30 sats/vbyte. But so is not securing your wallet properly, 'eh?

Fees are not important when your money is on the line, for whatever reason.

I have been spending about 2 utxos at a time, and I think that helps.

[bitmover]

I have been spending about 2 utxos at a time, and I think that helps.

I always try to fully spend 2-4 UTXO at a time. As I have so many utxo (much more than 70) it is easy to find the exactly amount that I need. Fully spending makes the transaction a little smaller (and cheaper) too.

However,  I should have consolidate more at 1 sat vB. I will try to do so when the times comes again. I will watch LoyceV topic too

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 24 sat/vB
• economyFee: 24 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 24 sat/vB

[hZti]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

Oh and before I foget it, yes bitcoin is a store of wealth how can I forget it. Nobody ever said that transactions should be cheap 

[bitmover]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

[nutildah]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

There have been a couple of block size increases: first from 500 kb to 1 mb, and with Segwit it is now at a maximum of 4 mb.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_is_the_short_history_of_the_block_size_limit.3F

Oh and before I foget it, yes bitcoin is a store of wealth how can I forget it. Nobody ever said that transactions should be cheap 

Its a relative term, but I consider anything under $3 for a tx fee to be "cheap."

[hZti]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

There have been a couple of block size increases: first from 500 kb to 1 mb, and with Segwit it is now at a maximum of 4 mb.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_is_the_short_history_of_the_block_size_limit.3F

That is a good observation. But is there any technical limitation that would prevent an upgrade to 8 mb? I think there is none but i honestly dont know

[bitmover]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.

There is no post of him that explicitly says so
Many scammers tried to push on this narrative,  which is false, as far as I know.

They even created bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv, and made billions . But those coins are scam.

[hZti]

Read this thread and you will see that it is not the invention of some "faketoshi" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

I dont support any bitcoin sidechain movement, but the discussion for bigger blocksizes should be there. I mean it is quiete obvius where bitcoin is heading and the 4 mb will definatly be enough forever.

[stompix]

There is no post of him that explicitly says so
Many scammers tried to push on this narrative,  which is false, as far as I know.

You're falling in the same trap when you will deny any change just because it was previously supported by an individual you don't like.
The math is pretty clear, the outcome is also, you will never be able to have adoption and cheap transfers this way, and for LN to actually be used en masse, well you will still need bigger blocks unless you want fake decentralization with custodial wallets.
Oh, and last day fees were 8123 4TB ssd, that means users spent that much on fees a day while nodes (which are also run by users) won't be able to spend that ..in two years...cause cost!  

But is there any technical limitation that would prevent an upgrade to 8 mb? I think there is none but i honestly dont know

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 58 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 52 sat/vB
• hourFee: 46 sat/vB
• economyFee: 46 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 25 sat/vB

[hZti]

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

Well if this is really the only reason then I think the problem is the mining community.

Because I think those are the only ones that will cry if block size will go up and fees will go down. Nobody else does really talk about this subject I think. Because I think you and me could also be called die hard bitcoiners with a forum membership of more then 10 years. The problem is really only that it is not really worth fighting for it. (Except you are a greedy miner )

[bitmover]

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

Well if this is really the only reason then I think the problem is the mining community.

Because I think those are the only ones that will cry if block size will go up and fees will go down. Nobody else does really talk about this subject I think. Because I think you and me could also be called die hard bitcoiners with a forum membership of more then 10 years. The problem is really only that it is not really worth fighting for it. (Except you are a greedy miner )

I don't think this is solution.

The problem is that people are storing jpegs in transactions. Before that, we could get 1 sat vB transactions confirmed with no problem in less than a day.

If blockcsize gets bigger, people will add videos to transactions.

I think if adoption of bitcoin really grows, 2nd layer will be the solution. LN is good but not enough.

I discovered Liquid recently,  and it looks interesting.  This was predicted by Hal Finney

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

[franky1]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

The problem is that people are storing jpegs in transactions. Before that, we could get 1 sat vB transactions confirmed with no problem in less than a day.

If blockcsize gets bigger, people will add videos to transactions.
...
Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

if we close the "softened" cludgy tricks core done 2017+ which allowed the bloat. it would prevent "videos" and also dampen down the current jpeg bloat..
having bigger blocks is not the sole thing.. you are reading idiot narratives from dumb people that shout silly extremes to prevent any progress

however
by closing the exploits that allow the bloat, blocks can have more leaner transactions and then scaling the blocksize can also allow even more of those leaner transactions

as for you pretending satoshi never talked about increasing the blocksize.. your wrong, as here is a post by him giving one example of increasing the blocksize. so he did talk about it

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[joker_josue]

I discovered Liquid recently,  and it looks interesting.  This was predicted by Hal Finney

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

Very interesting. By chance, I had already seen this Liquid, but I had never paid much attention to it.

