Mempool Observer Topic

[hZti]

I believe that bitcoin still provides a lot of utility, fairness, improvements and disruption, even if it ends UP being used by mostly richer people... not that I am advocating for such a world because I do believe that there are going to continue to develop second and third layer solutions that still empower less wealthy people.. and especially if such less wealthy people are escaping a country with all of their wealth (let's say that they have $100k or even smaller amounts such as $10k), they may well be better to escape with bitcoin in their heads rather than having gold stuffed up their nether regions.

People in certain 3rd world countries earn 1 USD per day and have to pay for housing and food with that. I am not entierly shure how those people then can pay for their food and housing if a single transaction would cost 1.000 USD. And for such a person it would also be not an option to just wait for the next bear market to be able to buy a piece of bread.

[bitmover]

Anyway, Satoshi opnion 15 years ago doesn't matters anymore.

Well, then why did you mentioned him?
Funny how his opinion matters only when it fits the narrative 

I didn't mentioned him. hZti did.

I just said he never mentioned block size, which was wrong as Frank pointed out.

People in certain 3rd world countries earn 1 USD per day and have to pay for housing and food with that. I am not entierly shure how those people then can pay for their food and housing if a single transaction would cost 1.000 USD. And for such a person it would also be not an option to just wait for the next bear market to be able to buy a piece of bread.

I livr in a 3rd world country. Middle class here live similarly to how middle class lives in Europe. Those are the people who use bitcoin in 3rd world countries.

Bitcoin won't take people out of extreme poverty or make their live better. People who live with less than 1 usd a day won't even have internet, they are not supposed to use bitcoin. They have other problems which bitcoin won't and shouldn't solve.

[franky1]

I livr in a 3rd world country. Middle class here live similarly to how middle class lives in Europe. Those are the people who use bitcoin in 3rd world countries.

i live in the UK (1st world country) i have a large hoard of coin so personally a tx fee is micro in comparison to my hoard. yet even i can think beyond my personal circumstance to view bitcoin as a international open option.. outside of the traditional banking system which many 3rd world citizens dont have access to(aka the unbanked)

Bitcoin won't take people out of extreme poverty or make their live better. People who live with less than 1 usd a day won't even have internet, they are not supposed to use bitcoin. They have other problems which bitcoin won't and shouldn't solve.

says who?
bitcoin was made for the unbanked.. the elitists already have access to so many traditional financial payment methods that do not penalise them. why decide that the unbanked shouldnt use bitcoin, you are literally saying billions of people are not worthy to live on the planet and use systems that are only designed for the elites

i do hope you know that the spot market is the incentive of deflating blockreward.. we dont need to cause everyone to pay more in satfee to subsidise mining pools. instead there should be more transactions per block so fees stay low individually for utility and enjoyment of bitcoiners. whilst the total fees of more transactions increases the TOTAL block satfee which pools get subsidised by

you thinking bitcoin should have less transactions and each transaction paying more.. is BAD for bitcoin. bad for economics, bad for utility, bad for many reasons
i feel you have been listening too much to idiots that idolise subnetworks that use middlemen and take fees just to push unconfirmed transactions between each other..

if you want to promote transactions can be $1k fee but then cry that a hard drive of many years data storage is only $100.. it means you are not thinking. you are just repeating someone elses warped narrative
do the math

i would rather pay $100 for many years of data storage, than pay $1k per tx.. yep maths proves my opinion works out better for everyone

the only reason a group of echo chamber idiots promote "high fee's are good", is because they are the subnetwork crowd that want to take middlemen fee's for routing unconfirmed payments. (in short.. poor people that dont want/cant afford to buy a asic to get income, so want to ruin and annoy bitcoin to get fee's via making bitcoin worse to get people to move to their buggy subnetworks)

[hZti]

Just look at these numbers and you will see that it is absolute nonsense to talk about fees of even hundreds of dollars: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

Yes you can argue that poor people can not give enough value to bitcoin to begin with, but thats not really how I see bitcoin. I see it as the opposite of that.

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
• hourFee: 25 sat/vB
• economyFee: 25 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 18 sat/vB

[JayJuanGee]

I believe that bitcoin still provides a lot of utility, fairness, improvements and disruption, even if it ends UP being used by mostly richer people... not that I am advocating for such a world because I do believe that there are going to continue to develop second and third layer solutions that still empower less wealthy people.. and especially if such less wealthy people are escaping a country with all of their wealth (let's say that they have $100k or even smaller amounts such as $10k), they may well be better to escape with bitcoin in their heads rather than having gold stuffed up their nether regions.

