Is it just me, or does this chart look too uniform?

[Gleb Gamow]

<link> A chart showing the the average number of bitcoin transactions per block on a daily basis.

[_Dave]

I think it looks pretty normal. Look at the charts for a 6 month period in 2013, same up-and-down spikiness.

[Gleb Gamow]

I think it looks pretty normal. Look at the charts for a 6 month period in 2013, same up-and-down spikiness.

Hence the question: Why?

[Letune]

It does look a little uniform but honestly it may just be what the system is running at.   Cause we all know some blocks take longer than others to finish.   and it does seem like it goes in a pattern.

[franky1]

not really.... but at the same time, i agree.. and here is why i say yes and no

the problem is that a block can store 4200 transactions no problsms. but if you knew why the max only seems to be 400, the answer is that mining pools block transactions.

some pools, due to the lying and stupid excuse of saying its to reduce orphaned blocks. only accepts 200 transactions.. some only accepts 400 transactions.. some only accepts 600 transactions..

so lets say the average transactions was 300..
you will see that the many blocks showing 200 tx's are these greedy mining pools. this causes the 100 over the top tx's to be thrown into the next block, which along with 300 tx's of the following interval would bring it to 400.. so the 200-400 makes sense to me.

this is why some transactions take upto an hour. as some pools have a 200 limit and some have a 400 limit. off chance that in a 10minute interval there was 1800 tx's not all tx's would fit into the block with a 200 limit, wont fit into the next pool that had a 400 limit, wouldnt fit into the next pool, and this could go on for many blocks.

[SomethingElse]

not really.... but at the same time, i agree.. and here is why i say yes and no

the problem is that a block can store 4200 transactions no problsms. but if you knew why the max only seems to be 400, the answer is that mining pools block transactions.

some pools, due to the lying and stupid excuse of saying its to reduce orphaned blocks. only accepts 200 transactions.. some only accepts 400 transactions.. some only accepts 600 transactions..

so lets say the average transactions was 300..
you will see that the many blocks showing 200 tx's are these greedy mining pools. this causes the 100 over the top tx's to be thrown into the next block, which along with 300 tx's of the following interval would bring it to 400.. so the 200-400 makes sense to me.

this is why some transactions take upto an hour. as some pools have a 200 limit and some have a 400 limit. off chance that in a 10minute interval there was 1800 tx's not all tx's would fit into the block with a 200 limit, wont fit into the next pool that had a 400 limit, wouldnt fit into the next pool, and this could go on for many blocks.

Very good post and explanation.

Also sadly, this is a huge design flaw in bitcoin that won't easily be fixed. Basically the miners who are suppose to be "supporting the network" are actually holding it back because of greed. Miners are basically wasting electricity, computer power, and holding back transactions.

[franky1]

Very good post and explanation.

Also sadly, this is a huge design flaw in bitcoin that won't easily be fixed. Basically the miners who are suppose to be "supporting the network" are actually holding it back because of greed. Miners are basically wasting electricity, computer power, and holding back transactions.

too right. if they were not so fast in selling off their coins to pay electricity bills.. (meaning they are not true bitcoiners, but electricity company investors and FIAT spenders).. but instead hoard the coin(smart bitcoin investors and the whole point of mining coin) to help the bitcoin price rise by causing a price resistance.. then they can later sell at a profit, thus not needing to sell their wage(the reward) at a loss, to then demand a 'bonus/subsidy' to compensate them.

pure greed by forcing people to pay a fee to be in the top 200 tx's per block

[Buziss]

On the other hand, I can see a clear pattern in figure of "daily number of transactions" that there are less bitcoin transactions in weekends.

http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/

[franky1]

On the other hand, I can see a clear pattern in figure of "daily number of transactions" that there are less bitcoin transactions in weekends.

http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/

more to do with bitcoin merchants. they cant cash out on weekends so leave it for weekdays to move funds to exchanges to get fiat. then add on the day traders working 9-5 monday to friday..

again predictable patterns once you put them into context

[arythmic]

I believe that at some unknown point in the future, largely (if not entirely) due to reward halving, mining will cease to be a profit-based bitcoin-generating activity, and will become a cost-based transaction-processing activity. I fully expect motivations to change drastically when that time comes. By then, I won't be surprised to see a different pattern.

[Gleb Gamow]

On the other hand, I can see a clear pattern in figure of "daily number of transactions" that there are less bitcoin transactions in weekends.

http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/

Fair enough. But, the valleys correspond to what part of the world? In five more hours it'll be Saturday in Sydney, Australia.

