95
96

Unconfirmed transactions > 60k. Total fees >14btc. Adoption is skyrocketing!! (not DDOS attacks) (imgur.com)

thebtcguy が 投稿

全 159 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

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (63子コメント)

Does that somehow have to do with the fact my latest transaction doesn't have a single confirmation even though I've sent it more than an hour ago and I'm paying 67 satoshi per byte?

[–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (60子コメント)

the new normal is 90 satoshi's / byte unfortunately https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (57子コメント)

Oopsie. What do you think I should do then?

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (47子コメント)

Stop relying on bitcoin for fast/instant transactions, unfortunately.

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Lol true. I know bitcoin isn't exactly instant and I'm used to waiting up to ~1 hour for the 6 confirmations to actually complete however this is a bit longer than what I'm used to waiting.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't like the way it has changed.

[–]firstfoundationredditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I do like your strategy of complaining about it on reddit.

[–]baltakatei [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

~1 hour for the 6 confirmations

6 blocks per hour is the designed average rate since bitcoin started.

[–]octavian8redditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

I'm waiting 4 hours for my .0001243 fee transaction now....still waiting.

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You know what I do? If I give a shit about quick confirmation, I take whatever the top fee level is currently, and double it. It never fails to get in the next block.

I'm a madman for "wasting" 10 cents and saving an hour of my time (checking for confirmation, bitching on reddit, etc)

[–]Lite_Coin_Guy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

just use mycelium and you dont have to double the fee to achieve that.

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, fees are low enough now that I will pay 10 extra cents to not have to worry about it at all. I just haven't bothered to investigate whether the wallets I use will pay enough, because again, the time it would take is worth more to me than years worth of extra fees.

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Jesus.

[–]bcpv [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

what is the relative transaction fee? absolute fee does not say much

[–]chinnybob [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I've been waiting 6 hours on a tx with 80 satoshi/byte.

[–]bcpv [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

considering, that last block had an average of 70.8 sat/byte, this is weird. who can explain?

[–]chinnybob [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It is probably because I am trying to double spend a stuck tx from yesterday. I let bitcoin core choose the fee automatically which is usually fine. Checked today and noticed that the tx was stuck because core chose a fee of 20 satoshi/byte. So today I am trying to double spend it at 80 satoshi/byte.

edit: also how are you calculating that average? It looks like the last block was 115 sat/byte if you just divide fees by size.

[–]bcpv [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I guess I looked at the block before the one you looked at. I am using tradeblock.com which gives you the average directly.

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Lesson learned, what is your time worth? Pay the extra dime.

[–]chinnybob [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Lesson learned: Bitcoin Core fee estimation is shit and I shouldn't rely on it doing anything even remotely sensible.

[–]octavian8redditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, regarding relative fee for my transaction linked above: I sent about 0.675btc with a fee of 0.0001243. So, roughly 0.018% of the total transaction.

[–]xeroc [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Bitcoin isnt fast anymore for years ... even ltc confirms faster and some chains confirm in a couple seconds .. some even checkpoint every 40sh seconds .. bitcoin is a old timer .. nice to use but without the modern features of blockchain tech

[–]sumBTC [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Bitcoin isnt fast anymore for years ...

That's complete nonsense. Bitcoin is as fast as it has always been, it's just more expensive than it used to be.

[–]xeroc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

.. and slower than many other blockchains .. but yhea, my statement was difficult to interpret that way

[–]wachtwoord33 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Exactly! The security is also higher than it has ever been and you're paying for that.

If you want lower security (and cheaper transactions) use another crypto. Bitcoin is for high value high security.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I wouldn't say for years. More like this year.

10 min confirmations are not an issue but extended periods of backlogs are a serious problem.

[–]xeroc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Agreed.

[–]dellintelbitcoin [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Its not a serious problem. Its superficial from bitcoins perspective. And an inconvenience at best for the end user. But all that has to happen is a change of habit. Bitcoin will still be as secure if not more as it always has been regardless of a high fees or not. Actually i would argue without relatively high fees it would be not be as secure. Thats just my 50 cents.

[–]smellyjellynellyredditor for 16 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Its not a serious problem. Its superficial from bitcoins perspective. And an inconvenience at best for the end user.

Not a serious problem for who? A few techies using Bitcoin for a transaction or 2 or for the big public who is supposed to use this in daily life? Because for one of those 2 it would simply make it unusable obviously.