People in certain 3rd world countries earn 1 USD per day and have to pay for housing and food with that. I am not entierly shure how those people then can pay for their food and housing if a single transaction would cost 1.000 USD. And for such a person it would also be not an option to just wait for the next bear market to be able to buy a piece of bread.

Everyone likely benefits from having a more fair monetary system, even if some people might not be able to afford to buy bitcoin in the beginning or to save in it... but the more and more that bitcoin might start to infiltrate all areas of life, then perhaps even really poor people in the $1 per day category might also be using bitcoin on second or third layers and maybe not even knowing it.

We do not necessarily need to take the most extreme examples  of people who might not be able to invest  because it might be more difficult to show ways that they might be advantaged from bitcoin, and I think we are deviating a bit too much from this thread to be fleshing out those kinds of speculations (even though I stand by my speculations, even if they might not be fleshed out very well).

Regarding savings and/or investing, of course, no one is in a position to save and/or invest unless his income is higher than his expenses, so he has to have a certain amount of discretionary/disposable income before he is even able to invest, and so there are poor people who never are able to own anything  but there are also poor people who might be able to scrounge together wealth or property, even if it might take 10s of years and even be spread over generations of wealth building, and maybe all that they have to their name is $10k or $100k, and in my earlier example, even if they are fleeing to another country they still could be advantaged by putting their value into bitcoin for the purpose of transfer that value to their destination country versus other ways that might not be as practical, such as my earlier gold example.

[franky1]

Everyone likely benefits from having a more fair monetary system, even if some people might not be able to afford to buy bitcoin in the beginning or to save in it... but the more and more that bitcoin might start to infiltrate all areas of life, then perhaps even really poor people in the $1 per day category might also be using bitcoin on second or third layers and maybe not even knowing it.

users cant buy small amounts of coin on an exchange and have it transfered TO A KEY the user owns with confirmed funds.. whether on bitcoin or on subnetwork

at best they will get balance in a CEX or where the CEX shifts CEX subnetwork balance to a partner where the partner then holds the balance as inbound balance to the user, but the user still does not have confirmed utxo control of the btc..

in short. you saying dont fix bitcoin exploits, dont make fee's reasonable just let people buy middlemen balance (IOU)

remember bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin network. so please stop wording things to suggest people are using bitcoin on other systems
remember 'not your key not your coin'

[JayJuanGee]

Everyone likely benefits from having a more fair monetary system, even if some people might not be able to afford to buy bitcoin in the beginning or to save in it... but the more and more that bitcoin might start to infiltrate all areas of life, then perhaps even really poor people in the $1 per day category might also be using bitcoin on second or third layers and maybe not even knowing it.

users cant buy small amounts of coin on an exchange and have it transfered TO A KEY the user owns.. whether on bitcoin or on subnetwork

at best they will get balance in a CEX or where the CEX shifts CEX subnetwork balance to a partner where the partner then holds the balance as inbound balance to the user, but the user still does not have confirmed utxo control of the btc..

I am not going to proclaim that I know all of the solutions for these matters or even if everyone will be able to hold their own UTXOs especially in the short term where someone might be buying bitcoin in very small quantities, such as less than $10 per month or something like that.  There may be solutions in the future where there might be more and more systems of shared UTXOs..

Right now, I personally am not suggesting anyone with small balances of less than $500 to be sending to private wallets, and so my current suggestion for poor people is to accumulate their BTC in some third party like an exchange, and then withdraw some time after reaching $500 to $1k, and yeah in the end, people have to figure out their own balancing of matters in this regard, and surely historically there have been a lot of people who had relatively small UTXOs who might be suffering during these kinds of higher fee times.

in short. you saying dont fix bitcoin exploits, dont make fee's reasonable just let people buy middlemen balance (IOU)

I don't claim to know all possible fixes, and yeah, IOUs might be temporary solutions for poor people, whether it is holding coins on CEXs or maybe having various kinds of custodial lightning wallets.. and so yeah, they do not own the UTXOs until maybe some later date that it might become feasible and economical for them to do so.. Do you have some kind of proposed solution that might reach consensus, because it likely does not do a whole hell of a lot of good to fantasize about various changes that might be made, if hardly anyone agrees to build some kind of a mechanism that might later build towards getting consensus... if you are suggesting some kind of hard fork.. .and yeah, softforks might be easier, but you still might need to convince the running of such software.

remember bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin network. so please stop wording things to suggest people are using bitcoin on other systems remember 'not your key not your coin'

