Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 03:38:38 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: What's wrong with this picture?  (Read 3132 times)
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 02:58:05 AM
 #21

I don't think DeepBit or Eligius are the problem - the problem is people want to use the network for free.

If that attitude doesn't change at some point and if paid transactions aren't given highest priority, then when block rewards cease the network hashrate will probably fall significantly and network security will suffer.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
1481297918
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297918

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297918
Reply with quote  #2

1481297918
Report to moderator
1481297918
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297918

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297918
Reply with quote  #2

1481297918
Report to moderator
1481297918
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297918

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297918
Reply with quote  #2

1481297918
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 03:06:48 AM
 #22

I don't think DeepBit or Eligius are the problem - the problem is people want to use the network for free.

If that attitude doesn't change at some point and if paid transactions aren't given highest priority, then when block rewards cease the network hashrate will probably fall significantly and network security will suffer.

The problem is the re-definition of "Free".  My understanding is that Tycho is looking at changing his pool's settings to include transactions that were being ignored.  As of right now, Deepbit only allows a small number of "free" transactions, BUT Deepbit considers transactions using 0.0005 BTC/KB  to be "free" currently, thus limiting how many it will put into a block.  At this stage of the network, that seems like a problem since the DEFAULT value is 0.0005 BTC/KB.

There are other problems with redefining what a "free" transaction is at the current stage of Bitcoin development:
1) There is no easy way to add a fee to a transaction with bitcoind or bitcoin-qt.  Basically bitcoin does it in the background, using the fee per KB you specified in configuration.
2) There is no easy way to know what fee your transaction will include (if any) until you try to send it using bitcoin-qt.  Using bitcoind will send it and just tack on the fee without telling you in advance.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 03:16:32 AM
 #23

... and at this point right now when I post there are 4100 outstanding transactions in my memory pool ...

Edit: and after the last LP 20 minutes ago the count was 3426

Edit2: and after a '50BTC' block just now - still 3719

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
June 15, 2012, 03:19:05 AM
 #24

... and at this point right now when I post there are 4100 outstanding transactions in my memory pool ...

4400 Now.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 03:21:08 AM
 #25

I don't think DeepBit or Eligius are the problem - the problem is people want to use the network for free.

If that attitude doesn't change at some point and if paid transactions aren't given highest priority, then when block rewards cease the network hashrate will probably fall significantly and network security will suffer.

The problem is the re-definition of "Free".  My understanding is that Tycho is looking at changing his pool's settings to include transactions that were being ignored.  As of right now, Deepbit only allows a small number of "free" transactions, BUT Deepbit considers transactions using 0.0005 BTC/KB  to be "free" currently, thus limiting how many it will put into a block.  At this stage of the network, that seems like a problem since the DEFAULT value is 0.0005 BTC/KB.

There are other problems with redefining what a "free" transaction is at the current stage of Bitcoin development:
1) There is no easy way to add a fee to a transaction with bitcoind or bitcoin-qt.  Basically bitcoin does it in the background, using the fee per KB you specified in configuration.
2) There is no easy way to know what fee your transaction will include (if any) until you try to send it using bitcoin-qt.  Using bitcoind will send it and just tack on the fee without telling you in advance.

I follow that. Thanks for the explanation.

Going OT for a moment, I think transaction fee use might be easier if, as well as the current 'pick a fee' system, the client had an option that just listed "Priority 1", "Priority 2" .. etc which a user could select when sending a transaction and each "Priority" level corresponding to a particular fee/kb.

This would make it easier to judge how much of a fee should be considered for a given priority, and will make it easier for mainstream use.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 03:43:01 AM
 #26

I follow that. Thanks for the explanation.

Going OT for a moment, I think transaction fee use might be easier if, as well as the current 'pick a fee' system, the client had an option that just listed "Priority 1", "Priority 2" .. etc which a user could select when sending a transaction and each "Priority" level corresponding to a particular fee/kb.

This would make it easier to judge how much of a fee should be considered for a given priority, and will make it easier for mainstream use.

There definitely does need to be some work done on the current way fees are handled, and how they are shown to the user.  Ideally, the client would be able to show the following:

1) Currently known TX queue - How many transactions total, and how many have fees
2) Fee to send a transaction with low priority (current 0.0005/KB system)
3) A place to enter a higher transaction fee manually for the single transaction.  Ideally the client would give a suggestion of a fee to give the transaction a high chance of confirming.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
DeepBit
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 03:58:23 AM
 #27

Usually I'm including 50 Kb of free TXes in each block. That was more than enough until the recent flood.
Sometimes this free zone was enlarged to quickly clean the queue, but at this moment I don't think that current queue can or should be cleaned that way.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net ~ 3600 GH/s, Both payment schemes, instant payout, no invalid blocks !
Coming soon: ICBIT Trading platform
Gladamas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


Bitcoin today is what the internet was in 1998.


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 04:53:28 AM
 #28

Usually I'm including 50 Kb of free TXes in each block. That was more than enough until the recent flood.
Sometimes this free zone was enlarged to quickly clean the queue, but at this moment I don't think that current queue can or should be cleaned that way.

Why is 0.0005/KB not sufficient for a transaction to be included in your blocks? At a rate of 10 minutes/block, and 35 BTC transaction fees/day, that equates to ~0.243 BTC transaction fees per block in extra income for you.