[–]tech4marco [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So for you, modern blockchain tech is lower variance between block discovery? Wow you are a genious!

Satoshi probably did not think at all about lowering it. The 10 min avarage is because he was working on old blockchain tech /s

[–]xeroc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, the 10min on blockchain are a consequence of POW. Other chains use smarter consensus schemes that allow a faster while still secure block production. Some are even more decentralized than bitcoi.

[–]glibbertarian [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Or just, ya know, pay the right fee.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not easy to do

[–]tobixen [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Where "right fee" equals higher fee than what everyone else in the transaction queue has already paid

[–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So it's impossible for everybody to pay the "right fee". By definition.

[–]tobixen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Right now one can still be relatively sure to get into the first block by following the cointape advice, because there are still quite much software out there using static fees or trying to save on the transaction fees - so by following the cointape advice one is outbidding all those. In the quite-so-near-future I do believe we'll get situations every now and then where one pays an appropriate "priority fee", expects to get into the first block and still ends up with a 0-conf after 12 hours.

[–]one_line_commenter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's higher than most, not higher than all others. So you have to be in top 50% or better yet top 25%.

[–]tobixen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm quite sick and tired of this argument.

As a bitcoin trader I can easily use "priority" fees on my outbound transaction, but it's very hard to control the inbound transactions.

Just now I was poked by a customer wanting to sell me bitcoins. As I already have lots of stuck inbound transactions to my LBC-account, I gave him a good deal, on the condition that he'd send the transaction directly to my LBC-account ASAP with a "decent transaction fee". Well, just like most of my customers he didn't understand the problem at all, so now I have yet another inbound 0-conf to my LBC wallet.

[–]themattt [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

or just, ya know, add a higher blocksize cap

[–]smellyjellynellyredditor for 16 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Which is?

[–]one_line_commenter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Whoa whoa there. bitcoin was never fast & instant. And even right now you can get into the next block by paying higher fee. More correct to say stop relying on cheap or free transactions (as is still advertised in many many bitcoin related info websites and articles.)

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

For god's sake. If you care about confirmation time, just pay the fee. It's what, 10 or maybe 15 cents?

Instead a bunch of idiots would rather try to save 5 cents but spend many dollars worth of their time bitching on reddit.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

It isn't as simple as "just pay the fee." The fee is variable. No one knows what it needs to be to get into the next block.

If what you said was true then we could all simply pay $0.25, or even $1 and get included promptly, but that isn't the case. If we were all paying $1+ in fees per tx we would be in the exact same situation we are in now.

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yeah, except right now it is that simple because nobody actually checks.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It isn't simple though. You can not guess with certainty what the fee needs to be to get into the next block. You can be aware of what fee requirements have been in the past, but that doesn't help you predict the future. Check the fees then what?

[–]extratrading [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You're missing the point. Right now paying "extra" is a 10-15 cent fee. A year from now, it could be 50 cents. Five years from now, $5. Something has to change

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not for me. If fees are $5 then I would be absolutely thrilled to pay it, because I'd be sending my stash to an exchange and it would be worth many many times what it's worth now. Just think about how valuable bitcoin would have to be if 3 people per second were paying $5 to use it.

[–]AndreKoster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course. The idea is that the fees rise high enough to chase away enough users for Bitcoin to become reliable again.

[–]KingN56 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

just wait, this will passover eventually. has happened before.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The only way for it to pass is with reduced demand.

[–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

sure, people will just take their business elsewhere

[–]KingN56 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Indeed they might and in a free world that is up to them to decide and perfectly acceptable, but we must remember not everyone uses bitcoin as a payment method many view it as a commodity/speculative asset.

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hopefully hahaha.

[–]AnonymousRev [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I have my default set at 120sat/byte 24/7 now.

[–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I use Mycelium so I picked the "Normal" rate again and, this time, it was around 90~95 sat/byte. 3 confirmations in 10 minutes. Not bad.

[–]smellyjellynellyredditor for 16 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Use Paypal.

[–]n0mdep [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If only his fee guessing algo could have guessed that.

[–]atlantic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Should have upgraded the client! Told you so. Stupid user!

EDIT: User error/wontfix

[–]yogibreakdance [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They Have A Thing Called RBF. Electrum Has It. Give It A Try

[–]itsrainyrightnowredditor for 2 months [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

I wrote this because I was curious how expensive it would be to arbitrarily set the fee rate. We have to come to terms with the fact that one can always buy full blocks (and set the fee rate) for some price. (This isn't an attack, its fundamentally how Bitcoin works.)

