Topic: about high priority transaction (Read 1355 times)

This is most often happen in the blockchain where the high fee of charges is priority of transaction in the blockchain. and because of this matter there are more unconfirmed transaction are getting stock while waiting in the confirmation. Isn't its getting unfair to anybody if there is a rules like this.

Which is why I said that the lottery ticket is cheaper.  Also, the lottery ticket is cheaper than the hardware you are using.


Which is why I said that the lottery ticket has a better chance of "winning"  Depending on the lottery near you, the odds of winning the jackpot are anywhere from 10X to 10,000X more likely than you solving a block solo mining.


If you get a block to yourself, the winnings are 12.5 bitcoins.  Here in the US that would be about $16,000
Most lottery jackpots are much higher than that.

So, like I said...
A lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

That's one way to manage it.  A better way might be to split the time you spend mining on each fork.  10 minutes on one fork, then 10 minutes on the other.


Yes.  Unless you have access to very cheap resources (electricity, hardware, cooling, space) mining is generally not profitable.


UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) is just concept for "activating" a soft fork.  After the fork hash power will still be needed on whichever fork survives.

If it works as intended, then everyone will switch to the new software to avoid being left behind on the "activation date".
Another possibility is that nobody switches to the new software because nobody actually believes that the majority of the hashpower will switch (in which case the new fork never happens).

The most entertaining possibility is that approximately half of the network (and approximately half the hash power) switches to the new software before the activation date. Then the blockchain forks and you get to hash on both sides.

Electricity is expensive here.
The chance of winning is low.
The potential winnings are high, if the block is not orphaned because I lose the SPV race.

I look forward to cutting my U2 in half. Should put buying asics in the bitcoin newbies mistake forum. Even at zero electricity rates, the difficulty rises faster than old recycled chips sold as new.

Does UASF need hash power? I thought it was just running a node, which may or may not have an informed individual that runs it.

Yes.  At 2GH/s a lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

If it results in a "contentious fork" and there are two bitcoin blockchains, then you can split your hash power and participate on both networks if you want.

I run a mining node. I've got a U2+ running 2 GH/s against the network. Might as well buy a lottery ticket. But if UASF is implemented, do I get two votes?

Blockchain transaction become rather expensive cost compare to bank service right now, don't know about MoneyGram.
My last transaction fee was $1.4 and after 10 hours it still not confirmed yet, wth. Higher fee but slow confirmation, I think it maybe related to my wallet as my friend transaction costs low fee than mine but confirmed in minutes. Higher fee doesn't mean become a priorities transaction, in my case.

No, but I've got a pretty good understanding of how the consensus rules and the incentive structure of bitcoin operate.

Lol, do you run a mining node?

That's ok.

The miner can just create 1500 transactions that pay from themselves to themselves.  That way they can meet the requirements of having enough transactions to be a "valid" block without needing to include any transactions that they don't want to include.  Sure, it will bloat the blockchain (and probably the UTXO as well), but at least the new rule won't keep them from building blocks.

 

it was an example of NODES setting the rules.. (thats how bitcoin works. its called consensus)
dont get picky about the exact number in a random example , just understand the concept and context of the methodology

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

But I do think miners should include transactions based on consensus, not how they can now pick and choose. No more damaging transaction accelerators please.

He's losing his shit

Just about every franky/jonald/jbreher post these days reads:

"No! You don't understand Bitcoin! It works like "



In your dreams, dickheads

I call bullshit on this. Good luck gaining majority of node consensus on such an useless suggestion like that. Oh right, you can't. The same way you can't force miners to do anything.

There you go again, with your false analogies and stupid conspiracy theories.

lol
NODE CONSENSUS
learn it..
its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

If a majority of bitcoin users agree on a hardfork, miners will be left mining useless coin or move to mining the fork.  ???javascript:void(0);

And this requires a fork, which needs support from miners, ergo you can't force them to do anything.

WRONG

i would do a lauda and not explain why..
but lets not be lauda.

miner CAN be forced.
add a new rule to node consensus of validating blocks..
EG
blocks need atleast 1500tx included or get rejected

Correct. Whoever assumes that all miners are genuine or working towards the common good is confusing Bitcoin with socialism.

They lose out additional money, i.e. fees per  block. There are heavy debates on how much extra propagation time and risk adding TXs to a block includes than just mining an empty one. With empty blocks it is less likely that you're going to lose the 'race' to someone else.

That is it: You can't. The miners can't be forced by others to do what they like.

There is a limit to all of this. They can only prioritize so much. I'm assuming that some miners already have *private* offerings for "premium seats" in their blocks.

This is a quote from bitcoin.org

Now please bare with me and educate me on this particular matter, if mining isn't just including transactions in blocks then what is mining and why can't miners always mine empty blocks as what is stopping them?

You say I'm wrong but can you share any secret where we can convince miners to include our low fees transactions over the already available offers of users with paying higher fees? I meant priority for sender and receiver since when not having a fast confirmation isn't a priority? I wasn't talking about the priority of oldest coins back in the blockchain(days past-burning concept-determining whether someone is moving their own coins back and forth or coins are actually circulating).

Interesting do you have know where to find the update log for that the last I recall it was coinage that determined the priority of lower fee transactions.
Simply put older it was the less the txt
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Historic_rules_for_free_transactions

(Edit in:) Looked at the 0.1.2 log see where this was introduced

Bitcoin Core has a heuristic 'priority' based on coin value and age. This calculation is used for relaying of transactions which do not pay the minimum relay fee, and can be used as an alternative way of sorting transactions for mined blocks. Bitcoin Core will relay transactions with insufficient fees depending on the setting of -limitfreerelay= (default: r=15 kB per minute) and -blockprioritysize=.

 In Bitcoin Core 0.12, when mempool limit has been reached a higher minimum relay fee takes effect to limit memory usage. Transactions which do not meet this higher effective minimum relay fee will not be relayed or mined even if they rank highly according to the priority heuristic.

Seems like a bad adjustment in my opinion as it favors miners and fee gathering but does not account for people who rarely use the network to send and are not a big part of the bloat issue.