Topic: Any idea when the Bitcoin Mempool will stop being so congested? - page 2. (Read 1103 times)

You're right that Bitcoin is not your ordinary payment processor like Paypal, but you're wrong in that we should compare it with stocks and mutual funds. Bitcoin is being developed as a protocol for sound money first, before anything else.

Well.. I agree with you on that part. Also, the problem is that we consider Bitcoin as a currency, when actually it is a speculative investment asset. So ideally, we should not compare it with PayPal or Moneygram. We should rather compare it with stocks or mutual funds. If I want to invest in stocks or mutual funds, then I have to pay around $10 per transaction to my bank. So the fees for Bitcoin is comparable.

BUT miners won't have a demand for the blocks they find if there wasn't nodes that wanted them. Plus nodes demand a specific type of blocks, that follow the consensus rules. Invalid blocks not allowed.

The UASF showed that the miners don't vote, it's the full nodes.

If those funny nodes never find a block, and miners stay on their path - byebye little nodes

nah


2x promise  only did the job

Now the mempool is behaving kind of ok, you can try sending your cheap segwit transactions now. I see less than 40000 txs in the mempool with the following average fees

• Low priority
  47 sat/vB ($0.94)
• Medium priority
  87 sat/vB ($1.74)
• High priority
  166 sat/vB ($3.32)

https://mempool.space/

Run, baby, run

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

Right - combine all of them, why dictating just one (not) from above? ( cough block size)

Free markets WILL find the right way

Nothing is certain about this mate because as far as i remember The congestion this year is far BS than what we have in the last halving effect of 2017.
back then it is only taking af least 2-3 days and the transaction is backing to normal but not this year.
we are just in November but we have already increasing the Fees over and over so what about when the Bullrun Comes when the withdrawals and investing continuously happening day and night?

Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners.

You want to say that full-nodes can put forward a condition that blocks will be correct if it is possible to move coin without private key. And it will force the miners to change protocol ( shoot yourself in the foot).  Fantastic scenario.

Things are decent right now. Many people have withdrawn their Bitcoin from BitMex which was one of the main exchanges responsible for mempool backlogs. The mempool usually clears over the weekend and I'm able to make transactions for between 1 and 5 sats per byte.

I am starting to ponder that this topic was created to spread disinformation, and gaslight everyone. OR, the big blockers have simply taken the opportunity from OP's complaint.

Plus did GGUL mean 1MB blocks will save users some money because of lower fees? The Core Developers are not stupid to say something like that.

Looks like not happening soon mate because i have experienced another High fee last night as i wanted to convert my Bitcoin to Fiat.

Maybe this will continue this whole year as we are entering the Bull market again.

Looks like history repeating itself from 2017 and now.

The overkill fees come from exchanges, marketplaces, platforms and from people who are using custodial wallets. They accept overkill fee and don't have any idea that they can get cheaper fee if they use non-custodial wallets and use fee they want to spend.

If you look mempool and fee of unconfirmed transactions you see the size of overkill fee is very little but there is people who are using it. Hence mempool takes time to clear all the stupid transactions from exchanges or bad fee estimators need time to provide better estimation for their customers.

This difficulty adjustment is already in the code right? It happens automatically every 2016 blocks and miners have nothing to do with it. The easing of the network depends on the users the same way we are responsible for clogging it. The fees can also remain cheap if nobody is going to pay above 10 sats/vbyte but that ain't happening since there's no cap and everyone is free to pay how much they want to.


That's a good point but the chances of users leaving the network permanently is small since no other blockchain can offer the security and decentralization Bitcoin has.These coins you mentioned have been there for years but only few are using them until now.

Now there are approximately 10 million users and 50 thousand full-nodes. Only 0.5% of the total number of users hold a node. Despite the fact that the cost of the node is minimal. And it's not going to improve.

Let's increase the block 10 times. Expenses will increase, but not by much. To keep a node with a 10MB block, it is enough to have a 2TB hdd for 5 years. You can take the price of such a hdd and divide it by 60 months. This will be at the level of how much users are currently paying per transaction, for each transaction. But in the end, we can get a 10-fold increase in the number of transactions and about the same increase in the number of users. Even if the percentage of users holding a node decreases, for example, to 0.1%, then in total we can get 100 thousand full- nodes. Even if the number doesn't increase, we don't lose anything. Even if it decreases slightly, which is extremely unlikely, the advantages that we will get far exceed this minus. The probability that the number of full nodes will decrease to a critical level is almost 0.

But this is moving forward, instead of the ass where Bitcoin is now.
So this is the main argument of developers against increasing the block.
1.Increasing the block -> increasing the cost of maintaining full nodes -> reducing the number of full-nodes- > reducing decentralization.

2. Don't increase the block - > Expenses do not increase ( saving users money ) -> the number of full-nodes does not decrease- > decentralization is not threatened.

Thanks to the Core developers, we are briskly walking along the 2nd path. Only now these same users pay from $ 2 - $ 10 fees for transactions. Excellent cost savings for users.

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.