Topic: [2017-05-12]While Bitcoin Price Hits Record Highs, Nearly 100,000 Transactions A (Read 18593 times)

Just WOW. Blocksize can be increased to 2MB or 4MB with a simple hardfork in 2 days, exactly as was done in 2014 due to a bug in leveldb. Unfortunately, Unlimited will eventually be adopted, if Core sits there with their thumbs up their butts for another year. Thin blocks is also a valid concept but doesn't enjoy much support yet.

UASF is an idiotic proposal that won't work, and could end horribly. If Segwit is forced on the network with UASF, miners could revolt and steal all of Segwit's "anyone can spend" coins by rolling back to the old block structure, that's why the Segwit design requires 95% adoption!

I don't think you want any of these scenarios. Stop with the Segwit-worship and look at one of several sane solutions to the capacity issue.

I agree that reaching 95% support is impossible. However, just as Jihan once threatened (empty threat obviously) to initiate a fork at 51%, the same can basically be done with Segwit. In this case, no miner will ever want to proceed with this as it's simply to dangerous, but it could be an option at 60-70% (which is still a distant target for Segwit).

I am a fan of pushing Bitcoin forwards. Currently the demand for block space greatly outweighs that what Bitcoin can offer. So yes, I want Segwit to activate as soon as possible. If it needs to be done through UASF, then I'll happily cooperate as I currently run 4 core nodes.

The price of bitcoin is very high and many do not like it. Especially for those who wanted to take a leadership position. Now many people are more interested in bitcoin and not in alternative currencies

lets wait a week and see if the meeting can produce anything resembling consensus
meanwhile,the spamming continues and I'm more inclined to believe that it is BU crew that are responsible
in any case,this only halts bitcoin development in general
there is no chance for Segwit to activate any time soon and a very low chance for BU

Agreed, a vote for BU is sometimes a protest vote against Core/Segwit/LN. But it still blocks adoption.




https://coin.dance/blocks

Looks like BU/Emergent Consensus has 43% mining support today. And Segwit has 30.1% support. I don't know what to tell you, other than Segwit requires 95% MINER support to trigger. Realistically, 95% miner support for Segwit simply won't happen, no matter what you believe.  If you're a UASF fan, I encourage you to read the proposal very carefully and decide if you think it's a prudent idea, or even sound technically...

BU isn't gaining anything - rebellious pools that signal BU do that for the fine reason of not letting Segwit activate, that's it. It has nothing to do with BU gaining support or whatever. If pools that signal support for BU really wanted, a hard fork would have been initiated already. Regardless of the risk, 51% is enough to do the job.

Segwit isn't dead. You desperately try to force through your opinion without any factual information. Segwit by no means is a solution, or something close to that, but it's the best possible option at this point to go for. Everything else available is pure rubbish, you must see that as well, right?

Nice job on that research. I hadn't seen "Unable to decode output address" errors before. It looks like the transactions use a custom script for the output. The outputs could be fake multi-sigs or just null data. I'm not clever enough to figure it out yet. It's definitely done by someone who understands how to build a bitcoin transaction from scratch.

IMHO the BU spamming logic you propose doesn't really add up - BU needs time to gain hash power dominance. If BU was spamming, they would wait until they have 65-70% of hashing, then the unconfirmed transactions might scare people onto BU.  If BU really wanted to spam Lightning to hell, they would wait until Lightning works.  It makes no sense that they would spam BTC now to prove that Lightning won't work - Lightning doesn't work now!

Core is losing hashpower and BU is gaining it. Segwit is simply and utterly DEAD - blocked on BTC, and useless/pumped/dumped LTC.  Core is against the wall, and those Blockstream investors must be screaming on those conference calls... Seems to be EXACTLY the time you might try to force people to adopt Segwit by spamming up the mempool.

Timmmmmm, sorry, I have to put you on ignore for awhile. You just seem to be nasty and uninformed - the worst type of greater fool IMHO. And you fail to see that there are more than 2 sides in this war, ie. I'm not even a BU supporter. Being a Segwit/Lightning fanboi puts you on the wrong side of history. Open protocols and development always win over corporations trying to control the playing field.  

I can see what side of the Jihan Wu fence you're on. While you're fluffing your master, maybe mention to him that pushing the network into a state where it may hard-fork him out of business may not be the best option.

"Just saying".

There's no real evidence that it's BU doing it, but there's definitely spam.