  • 0.15 $/transaction = 80 sat/byte * 1e6 byte/block = .8 BTC/block
  • 0.50 $/transaction = 267 sat/byte * 1e6 byte/block = 2.6 BTC/block
  • 0.15$ = 80 sat/byte * 2e6 byte/block = 1.6 BTC/block

Notably for a miner with 30% of the hash rate, this is 30% cheaper. Also, the actual cost of inflating the fee rate depends on how elastic the demand is - buying 50% of the block space would still elevate fees.

What does this mean? The cost to transact is set by how valuable someone sees: 1. their transaction or 2. making the use of bitcoin expensive. Also notable, the price of bitcoin does not change the cost of setting the feerate.

There are ~144 blocks per day. Conservatively, to set a fee rate of 0.50 $/transaction (rather high) this costs 374 BTC/day or 280,000 $/day. The actual cost could be 10% of this due to inelastic demand and miner collusion.

My personal opinion is that we need an order of magnitude increase in capacity before we really start to make fee setting costly. And realistically, fee rate setting will be possible by rich actors for a long time into the future, regardless of the block size.

[–]chriswheeler [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Yes, the 1MB limit provides a very cheap attack vector - this has been said for a long time but some people have their head in the sand.

[–]manginahunter [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

And when we will got a 10 MB limit and the same thing happen you will blame that same limit again ?

[–]chriswheeler [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Well, by the time we're running blocks with 'legitimate' transactions at 10mb, second layer solutions should be ready for general use, which would hopefully ease the load, and in the mean time users will have a much more positive experience, and attackers won't be able to cripple the network for a few thousand dollars.

[–]manginahunter [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I hope you are right...

But if the node counts goes down to 500 meanwhile, better to switch to an alt who will be better decentralized !

[–]chriswheeler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wonder if anyone has done any research on the current 5000 nodes. I'd be incredibly surprised if much more than 500 were not hosted on connections more than capable of handling 10mb blocks.

There is a trade off here, which will naturally allow for growth as technology and software improves, but the benefits of these improvements are being restricted.

[–]escapevelo [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Exactly this, it's very easy for miners to collude to make tx's more profitable since block are already so full. It's easy to game the market. All you do is find the absolute lowest bound tx price on the bubble to make it into a block. The you keep spamming transactions on those lower bound transactions pushing the lower bound higher and higher, then profit. Bitcoin users have no alternative to send a tx and have to pay a higher fee.

Would the Chinese do this? Nah it's not like the Chinese ever have any shady business practices. It's not like tx prices have gone exponential in the past 8 months. /s

[–]ArmedMilitia [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That strategy would only work if a supermajority of miners collude, and it would make it very profitable to not collude.

I doubt China has enough hashrate to pull it off profitably, even if every miner there colluded.

[–]escapevelo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The problem is the more blocks become full the easier and less majority you need to pull off the gaming. The more transactions that never make it into blocks make it much easier as you can push the lower bound higher and higher. If I were trying to attack the network I would try to maximize my spam txs to be as high cost as possible and NOT make it into blocks ever. This would push the lower bound tx costs higher and cost me very little as hopefully most would never make it into any blocks.

[–]zongk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why does it require a supermajority? It only matters that the increased income from pushing up fees is greater then what you spend on fees yourself.

There is no room for the miner who is not colluding to make a huge block and grab all the fees.

[–]n0mdep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Interesting! Deserves a thread on its own.

[–]bitsteiner [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Where is the news? https://bitcointools.github.io/images/bitcoinfeedistr31d.png

[–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]yeh-nah-yeh [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    Could you explain that?

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]jan_kasimi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Or maybe it is because high fee tx get included into the blocks and only low fee tx are left over to build up in the mempool.

      [–]bitsteiner [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Not saying it is spam, I just implied that this happens quite often and market doesn't care about this at all.

      [–]shadymess [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

      Probably poor indians spamming with low transactions fees, don't they know that this is settlement system and not to be used as cash with low fees. This is no game for poor people.

      [–]xcsler [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      Poor people benefited from a monetary settlement system anchored to gold and they'll benefit from one anchored to Bitcoin as well. Bitcoin's positive effects can be felt indirectly (ie. even if one doesn't do any on-chain transactions) as it displaces fiat currencies and limits the size, power and waste of centralized governments.