1GLADMZ5tL4HkS6BAWPfJLeZJCDHAd9Fr3 - LQ6Zx8v7fHVBiDX5Lmhbp6oEDB7dUFjANu
GPG 0xF219D5BB3C467E12 - Litecoin Forum
DeepBit
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 05:04:23 AM
 #29

Why is 0.0005/KB not sufficient for a transaction to be included in your blocks? At a rate of 10 minutes/block, and 35 BTC transaction fees/day, that equates to ~0.243 BTC transaction fees per block in extra income for you.
Sadly I don't have enough hashrate to mine one block per each 10 minutes.
I think that including more free transactions is not worth the risk for me, especially for ~0.06 BTC per day (according to your numbers).

0.0005 BTC was set as default fee when USD/BTC was somewhere around $22, so it was at least one cent. Now it's not.
If people think that confirmation of their transaction worths less than one cent, then may be it's not that urgent and may wait a bit more ?

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net ~ 3600 GH/s, Both payment schemes, instant payout, no invalid blocks !
Coming soon: ICBIT Trading platform
Gladamas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


Bitcoin today is what the internet was in 1998.


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 05:07:28 AM
 #30

Why is 0.0005/KB not sufficient for a transaction to be included in your blocks? At a rate of 10 minutes/block, and 35 BTC transaction fees/day, that equates to ~0.243 BTC transaction fees per block in extra income for you.
Sadly I don't have enough hashrate to mine one block per each 10 minutes.

No, I was just saying that you would get 0.243 BTC extra per block you mine, you might not get every block, but for the ones you do mine you would get the extra money.

Just wondering, what is the disadvantage of including transactions in blocks? Internet transfer fees?

1GLADMZ5tL4HkS6BAWPfJLeZJCDHAd9Fr3 - LQ6Zx8v7fHVBiDX5Lmhbp6oEDB7dUFjANu
GPG 0xF219D5BB3C467E12 - Litecoin Forum
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
June 15, 2012, 07:32:22 AM
 #31

Why is 0.0005/KB not sufficient for a transaction to be included in your blocks? At a rate of 10 minutes/block, and 35 BTC transaction fees/day, that equates to ~0.243 BTC transaction fees per block in extra income for you.
I think that including more free transactions is not worth the risk for me, especially for ~0.06 BTC per day (according to your numbers).
No. 0.243 BTC extra per block. So if you Mine 40 blocks in a day your making a bonus of 9.72BTC approx.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 12:41:09 PM
 #32

0.0005 BTC was set as default fee when USD/BTC was somewhere around $22, so it was at least one cent. Now it's not.
If people think that confirmation of their transaction worths less than one cent, then may be it's not that urgent and may wait a bit more ?

This.

Bitcoin will need to move to a pay for performance model.  Paying a quarter penny (USD) for a tx should get you a quarter penny service level (which is we will do it when we get around to it).  While I am not as large as Deepbit I exclude all tx with fee less than 0.002 fee.  I also add 0.01 to all my outgoing txs.  Never had a problem with a slow or delayed tx for "some reason".
Gladamas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


Bitcoin today is what the internet was in 1998.


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 07:10:46 PM
 #33

So, what is the problem with including low-fee transactions in blocks? Just want people to pay more so you can get more coins? Or are >2 MB files (block downloads) a problem for you?

1GLADMZ5tL4HkS6BAWPfJLeZJCDHAd9Fr3 - LQ6Zx8v7fHVBiDX5Lmhbp6oEDB7dUFjANu
GPG 0xF219D5BB3C467E12 - Litecoin Forum
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 15, 2012, 07:13:52 PM
 #34

So, what is the problem with including low-fee transactions in blocks? Just want people to pay more so you can get more coins? Or are >2 MB files (block downloads) a problem for you?

So what is the problem with not including a fee to ensure your transaction is in the next block?  Just want people to do more work for less so you can keep more coins?  Or is a fraction of a penny a problem for you?

Smiley
DeepBit
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2012, 08:19:12 PM
 #35

So, what is the problem with including low-fee transactions in blocks? Just want people to pay more so you can get more coins? Or are >2 MB files (block downloads) a problem for you?
Actually yes, block size is important, otherwise I wouldn't care.
It's not like I want to get real profits from TX fees.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net ~ 3600 GH/s, Both payment schemes, instant payout, no invalid blocks !
Coming soon: ICBIT Trading platform
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2012, 03:27:52 AM
 #36

So, what is the problem with including low-fee transactions in blocks? Just want people to pay more so you can get more coins? Or are >2 MB files (block downloads) a problem for you?
Actually yes, block size is important, otherwise I wouldn't care.
It's not like I want to get real profits from TX fees.

... yet.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 16, 2012, 09:05:03 AM
 #37

They haven't needed to ... yet ... due to the fees they charge.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
 #38

They haven't needed to ... yet ... due to the fees they charge.

I actually meant that when Tx fees make up the lion's share of miner earnings, DeepBit will want to get real profits from Tx fees.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
June 16, 2012, 06:22:47 PM
 #39

They haven't needed to ... yet ... due to the fees they charge.

I actually meant that when Tx fees make up the lion's share of miner earnings, DeepBit will want to get real profits from Tx fees.
in addition to the fees they charge

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 10:08:00 AM
 #40

I started a thread regarding the pool orphan rate and high transaction volume issue here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88302.0

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!