There are second and third layers that sometimes are practical, and yeah some of those are less connected to bitcoin than others, and yeah on chain is real bitcoin, but still there are lighting channels that are pretty damned close to real bitcoin, and I am not really too excited to want to argue with you about these terminology matters and even your various disagreements with segwit and lightning network.. including I believe that they are waste of time discussion pursuits if you are trying to act as if they are failures or that they should not exist, when in fact they do exist and people use bitcoin in these various kinds of ways that are less assured that they are actually using actual bitcoin especially when it comes to third parties, but I am not going to agree to your nutjob theories in regards to lightning networks ability to create more bitcoin because I doubt that is very accurate, even though you are continuously making some variation of those kinds of arguments.

[franky1]

and of that bloated paragraph all i seen is you want people to avoid bitcoin and instead play on other systems.. doesnt sound like bitcoin adoption to me sounds like bitcoin off-boarding, bitcoin avoidance, bitcoin rejection

just remember to ask yourself if you are not owning funds on your key.. WHO IS? then realise those teaching you that pushing people into other systems sound good.. are the ones that want to own the coins whilst passing off other system balance to people.. knowing those people wont be able to claim bitcoin thus spend down the crap balance to zero and the centralised entity keeps the actual bitcoin

anyways
there are a multitude of ways to get bitcoin fee's down and tx counts up ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK. here ill mention a few

a. a fee formulae that only penalises spammers and bloaters where their formulae score for priority makes them pay more to be accepted into a block and where leaner users not spending hourly get to use cheap base rates that are not multiplied

b. leaner transactions to allow more transactions per block so individually each user pays less whilst more tx per block means pools get nice totals
    b1. close the exploits that allow 1tx to take up 4mb
    b2. new tx formats that are even shorter(leaner) than standard transactions (yep its possible)

c. uncludge the current 4mb format to not be a 1mb wall and 3mb witness wall. and instead a united 4mb space for better tx count utility
d. then scale blocks to allow even more transactions. so that more users can transact reasonably without being provoked to pay more due to stupid exploits, and bad economic policy made by dev politics that favour off  boarding bitcoiners off the network

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 24 sat/vB
• economyFee: 24 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 19 sat/vB

[Julien_Olynpic]

I think we've definitely made progress in lowering fees on Bitcoin. If you go to the bitcoininfocharts service, we will see that the average commission at the moment is ($6.59) 46.7 sats/vB. Most recently, in December 2023, the commission reached $40 per transaction. I think the success in lowering fees is due to some waning interest in Bitcoin following the approval of spot ETFs. In addition, the media constantly discusses the issue of the onset of the altseason. We know that Grayscale is draining its bitcoins. And the overall focus is shifting from Bitcoin to Ethereum and the expected approval of a spot Ethereum ETF in the first quarter of 2024. I believe this is where progress has been made in lowering fees.
***

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 27 sat/vB
• hourFee: 26 sat/vB
• economyFee: 26 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

[BlackHatCoiner]

Of course, we are getting into very large levels of speculation, but just on the economic level, you are really exaggerating and even seeming to lack imagination.

Eh, you can call me a bit of a pessimist. 

Let's just say hypothetically that on chain transaction fees were consistently $1k, so of course, it would not seem correct to suggest that you need $1 million to create a lightning channel.

That's not what I meant. My point was that if it takes $1k to make just one (~150 vb) transaction, then you wouldn't pay that fee, unless you owned 1000x that amount. We surely can't expect from the middle class to open lightning channels in that case.

maybe we are also a long way from getting to some kind of a status of persistent $1k onchain fees, too?

Well... If block size limit remains at 4 MW, then to retain at least half of the current reward, transactions should be paying about 100 sat/vb each on average. This would ensure roughly 4 BTC block reward. Both an opening and closing transaction weight about 330 vb in total. That comes at 33,000 sat per lightning channel on average. That amount might seem low in terms of the current exchange rate (~13$), but it can be pretty horrifying if we ever exceed 5 or even 6 digits.

Define micro-transaction!

Judging by the previous discussions of ours, you must have comprehended my spirit on that topic already. My opinion on what is a micro-transaction is irrelevant. But, if you really care about my opinion, here's how I see it: A micro-transaction is any transaction which can happen on a second layer and come less expensive than on-chain.

- A transaction that transfers 1000 sat is cheaper in the lightning network.
- A transaction that transfers 1 BTC is cheaper on-chain.