      [–]wachtwoord33 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Indeed they'll indirectly benefit greatly.

      [–]toddgak [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Sounds like a good replacement for a p2p digital cash system.

      [–]xcsler [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      As technology improves hopefully this will be possible in the future but it seems like technological limitations realistically allow for only a settlement system at the current time. That should be good enough for now.

      [–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      STOP BUYING COFFEE!!

      [–]erbazzone [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      wat

      [–]yeh-nah-yeh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Isn't the average fee on those unconfirmed transactions about USD $0.15c?

      [–]JayPeee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      This is such a warped and sad view of Bitcoin's potential.

      [–]atlantic [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Agreed.. but remember we also need to keep this all as decentralized as possible. The future of Bitcoin growth will be driven by an expensive and decentralized network (run by volunteers who have only limited access to bandwidth). Transaction cost is a minor concern if we want to create Gold 2.0. Hodl!!

      [–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Transaction cost is a minor concern

      If the fees of all the transactions currently in the mempool would magically double, nothing would change.

      [–]2cool2fish [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      What would have changed is the cost people are willing to bear for an onchain transaction. Indicative of Bitcoin increasing in potency.q

      [–]shesek1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      It is not clear whether these are attacks or not, the OP shouldn't be so certain about this.

      See discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5edyc3/jameson_lopp_on_twitter_ive_yet_to_see_any/

      [–]pgrigor [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

      Here's how you determine how adoption is going: Bitcoin's price. Full stop.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

      Price correlates strongly to number of transactions per day squared. Chicken and the egg situation... nowhere to go until we have more transaction throughput from LN or larger blocks.

      [–]2cool2fish [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

      I think this is false.

      For some period of time, it was correct as the value was very much expressed by adoption and transacations. If transaction volume scaling was cheap and easy, it's likely that this correlation would continue as you are indicating. That of course is an argument to scale on chain.

      However, I don't think an onchain transaction limit fundamentally limits the price. As is demonstrated people are paying more for transactions. This indicates a higher economic potency for Bitcoin. More adoption, higher value use case. I think it is quite a way out before transaction fees limit this sort of growth in economic potency.

      In some fantasy world, zero fee transactions would be lovely. But this is a tertiary goal for Bitcoin at best.

      Bitcoin's primary raison d'être is to create an asset. An untouchable, ungovernable asset. For that purpose, if on chain fees go to $10, that will indicate huge success. We already know how to build spreadsheets of trust for volume and for instantaneous transaction. Lightning seems to give the possibility of low trust mechanism for such as well.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

      Actually there is evidence to suggest this is correct. As you can see the price COULD be limited by the block size limit @ 1mb. Bitcoin's primary raison d'être is a peer to peer cash system as it is written in the first line of the whitepaper by Satoshi. I am not sure who you represent when you say it is meant for something else. Meaning if on-chain transaction fees reach $10 US on a consistent basis, bitcoin is not what is described in the whitepaper as a peer to peer cash system.

      [–]waxwing [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Meaning if on-chain transaction fees reach $10 US on a consistent basis, bitcoin is not what is described in the whitepaper as a peer to peer cash system.

      I realize this seems obviously correct, but it isn't, not quite. Cash means full and final settlement; in that sense, physical gold is cash, and a SWIFT wire transfer internationally is very cash-like. Those kinds of cash are expensive (gold in transport and verification, SWIFT in literal transaction cost), but to the extent people use them, it's precisely for their finality. So Bitcoin can be cash in that sense, although I fully agree that Satoshi's original perspective was much more focused on the retail small-scale concept of cash. That latter perspective cannot scale to the whole world, but with Lightning you can get something pretty close to that vision, because Lightning transactions are bitcoin transactions, they still have the "no counterparty risk" critical element of cash-ness, or at least they come very close.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      I see where you are coming from. But I would also argue cash doesn't require a hefty transaction fee easily costing more than the value of the transaction. I don't think there will be a ton of zero fee confirmations in the future but getting as close to that as possible is important to be cash-like. Bitcoin is not physical either and I think there is way more room for fee optimization when compared to traditional assets which you described.