[franky1]

Fair enough. But, the valleys correspond to what part of the world? In five more hours it'll be Saturday in Sydney, Australia.

the chart you are looking at does not have data points for every single minute. but for once a day. so its an average of the day, not the minute.

if you looked at a chart by the minute you would see will the slope starts to drop to see when the majority of people think its approaching the weekend and time to stop playing with moving funds between addresses, and to enjoy the weekend

[DeathAndTaxes]

the problem is that a block can store 4200 transactions no problsm

Not likely. The average txn is around 503 bytes*.  So 1MB block would be ~2,000 average txns.  Also the graph isn't showing the number of txns PER BLOCK it is showing the AVERAGE number of txn per block that day.


* In the last twelve month there have been 22,211,988 txn and the size of the raw blockchain has increased by 11.16 GB.

[franky1]

the problem is that a block can store 4200 transactions no problsm

Not likely. The average txn is around 503 bytes*.  So 1MB block would be ~2,000 average txns.  Also the graph isn't showing the number of txns PER BLOCK it is showing the AVERAGE number of txn per block that day.


* In the last twelve month there have been 22,211,988 txn and the size of the raw blockchain has increased by 11.16 GB.

7 tx per second they say on many posts.. i think i remember even you saying it before too.

7x60=420 (1 minute)
420x10=4200(10 minutes)

and a tx is a quarter of a kb.. but when you have people demanding that people use multiple receive addresses so that when you make a transaction you have to list more addresses where funds come from. to then send,... your basically adding bloat. which is more about again forcing people to pay a fee due to bloat, and due to pools limiting transactions to only a few hundred per block.

but either way with the bloat as you show (average half a kb) thats still 2000 tx potential, yet we still have the issue with greedy miners setting lower limits purely to force greedy fee's.

its like the banking system employees should be paid only a salary for doing their job, but no they want to screw the system and demand a bonus for doing so..

the mindset of the greedy is astonishing

[DeathAndTaxes]

7tps is just an estimate and probably an overly optimistic one*.   The only limit is 1MB per block.   Some transactions are >20KB some are less than 150 bytes.   So far in the last year the average txn has been ~500 bytes.

but when you have people demanding that people use multiple receive addresses so thatwhen you makea transaction you have to list more addresses where funds come from. to then send

That is also incorrect.   2 inputs from the same address are exactly the same size as 2 inputs from 2 addresses.  Bitcoin doesn't work on addresses and balances it works on inputs and outputs. Using new addresses for each transaction doesn't make transactions even a single byte larger.


* To hit 7 tps with 1MB blocks would require the average txn to be 238 bytes.  A P2PkH txn with compressed keys (and sadly more than 30% of txn today still use uncompressed keys making them much larger) is going to be 10 bytes + 147 bytes per input + 35 bytes per output.  So even a 2 in, 2 out txn with all compressed keys is 374 bytes.  To hit 7 tps (238 bytes per txn) would require 100% of txns to consist of nothing but 1 in, 2 out txns with compressed keys (227 bytes ea).  So realistically even not considering people who use uncompressed keys, OP_RETURN, using multisig, P2SH, etc the realistic limit is closer to 4 tps.  2015 will probably be the year of multisig and complex txns so I think planning for larger txn sizes makes sense.  The network is unlikely to reach 3 tps without a larger block limit.

[hua_hui]

The pools set the transactions limits one block 200,  300 or 400! As the bitcoin is accepted by more people, more transactions per minutes will be made. Due to the limitation of transactions that can be fit to block, the confirmation will take longer. I think it will hinder the mass adoption.

[franky1]

death and taxes i truly do love the way you always chime in to attempt to defend mining pool owners greed. and someday's i do laugh at the rebuttals you reply with(somedays i just have to facepalm you).

the most laughable one was when you said that making blocks had nothing to do with accepting transactions and that miners have no incentive to accept transactions. that the point of making blocks was purely about network security.

what a warped mind you have

thats like saying a manager is not employed to manage his staff and keep the business running efficiently, but to purely sit in an office to secure the building against loss due to health and safety requirements needing a manager to be present.

thats what i call greedy and narrow minded

Mining isn't just about adding tx to the block chain.  The hashing power still adds to the network security.  The economic value from that hashing power provides the incentive to not be disruptive.  There is no economic incentive to including txs.  People being cheap isn't a flaw.

(this is not the only time you said it)

if your not accepting TX's then there is nothing worth stealing!!!!!, thus network security is a moot point. dont you get it!!