I would argue that BU has the most to gain from spamming the mempool as it could show how possible it is for blocks to be consistently full even with the Lightning Network (since SegWit's increase in capacity isn't "flexible").

Please provide evidence for your claim or GTFO.

If we ARE speculating, I'd say Core has the most to gain by spamming the mempool. Herd people into the Segwit veal fattening pen. And who knows better how to use up all of the transactions capacity? Just saying.

Ver's mempool spamming project is proceeding as usual.

He keeps it up for a while, spikes the transaction rates to get into the next block, then he pulls back again. This isn't because of "organic" growth and usage, its because a spoiled brat rich fuck can't wrap his around the fact that people didn't want his BU (Basically Unusable) proposal that he and chimp-boy Jihan Wu put together to scam everyone.

So, what will happen is the normal Bitcoin users will adjust their fees and use the network like they always have, and the newbies will freak out and complain until they learn the real root cause.

The best part is this only draws attention to Ver and his manipulating tactics, so it isn't the Bitcoin-smearing success that Ver hopes it will be.

What a 'effing tool.

News is nothing new. They will keep ballooning the slow confirmation issue. Yeah, it they will just know how to compute for the proper transaction fee to used, then there will be no problem at all. I used Electrum wallet so sending someone a bitcoin is not a problem to me since I can just adjust the fee and then boom, the receiver got the bitcoin in a matter of 30 minutes or less. No complaints.

It's obvious that there isn't anything to write about, and thus they will refert to the stacked mempools to write about. Another funny thing is that I get the impression that they want to make Bitcoin look bad by stating that this or that transaction hasn't been confirmed in 14 or so hours. SERIOUSLY, INCLUDE A PROPER FEE YOU PENNY PINCHERS!!! While people complain and complain, my transactions get confirmed directly by the next block. It's rare for me to wait till the second block. You know why? Because I add a network-situation-appropriate fee with all my transactions, that's why.

While Bitcoin Price Hits Record Highs, Nearly 100,000 Transactions Are Stuck in a Backlog
Bitcoin is currently operating at over capacity following a significant price increase by around $600 in just one week. 100,000 transactions are now stuck, unable to move, weighing around 68MB.

That means 68 blocks would be needed to clear the backlog, taking around 11 hours, but that’s only if there are no further transactions being made in the meantime. As new transactions do come in, older ones either drop off, or keep waiting in a now longer queue.
To jump the queue, you can pay a higher fee. Vinny Lingham, co-founder of Gyft which accepts bitcoin, stated average bitcoin fees are now more than $1 and rising.


// Get exclusive analysis of bitcoin and learn from our tutorials. Join Hacked.com for just $39 now. //

Bruce Fenton, host of the Satoshi Roundtable, publicly stated:

“I had two Bitcoin transactions today with fees over $9 ea. & another 2 which are still unconfirmed after 1 hr 50 min.”

Others, however, think this is fine. Tuur Demeester, who claims to be an economist publicly stated:

“So far I see very little complaints on darknet market forums. Suspect we can go up to $5 for that use case.”

It’s not quite the first target market for bitcoin that comes to mind, so it’s slightly difficult to quantify the levels of complaints in that corner since they’re usually of little interest, but a quick look brings up a frontpage thread:

“Someone sent me $400 of bitcoins and its been 14 hours still not in my bitcoin wallet. On blockchain.info it says unconfirmed transaction and on my wallet’s site it says 0 confirmations so far.. so does that mean tht bitcoin wont come to me now?… 13 hours and going on and 0 confirmations…”

That hardly sounds like a topic for darknetmarkets. The rest of the discussion is about arrests and trolling Law Enforcement. Presumably, therefore, if they are complaining most would do so in the bitcoin forums without, one would think, self-identifying as engaging in illegal activities.

Yet, still, even in that corner, some are complaining in their own forums. That’s hardly surprising. AlphaBay, one of the biggest such market which analysts who study it every day say it is “well run,” added ethereum just recently, a currency that is somewhat hostile to that space.

Logically, the taking of such drastic action suggests they think there is a serious problem which is affecting the quality of the customer service they provide. But, the vast majority knows very well there’s a problem, there’s no point denying it, the question is how to solve it. A question which, after two years of debate, has still not received an answer.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/almost-100000-bitcoin-transactions-stuck-in-a-backlog-waiting-to-move/