      [–]Guy_Tell [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      What would you say if the US or China govs managed to make miners comply and process only registered addresses (xpubs) ? You would show China or Trump the whitepaper right ? I think you don't care much about P2P cash, you only care about low fees to buy your chocolate bars.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Is this an analogy to compare the present state of Bitcoin with Blockstreams control over the protocol design? I care plenty about P2P cash. It could mean friction-less transfer of money and token based security for a multitude of purposes world wide without discriminating against any person or group for any reason. There are billions of unbanked individuals who cannot afford a traditional bank account or do not physically have access to a bank. $10 tx fees means Bitcoin is no better than the current system to them so why would they use it? Honestly, in your proposed scenario I would say the Gov, in its actions, would attract a lot of attention and further increasing the influx of new users. The community would be faced with a decision and may fork, encrypt wallet addresses and transaction data, etc. If those features are not already present of course, which would prevent the scenario you described in the first place.

      [–]NotASithLord7 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Bitcoin on its own simply doesn't scale. Conceptually, requiring every node to store every single standalone transaction is just crazy. Segwit is required to make powerful enhancements to on chain transactions possible, like the massive aggregation that LN makes possible.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      To be fair I feel there are degrees of scaling and multiple approaches should and will be made, including on chain scaling. So I would think Bitcoin CAN scale on chain to a degree which should be responsibly tested before declaring its impossible with no concrete evidence. This would further increase LN scaling effectiveness by orders of magnitude. This is in line with the creators design and intention. To clarify, LN does not require SegWit to be implemented, but to get all of the features it will need it.

      [–]Guy_Tell [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      What's Bitcoin's secondary goal ?

      [–]2cool2fish [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      I can't think of one that comes close to digitally transfersble bearer instrument.

      [–]xcsler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Price is also my favorite indicator of Bitcoin's health followed by total network hash rate.

      [–]anti09 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Surely the market couldn't just be manipulated no sir

      [–]manginahunter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      How you know it's DDoS ?

      May I remind you that someone have to prove a point and its not the first time that some spike of transactions in mempool occur time to time and after everything goes business as usual ?

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

      the mempool size varies from 1-5MB. in the past two days it has sky rocketed to 40+ MB. as others have mentioned this is likely an attack on the network, and/or someone trying to make a point

      [–]viners [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      ...or more people using bitcoin.

      [–]killerstorm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Yeah, Bitcoin suddenly becomes more popular, than few hours or days later it goes back to normal. Such is life.

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      i have a bridge to sell you

      [–]n0mdep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      If it's a bridge that brings more people to Bitcoin, not interested.

      [–]toddgak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Someone should tell these new bitcoin users that they are DOSing the network with their transactions, what a bunch of jackasses.

      [–]jan_kasimi [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

      Transactions per second hasn't changed. So how is this an attack?

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      users have to pay much more to have transactions clear within X number of blocks see: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ two days ago the recommended fee for immediate inclusion was 80 sat/byte. today its 100.

      [–]jan_kasimi [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      I am aware of the problem. But on which basis do you claim this to be an attack rather than just legitimate tx building up in the mempool?

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      transactions per second has a upper limit that has been hit almost every block in recent history.

      [–]jan_kasimi [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      The graph is tx/s added to mempool not in blocks.

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      my mistake, it is transactions added to mempool. take a look at the same graph but add a 7 day average to smooth it: https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7

      [–]jan_kasimi [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Compare those graphs (both have the same timescale):

      https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second?daysAverageString=7&timespan=30days
      https://blockchain.info/de/charts/mempool-count?timespan=30days

      tx/s increases slowly over several days, but the blockchain can keep up with it until nov 21. It is just that there are generally more tx than what can be included in blocks, and this excess just builds up to create this massive load in mempool. There is nothing special with the number of transactions in the last days, it's just that the normal growth exceeded the capacity at some point.

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      yup, i see your point. this could easily be traffic on the freeway vs an attack on the network.

      [–]jtimon [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      The mempool size varies depending on what you select. To maintain your mempol below 5 MB use -maxmempool=5 when running Bitcoin Core.

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      we're talking about miners pulling transactions from the mempool, not node configs here

      [–]jtimon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Miners can do the same if they have memory contraints. They may forget about some low fee txs, but maybe they were never going to include them anyway.