How does it work specifically? Is it different to LN or the same?

[bitmover]

Very interesting. By chance, I had already seen this Liquid, but I had never paid much attention to it.

How does it work specifically? Is it different to LN or the same?

I discovered it a few weeks ago.

http://liquid.net/

I use it on
 https://aquawallet.io

It is different from lightning . It is much simpler. You have an address,  even usdt tokens, like any other blockchain.  But L-BTC is the same as btc, 1:1.

[hZti]

Bitcoin is already way to complicated for 80% of the world poulation. It does not make any sense to me how some hardcore nerds are really this far in the digital world, that they think they should invent a second layer payment system that people should then use everyday. This will never catch on, and if it will it is still idiotic.

[bitmover]

It does not make any sense to me how some hardcore nerds are really this far in the digital world, that they think they should invent a second layer payment system that people should then use everyday. This will never catch on, and if it will it is still idiotic.

So you think that if you buy a $2 coffee in Starbucks this transaction should be registered in all computers running bitcoin in the world? Inegociable?
This is what makes zero sense to me. I see no "idiotic" trying to find a solution just to put high value transactions in the main layer in the future.

And use second layer (like LN or other)for small tx

[JayJuanGee]

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.

There is no post of him that explicitly says so

It is kind of funny that some people want to figure out exactly what Satoshi said and what Satoshi would do, which is quite problematic, even though there does seem to be some logic in terms of knowledge of design choices, yet at the same time, there are quite a few reasons why it does not matter what satoshi said and also it also likely does not matter very much what he would say - except for the purity of the logic play, and to convince based on the underlying reasonings that may or may not still be applicable towards bitcoin as it is evolving and perhaps some divergences in what could be chosen. .and does what any one person or group affect the direction of consensus.

So, thank god satoshi disappeared, whether he did it intentionally or not and whether he is still amongst us in another form (under another nym - and perhaps the more than one person idea too) or not.

Many scammers tried to push on this narrative,  which is false, as far as I know.

Surely the block limitations are not easy choices, and people are going to want to attempt to align with Satoshi's vision (meaning the real vision .. .not the fucktwat scamcoin). .. so yeah, some folks were probably less genuine than others in terms of what they were trying to push and why they were trying to push it.

They even created bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv, and made billions . But those coins are scam.

Probably, we could argue that bcash and bcash SV were somewhat temporarily successful in their exploitation of BIG blocker theories, yet there were quite a few other coins attempting to take advantage of various talking points about bitcoin being broken and that their coins was better in the various ways that bitcoin was broken.. and so we were likely less prepared for the level of spam attacks that were occurring towards the end of 2017 and a bit more than half of January 2018, but the narrative about bitcoin being broken due to such clogging of transactions at that time did carry into quite a few shitcoin talking points.. for sure even ethereum played a lot on those kinds of ideas of bitcoin's supposed inabilities to scale on the first layer.. but then when some of those coins became somewhat successful (by getting increased traffic), they ran into similar kinds of scaling problems and sometimes even with seemingly worse trade-offs.. at least most bitcoiners are not going to easily concede to any shitcoiner's claim to have had solved the scaling problem, since hardly any of them are even proof of work (anymore)..

I would think that an overwhelming majority of regular bitcoiners are going to recognize the POW is the actual innovation, so any of the shitcoins that are not at least attempting to employ some version of POW is not really accomplishing much in terms of decentralization (or at least the kind of innovations that bitcoin was attempting to accomplish).

There are some proof of work coins out there, but still they are not really that large, so we would have to be attempting to compare the proof of work coins to at least be in the right category of comparisons... and maybe since my whole post is devolving into losing the plot, we might at least be able to concede that there is no coin that is even close to bitcoin in terms of putting the scaleability issues to work within a proof of work system.. .. and don't get me wrong, the various shitcoins are not just faulty because they are proof of stake because many times they have all kinds of flaws that should cause a whole hell of a lot of skepticisms.. such as ethereum's problem with the number of coins that were issued in the first place and even how many coins actually exist.. now I am really devolving.. I better stop.