Lots of things can influence the final fee (many inputs on-chain, high charges off-chain etc), but I'd say that about $50 to $100 is what draws the line between off and on-chain currently.

meaning spammers are penalised for spending too often.. rather than the current model where everyone is penalised because spammers fill blocks

Whereas in your model everyone will be punished for spending too often! Great!

This changes the entire model, and as already said requires a softfork at least. Needless to say that we shouldn't punish people who spend money at times disapproved by franky1, the sole arbitrator of rightness.

[franky1]

meaning spammers are penalised for spending too often.. rather than the current model where everyone is penalised because spammers fill blocks

Whereas in your model everyone will be punished for spending too often! Great!

This changes the entire model, and as already said requires a softfork at least. Needless to say that we shouldn't punish people who spend money at times disapproved by franky1, the sole arbitrator of rightness.

everyone is already punished due to a few spammers/bloaters who claim cheap fee's where everyone else has to pay more.. my "model" as you call it punishes the few spammers/bloaters whilst everyone gets rewarded for not bloating/spamming

you quoting yourself saying you debunked me, which quotes yourself asking a question.. is not a debunk
its you not understanding anything

normal people do not spend every 10 minutes in their real life use of bitcoin
so not everyone will be punished for spending too often!!

its not my opinion.. its common sense
tell me how often you use your debit card. even you cant say you use your debit card every 10minutes of the day.. and thats with common real world currency. let alone a investment currency that doesnt operate with all retailers
normal people do not transact every 10 minutes..

you just dont want the junk to stop and you dont want spammers punished and you dont want everyone else getting cheaper fee's because it harms your desires that everyone should move over to your preferred subnetwork.
sorry but your preferred subnetwork is more buggy than a one-star hotel bed

i know you are upset that you can no longer stack sats sigspamming mixer adverts, but to now get upset that people are seeking ways to make bitcoin nice and easy to use again, which harm your subnetwork router commission fee income prospects, is more revealing about your intentions

its funny how you say you dont want spammers to be punished.. but then say you want everyone to continue to be punished due to few spammers

[stompix]

Therefore anyone who is suggesting that we need BIGGER blocks right now needs to provide such evidence and logic to such an extent that it is convincing others that such a change is justified.

Pretty simple, let's assume 10% of the world population wants to use Bitcoin (not just own IOU on an exchange) , each gets his coins and opens a LN.
How long will that take at current block size?  

I frequently question whenever anyone starts out a claim with "pretty simple."  hahahahaha

Yeah it's pretty simply
You have 10 percent of the worlds population a fixed number
You have one output to get them their coins to their wallet, let's batch those tx in 1 inputs 100 output for convenience, fixed numbers.
Then you have each of this guy from the 10% of the world population opening a channel.
You calculate the size of that you divide by 144 blocks a day and simple as this>  (p*u/s)s+y/f+r-(e^e) you have the answer! 

It's not complicated at all, a few years more or less years ! Now if you would want them in this decade to close and again open one channel and do like 2-3 not micro transactions things go blurry, as in we'll be all dead by then. 

Or, or....we could use doge which has no problem with this numbers:

Bitcoin Transactions last 24h         472,460  Avg. Transaction Fee   0.00015 BTC ($6.59)
Doge   Transactions last 24h   1,745,736  Avg. Transaction Fee   0.069 DOGE ($0.0055)

I really wonder what magic they use for this
But anyhow, I doubt it's something simple as having a larger capacity that could be achieved with 8Mb blocks or something!


Now to the good news:
We had 30 extra blocks in the last 24 hours.
The previous difficulty adjustment was 7.35%, again an insane increase in the number of transactions confirmed in 24 hours than normal.

[franky1]

Yeah it's pretty simply
You have 10 percent of the worlds population a fixed number
You have one output to get them their coins to their wallet, let's batch those tx in 1 inputs 100 output for convenience, fixed numbers.
Then you have each of this guy from the 10% of the world population opening a channel.
You calculate the size of that you divide by 144 blocks a day and simple as this>  (p*u/s)s+y/f+r-(e^e) you have the answer!  