      [–]soupcancooloff [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      the mempool is a bucket of transactions not yet included in blocks. usually it has 1-5MB of transactions in it, and assuming each transaction has an appropriate fee, each block is found every ~10 minutes and maxed out at 1MB, at any given point the mempool will clear out within 10-50 minutes (depending on size of mempool).

      now that the mempool is abnormally large (not the first time either) it's taking much longer to process all of the queued transactions.

      given the three input variables (time between blocks, block size and fee), holding time and size constant -> avg fees go up.

      this could be due to increased demand by folks trying to move bitcoin, a denial of service attack on the network, and/or miners holding block size at 1mb to push up their average fee per block to make more revenue.

      another possibility is that someone is trying to measure the elasticity of demand on bitcoin. in other words, at what point do people stop using bitcoin due to high fees?

      [–]BitderbergGroup [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Oh! a popcorn thread, is it that time already? HODL on, whilst I pull up a chair, let the tussle begin.

      [–]mmeijeri [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

      I think it's astroturfing / a spam attack that's been deliberately timed to coincide with the Black Friday rush to make people believe there is a sudden growth in adoption that necessitates an early block size increase through a hard fork.

      [–]StoryBit [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      Considering the expense and the prior futility of such attacks to influence the blocksize debate, it would be interesting to know if it is an attack.

      [–]mmeijeri [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      It could also be intended as a measurement, to see what kind of reaction it will trigger on social media and in the mainstream (Bitcoin) media.

      EDIT: or to gauge the elasticity of the demand for txs by measuring the effect on fees.

      [–]Taenk [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      or to gauge the elasticity of the demand for txs by measuring the effect on fees.

      Interesting. Who would need to know that information?

      [–]mmeijeri [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Maybe someone who really wants to know how urgent/valuable bigger blocks are. Or someone who wants to estimate what the revenue maximising block size would be.

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Under that assumption, we are in for trouble then Bitcoin it becomes adopted AND a spam attack happens.

      [–]joele_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      My last sent 4 hours ago still unconfirmed, with 0.0002 fee using Kryptokit. Fyi

      [–]Victor_sueca [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

      I've seen a lot of transactions with an exact fee of 0.00012430 BTC and more recently 0.00014690, so unless some popular wallet is using those fees by default it's pretty much a DoS attempt.

      [–]octavian8redditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      blockchain.info wallet default fee is .0001243 for my last send transaction...which is still unconfirmed.

      [–]Victor_sueca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Ahh, that would explain why that fee is so popular. Still wondering about the 0.00014690 BTC fee...

      [–]alcio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      0.00012430 BTC is exactly 55 satoshis per byte for a 226B transaction (most common size)

      0.00014690 BTC is also exactly 65 satoshis per byte for 226B transactions.

      Now look at http://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimation?panelId=16&fullscreen

      [–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

      Sorry for hijacking your comment but are you trying to say someone is probably trying to slow down the bitcoin network on purpose? My transaction has been stuck (0 confirmations) for over an hour even though I've selected a 67 spb fee. What should I do?

      [–]Victor_sueca [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      Just wait, is the best i can think of, 1 hour isn't that much compared to others, 67sat/B is a good fee so it shouldn't take that much to go through. If it's someone trying to slow the bitcoin network on purpose he will most probably run out of money to keep paying the fees soon.

      [–]antoniocesarm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Ok, I'll do that then :) thanks!

      [–]sreaka [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Just wait

      That should be our new slogan.

      [–]Victor_sueca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Heh, not for long, SegWit will soon solve this for all the foreseeable future.

      [–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      "The future of finance!!! Loading............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

      [–]cdn_int_citizen [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      What percentage of transactions is that with a fee of 0.00012430 BTC? Also, in all fairness, this is still just a guess.

      [–]Victor_sueca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      None lately, they seem to have switched, now the fee I see most is 0.00014690. I don't know the exact percentage tho but there are lots of them.

      [–]efesak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      https://satoshibox.com/mempool

      [–]efesak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Blockchain.info fee calculation is not changing even if network is congested...see https://satoshibox.com/mempool there are huge spikes around 55s/b and 65s/b(priority)

      [–]matt4054 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      As a complement to bitcoinfees.21.co there are also live charts with fee breakdown on https://bitcoinqueue.com/details/

      [–]yeh-nah-yeh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Back of the envelope calculation is an average fee of ~ $0.15c per transaction right?

      [–]MorgUK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Paid 0.00023 fee and was done in 26 minutes. We always exaggerate the situation. If you want it quickish - pay the fee! If you can't afford it then wait! Can you really not afford $0.18 to not worry about a transaction?