.. silly little greedy people defending other greedy people, ruining people due to greed, should be ashamed of yourselves.
the 25btc is the salary to do the proper job of making blocks.. and we all know the purpose of blocks is confirming transactions. saying that making blocks is not about transactions is like saying bitcoin is not about value or sending funds to people, its just about securing a network with zero tx communication that does nothing but secure empty worthless blocks of zero data.

you astound me with your mindset sometimes..

you really sound like the person that if a manager you would not talk to any staff, answer any phonecalls, do any inventory/stock control. you would sit there and demand a salary purely because the fire department needs some person of authority to be in the building for health and safety. and then you would demand a bonus for every staff interaction, customer complaint, stock issue you had to deal with.

truely greedy mindset you have

[franky1]

death and taxes you would not last long in retail. so lets translate other of your brain farts into retail analogies

1. orphaned block risk
shop:
ok staff there is a risk that for every 500 customers 1 customer may try to chargeback ruining our days profits. so we are only going to allow 200 customers through the door. and tell the rest to come back tomorrow, or hope another shop will let them in

2. no tx's
shop:
ok staff i know we are suppose to serve customers and thats what we are paid for and thats what retail is about, but lock the door and lets demand an entrance fee just to let customers in, after all the customers can go elsewhere if they dont like it, or wait in line for the 10 customers a day we do let in for free

[jabo38]

I've always appreciated DaT and Frankly. Both of you are more or less spot on with the facts.

To me the problem lies in the fact that for bitcoin to be good, it needs transactions to be processed. Miners are the ones doing that, but they don't want to as their real incentive lies elsewhere.

For bitcoin to be successful it needs a large amount of payment processors willing to process as many transactions as they can for about as little a transaction fee as possible. That creates a healthy system of competition amongst miners ever trying to make the network stronger with the ultimate end of making bitcoin awesome.

I really think Satoshi new this all along but had a boot strapping problem and new a blockchain wouldn't exist without miners so he skewed the parameters in favor of miners being rewarded for the wrong things just to make sure the network would always be there 24/7 whether there were transactions or not.

The problem is now there are 10,000 merchants needing payments processed and preferably with as low as fees possible, yet miners just keep on looking for blocks to get the block reward and ignore transactions.

As mentioned above by Arythmic, for the long term stability of the whole system, it will need a pretty dramatic update. Miners will need to mine for fees and not blocks.

[franky1]

As mentioned above by Arythmic, for the long term stability of the whole system, it will need a pretty dramatic update. Miners will need to mine for fees and not blocks.

when it comes to technical stuff i do apreciate death and taxes info too (well sometimes), and in the past i have apologized for certain errors i made to him. but most miners are using all these excuses to enforce fee's NOW, when they are not actually needed now.

they're not actually needed next year, or the year after that, they will be needed in OVER a decade. its like telling a 15yo kid wanting to shop for a pair of jeans that he needs to pay an entrance fee to the shop now, because when the kid is 45, entrance fee's will be mandatory by law
(bitcoin only 5 years so 10 years is another age double ONTOP... =15yr old kid now age double ontop is 45)

right now all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot. by demanding fee's as a bonus/subsidy ontop of their salary(block reward) they are simply de-valuing the block reward.

put simply as well as telling customers to pay up for F*£k off, they are also selling 'product' at a loss as fast as they can, because they feel the fee's should compensate them for their actions. which, by keeping prices of bitcoin low with the sell-offs, means that as miners costs increase every 2weeks the price is NOT rising with it. so they sell more of their bitcoin.(the other foot being shot)

if they instead hoarded coins and created some price rises through resistance by limiting supply, they would get nice profits. meaning they would not need to demand fee's, and in 10+years time the bitcoin price would be at a higher rate that a massive fee per transaction wont be needed.. (thats where i see later they will be shooting their left hand off).

again ill explain in better detail. right now miners share $15k per block (25btc x $600). now imagine one bitcoin was $10k in 10 years. and miners doing pfft. 20000 tx per 10mb block limit. if they asked for 0.0001 fee it would equal 2btc block fee total ($20k). but this 0.0001 fee would cost customers $1 per tx.

now if they shot their left hand by selling at losses imagine bitcoin was just $1k. then miners would want to ask for 0.01 ($10 a tx) just to stay around the $15k-$20k income share.

the only solution miners of the future, which will have a fair 'per tx' fee for customers and have nice fee $ total to share out is if they allow more transactions through. by allowing transactions with least delay will get more people to use the blockchain, instead of attempting offchain transactions (third party services).