It's not complicated at all, a few years more or less years ! Now if you would want them in this decade to close and again open one channel and do like 2-3 not micro transactions things go blurry, as in we'll be all dead by then.  

using a 1-in 256-out tx to withdraw from exchange to directly fund someones subnetwork channel linked address
in segwit its 8099bytes meaning 123tx a block for 31,365people (112x255 users+change return) a block
800m people = 25,506blocks... so 6 months for an exchange to fund 800m peoples offchain channel address

very simple math.. heck even easier then your (i+d)ⁱ-(o/t) math

also the business model of subnetworks is people lock-in for a year or (their prefered goal) user spend out their offchain balance until zero and their institutional channel partner closes out
which because not everyone needs to fund crap subnetworks all at the same time and not everyone buys exchange balance to request a withdrawal at same time.. it can be assumed half filled blocks of withdrawals to funding channels each year

my preference is that people just request exchanges to fund users own UTXO for onchain utility
and soon devs get their ass into gear to care about bitcoin scaling. where they implement leaner tx, decludge and de-exploit the current block model. and then increment the blocksize as THREE actions. to allow ALOT more transactions per block

[Wind_FURY]

     

• fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 27 sat/vB
• hourFee: 26 sat/vB
• economyFee: 26 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

That started from a mere 90 minutes ago. The suspected projects responsible are,

- Canchain, https://twitter.com/chainainexus/status/1753524081537036392

- MoBox, https://twitter.com/mobox_official/status/1753795795143565795

Those projects are just running on a Bitcoin narrative, and it will not be sustainable because it's expensive and inefficient to build and use them on top of Bitcoin. Any developer telling you otherwise, has something to sell you.

[BlackHatCoiner]

my "model" as you call it punishes the few spammers/bloaters whilst everyone gets rewarded for not bloating/spamming

Except of the merchants that want to convert their bitcoin to fiat immediately, or to the general populace that does Child-Pays-For-Parent. But who cares, franky1 policies FTW!

you just dont want the junk to stop and you dont want spammers punished and you dont want everyone else getting cheaper fee's because it harms your desires that everyone should move over to your preferred subnetwork.

Nope. I just want equal treatment across the userbase. BTW, this "1-conf penalty" is probably one of the worst solutions, because it can be easily bypassed. Spammers can create UTXOs in different blocks beforehand, so that they can avoid the penalty.

Example:
- Create UTXO A in block 800001
- Create UTXO B in block 800002
[...]
- Create UTXO Z in block 800026

The spammer now wants to create UTXO A', so they spend UTXO A without penalty. While they do their regular "spam", they create new UTXOs simultaneously that are planned for future use, while they can spend B, C, D etc. on their next transactions.

[Poker Player]

I think we've definitely made progress in lowering fees on Bitcoin.

Until some morons arrived when the fees were at 30 sats/vByte for confirmation in the next block and dumped about 8-10 transactions paying an average of 500 sats/vByte. How can someone be such a moron?

So I sent a transaction at about 30 sats which was what mempool.space gave for confirmation in the next block, and between that it has taken about 30 minutes to confirm and the next one has also taken a while, I look at mempool.space again and now if you want a quick confirmation you have to spend 553 sat/vB. That is if we don't have more morons overpaying fees. I bet miners are happy because 10k transactions at about 500 sats/vB is about $300K in fees.

That started from a mere 90 minutes ago. The suspected projects responsible are,

- Canchain, https://twitter.com/chainainexus/status/1753524081537036392

- MoBox, https://twitter.com/mobox_official/status/1753795795143565795

Even if they are those assholes you have to be a real asshole to overpay fees like that, although I guess they think they are going to become millionaires and they don't care, but even if they believe that, why such a hurry to have their transaction confirmed and pay so much?

[franky1]

my "model" as you call it punishes the few spammers/bloaters whilst everyone gets rewarded for not bloating/spamming

Except of the merchants that want to convert their bitcoin to fiat immediately, or to the general populace that does Child-Pays-For-Parent. But who cares, franky1 policies FTW!

so you want commercial services to pay less then users.. ok i get you(i understand your preference)
so you want users to now need to have a taint chain of multiple transactions just to push 1 transaction through

its very obvious who you care about more

but here is the thing..
when a user buys a product once a day the user pays into a merchants address once a day..
when the merchant wants to convert to fiat. he can use an exchange API to call incremental deposit addresses(one address per user) that deposits straight into merchants exchange without merchant needing to send funds again from his own wallet to the exchange.

also a merchant can choose to avoid paying more by batching his received payments
EG if a merchant receives 1000 payments from 1000 people an hour to one address. he does not need to send 1000 transactions from his address to an exchange the same hour
he can instead send 1tx an hour of 1000utxo inputs+1output(exchange) saving a 6x on a spam punishment and only pay for the bytes of utxo's of ONE tx, which is cheaper than sending 1000tx individually, instantly
...
it is funny how you care so much about commercial services not being penalised but think everyone else should pay more so that a merchant can spam by resending payments out as soon as received 1 for 1