27
28

Are blocks full? (self.Bitcoin)

danster82 が 投稿

360196 2015-06-09 21:52:17 659 0.02363314 BTC 731.46 kB

360195 2015-06-09 21:53:19 1776 0.18508596 BTC 976.41 kB

360194 2015-06-09 21:45:45 875 0.15928106 BTC 731.68 kB

360193 2015-06-09 21:53:16 2123 0.33089012 BTC 731.60 kB

360192 2015-06-09 21:13:04 1379 0.18733037 BTC 731.62 kB

360191 2015-06-09 21:03:25 737 0.15838678 BTC 731.51 kB

360190 2015-06-09 20:58:59 1092 0.32729993 BTC 731.61 kB

360189 2015-06-09 20:46:42 1208 0.17815014 BTC 731.55 kB

360188 2015-06-09 20:38:43 2747 0.51236461 BTC 976.43 kB

360187 2015-06-09 20:01:53 853 0.24938838 BTC 731.64 kB

360186 2015-06-09 19:55:39 749 0.14674868 BTC 731.56 kB

360185 2015-06-09 19:53:45 1721 0.28684495 BTC 731.68 kB

360184 2015-06-09 19:40:04 2035 0.28641087 BTC 731.60 kB

360183 2015-06-09 19:06:36 2118 0.26776094 BTC 731.50 kB

360182 2015-06-09 18:44:16 1957 0.26420190 BTC 731.49 kB

360181 2015-06-09 18:22:35 1933 0.29158244 BTC 877.96 kB

全 53 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]93jsdksn30ala0 27ポイント28ポイント  (32子コメント)

Yes, however this sort of block fullness is very out of the ordinary.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I think someone is filling up the blocks (manipulating the market) to force the decision on the block size increase, and make it more likely/"necessary" right now.

[–]Defusion55 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are correct.

[–]MineForeman 2ポイント3ポイント  (29子コメント)

Kind of make me think we need higher fees.

It should be prohibitively expensive to dick around like this, when blocks get bigger it will only get worse.

[–]JacobBubble 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

We do that by increasing the amount of transactions then network can handle, not the transaction fees. Give us a tps of 4000, cut the fee by ten fold and you'll have a resilient network. Fill that up and the miners will be happy too.

[–]MineForeman 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, increasing the blocksize won't help stop/slow spam (it may make it worse by providing more space).

The fee mechanism is designed to catch spam transactions and it is tuned to let 'normal' transactions through while making spam prohibitively expensive. That is what I am saying might need tuning.

Repeat: This is not a blocksize issue, it is a spam one.

[–]xygo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly.

[–]MineForeman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks, everyone is so keen to argue about blocksize at the moment they think everything is about the blocksize.

(Apologies to the strawman).

[–]xygo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm lets see, a tps of 4000 would imply approximately 1.5GB block size. Which in turn would require 75 TB of data storage per year. At current prices you would need to pay something like $25,000 per year for the privilege of running a full node.
I think we need to find another solution.

[–]Defusion55 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

That is what a lot of people demanding 20MB blocks don't get. The miners get to choose which transactions are accepted on the block. I pay a VERY reasonable fee that is higher then all their stupid pointless transactions and I get accepted into the very next block! Imagine that? But wait...

They start to complain that there thousands of pointless near feeless transactions are on a back log and are unconfirmed for hours upon hours..

The real problem is when the fee becomes so high that its no longer reasonable to have to pay that high of a fee for a transaction that should be cheap. Which we are approaching, I am not denying that. But even with back logs we are still days faster than CC's. I don't think we should jump from 1MB to 20MB though I think gradually increasing is less risky.

[–]i_wolf 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

That is what a lot of people demanding 20MB blocks don't get.

That is why instead of hard limit miners should set their own fees and soft limits. Keeping a hard limit isn't a solution.

I don't think we should jump from 1MB to 20MB though I think gradually increasing is less risky.

This is absolutely irrelevant.

[–]capistor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was wondering why miners couldn't set their own limits and let that be the solution.

[–]kostialevin 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Higher fee? Should bitcoin be for rich only? What about the "poor world citizens" that want to start to save their little wealth in bitcoin? Higher fee could be too high for someone..

[–]MineForeman 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

Higher fee could be too high for someone..

Remember, you can avoid fees altogether by aging your coins 1 day and using an address only once. At the protocol level those kind of transactions are set to high priority.

Wallets should by default be doing this for you (but there are quite a few shitty wallets out there).

[–]cypherdoc2 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

you expect ordinary users to figure that out?

[–]MineForeman 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Na, I expect wallets to be doing it for them.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

hmm, you're asking alot. might as well increase the block size.

[–]MineForeman 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

hmm, you're asking alot.

Most wallets already do it.

might as well increase the block size.

Get off your horse! Increasing block size is another issue altogether.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Get off your horse! Increasing block size is another issue altogether.

how so? the OP is about filled blocks.

[–]waigl -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Remember, you can avoid fees altogether by aging your coins 1 day

Only if you have a whole Bitcoin. For smaller amounts, it's longer.

[–]MineForeman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Only if you have a whole Bitcoin. For smaller amounts, it's longer.

No, while smaller amounts are treated with lower priority they are still high priority, the actual equation is;-

priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

'Whole Bitcoin' don't come into the equation (at the protocol level there is no concept).

[–]HitMePat -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why does the unit of 1 whole coin effect it? If you hold 0.5 btc for a month can you expect a transaction to be high priority?

[–]Defusion55 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

This confuses me. Are you just assuming a higher fee means a fee that is unreasonable for a poor citizen? When you think of higher fee what do you think of? Like $5 or what? Cause I am paying "a higher fee" than the spammers are paying to fill the blocks and i am paying $.03 do you consider that too expensive for the poor?

[–]kostialevin 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just want to say that with the higher fees solution, there's the risk to leave someone out of bitcoin because too expensive.

[–]jmaller -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Until fees are $35 for a transaction and settle in 3-5 days (bank transfer) or 10-20% for large transactions (WU) I think the poor world citizens would still benefit from bitcoin. Not to mention that anyone who can do math and connect to the internet can use bitcoin as opposed to the required documentation needed to create a bank account. And banking infrastructure.

Edit: If you are referring to it for remittances, but I see you mention storing their wealth, not sure why they would care about the fee's if that was their intention.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

It should be prohibitively expensive to dick around like this

what's your evidence this is happening and not ordinary users getting hung up with normal tx's?

[–]MineForeman 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

what's your evidence this is happening and not ordinary users getting hung up with normal tx's?

I am not saying that, the evidence is that normal transactions are getting though.

What I am saying is 'spamming for the fun of it' should be prohibitively expensive.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

ideally yes the problem being able to identify it. furthermore, who is doing the defining? Lukejr thinks colored coins, factom, and CP is spam from what i understand. i'm sure those guys don't think so. who gets to decide?

bottom line is if blocks are getting filled we should be doing something about it otherwise we are going to lose users who are what drives the system.

[–]MineForeman 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

ideally yes the problem being able to identify it.

The default equation at the moment is;-

priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

bottom line is if blocks are getting filled we should be doing something about it otherwise we are going to lose users who are what drives the system.

Could not agree more, that is why I am saying we might need to look at making sure that spam is prohibitively expensive (as intended).

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i missed the part about how you were to distinguish btwn spam and cc, factom, and cp.

[–]xygo -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. And the worst possible solution is to remove the blocksize limit completely or to grow it aggressively as some have suggested.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

b/c the miners and users are incapable of establishing a fee mkt?

[–]jrmxrf 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/blocksize/2y?r=month&t=l

it's getting there slowly

[–]Defusion55 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Naturally full? nah. manipulative full? Yes. Is that a bad thing? not really.

[–]tophernator 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not a bad thing that someone is deliberately spamming the network and bloating the blockchain in an attempt to force their own agenda?

[–]Logical007 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not really. Free market at work.

[–]felipelalli 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Free money to the miners! :) More security to us.

[–]capistor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are those paid spam transactions or free spam transactions?

[–]rodfeher 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

check out this guy.

https://blockchain.info/address/1jFHVUDY1GT4YJtdLhPPWcrusrVTm4zeu

[–]SatoshisGhost 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

he must have forgot the stress test ended several days ago lol

[–]danster82[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

cant the pools at least adjust their blocksize to 1mb

[–]SatoshisGhost 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

apparently the default is autoset to 750, but yet they don't change it...

[–]rodfeher 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

fullish

[–]rabidus_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, blocks are full.

[–]rodfeher 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

thank you for paying miner's electricity bill.

[–]vbenes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://statoshi.info/#/dashboard/file/default.json?panelId=6&fullscreen

[–]brilliantey 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Poor guy, probably wakes up in the middle of the night with the subj words. Then in the middle of work he logs on to IRC channel to ping like "Are blocks full?".

Be honest to me "Are blocks full?".

Are blocks full?

Are blocks fucking full?!?!

[–]rydan -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is just a targeted attack on bitcoin trying to get us to increase the blocksize to 20MB. The 20MBers are getting really desperate to try to pull this. My advice is to just ignore it and it will go away.

[–]Phrenico 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fucking reddit activists.