Topic: Any idea when the Bitcoin Mempool will stop being so congested? - page 3. (Read 1081 times)

ViaBTC has free accelerator service for everyone too  along with their paid service, you dont pay anything extra mate but you got to be reacting quick on time and have a fast internet connection because they accept only 100 transactions on 1hr interval, and it gets filled pretty quickly.
Also I too dont believe in paying extra just for boosting the transaction unless it is too important.
Meanwhile I hope the miners or the devs come with a permanent solution to this asap! In upcoming bull rallies, the fees gonna sky rocket like anything and things might get even worse if they dont find any solution

LOL.. the last time I used transaction accelerator, they charged me $30 (when the median fee was going at $5). Their fee will always be much higher than the median transaction fee. If you don't want to pay this higher fees, then wait until it gets lower. There is no immediate solution for this. The number of users increase with every passing year and therefore the number of transactions are also rising. And the block size remains the same. SegWit and Lightning acted like patchwork, and they have failed in bringing down the size of mempool by a large amount.

You are lucky to be paying 4$, imagine being on bitmex, they are charging 50$ for one withdrawal in fee,
Most easy solution for now would be to pay atleast a fee above 10sat/byte and use tx accelerators like viabtc and try your luck every hour to get your transaction in the block. Nothing else much we can do!

Then if at current specs we're not able to keep up 100k nodes, why do you think it would be possible with an x100 chain?


"Look at the fees on the first light of this day, at dawn look to the mempool" Gandalf Nakamoto.

The problem with these fees right now is mainly caused by slower blocks, hash rate is dropping, there will be a retarget, the capacity will go up by 20%, everything will be fine, this would have happened with smaller blocks or bigger blocks. And let's take a look at the bigger blocks brother:

As you can see nobody is rushing over to BCH, quite the opposite. In 48 hours everything will be fine and you can go back to the drawing board and build that 5000$ nodes you're talking about.

You decided to find fault with 100 thousand.

"the number of full-nodes should be at least 100 thousand" - this means that we must reach 100 thousand and then, in the future, this number does not fall below this mark. This is a permanent goal.

Yes, once we had 100 thousand. This is what I meant when I wrote that users were able to run 100 thousand full-nodes. I don't know what time it is now. These statements are not related to each other.

You know the name of the topic? If you think that bitcoin works normal, that 100 MB of mempul is normal, that a fee of $10 is normal, then what do you do in this topic?

If someone claims that the system doesn't work because users are damn lazy and don't want to learn, then 100%  the system is bad. 

Call me after you've read what you've just written and realized you're not making sense at all.


Again you're making zero sense and I have a vague feeling you're not here to debate but to impose a point of view, that starting with the stupidity of at first setting a goal which in the second part you claim it has been already achieved. So which one is it?

Besides you're not realizing one thing, hundred and thousands if not millions of those that currently use Bitcoin haven't installed a full client in their life, if the wave of people that started adopting bitcoin would have not used even a single time blockchain's web wallet their service would be here waiting for a decade anniversary. We're not even for a moment talking of the people who have used bitcoin till now, if we would talk only about them then what's the point of increasing the capacity as the bitcoin works pretty normal right now, we're talking about the future and in the future as it happens with everything the waves of people using something became less and less knowledgable as that things go mainstream. It happened with the first computers, it happened with the first smartphones, it happened with the first banks, it happened with the first book.

Next time either use logic when conversing or don't bother to do it at all.

The answer is very simple. They don't like LN.

The solution is to move on Lighting Network. I have no idea why but it's not really used and not implemented by bitcoin-related service providers. When I want to move my bitcoins, it takes very huge fees, it's a loss for me, current fees are really insane, don't want to imagine what will happen when price hits 20K and even more. A lot of people here hate bitcoin cash but what do you think guys, with current block size and no culture of using LH (I am amazed why people don't use it), won't they just move on Bitcoin Cash? Especially when Roger will use such an amazing chance for him?

Yeah this had been the flaw and we cant really deny it but further developments and solutions is trying to be made up. In times where fees are skyrocketing then i do tend to avoid such transactions
yet it isnt really worth for you to pay tens of bucks for such minimal transfer.

Whats the best thing to be done? Neither you do pay up for more fees for fast confirmation, switch to alts or just simply sit back and relax before making any transaction which you do
let the network clogged situation to normalize.

This had been always the problem when theres sudden price increase in the market where people are rushing up on selling out or transferring out their stashes.

This high fees of a thing is one thing I don’t like about Bitcoin, although it’s something that happens once in a while, but it can be annoying whenever it starts. I wanted to do a transaction of $50 on Saturday and the fees was more than $4.

I don’t know if the devs are really seeing this, because people have been complaining about it for a very long time now and they seem not to be looking into this which is like the main issue for BTC. Lightening network is not yet a thing, there isn’t much wallets that are making use of it, and it seems like they are no longer interested in it or something.

In other words, you set a goal so that every home user can keep a full-node. But this goal leads to a impasse  in the development of Bitcoin. This means that there will be ~10 million users on blockchain and this growth will end. We are already at this impasse for the last 5 years.

Maybe we should set a real goal? For example, the number of full-nodes should be at least 100 thousand. After all, at 100 thousand full-nodes Bitcoin will remain decentralized? And then your terrible "every week a new hard drive" transforms into ~$5000 a year. If we have a billion users, how many of them can afford to maintain a full node for $10000 a year?

These "most people are damn lazy and don't want to learn" calmly figured out Bitcoin, use a Bitcoin wallet, make transactions, and launched 100 thousand full nodes.
And when it came to LN, they immediately became stupid. Maybe they don't want to use LN because it's just a shitty system.

Yup, LN. There is simply no other solution!
The blockchain has right now 580 million transactions witht a size of 300GB, not that much, doesn't sound impressive except that if we look at the top 3 card processing networks (visa/mc/upay) they are handling 1.2 of that every day! Moore's Law is dead and buried you can't force a home user to keep a record the size of a multinational trillion worth company in his room and add a new hdd every week.

But, again but!, I'm almost sure that nothing even close to migration to LN will happen.
More likely, and unfortunately, as most people are lazy as fuck and don't want to learn and feel more comfortable having someone else figure stuff for them they will switch to web wallets and use those to pay for things or transfer money since those wallets can offer close to zero fees when it comes to transfers between users as they don't have to settle balances on-chain. And ...we're back to square one.

oh..LE:
And Paypal knows this  

... used by grey / dark big players

Right, and PayPal, Revolut, ... are the better, compliant side chains now - LN is non-compliant joke here.  As is also Segwit (RBF, P2SH, taproot..., ) that forked good original transparent ( and such compliant & legal) Bitcoin into sth different , darker thingy - now try to compete with Zcash, monero, DASH ...all the illegal crypto stuff.  
'Nice' attack vector for reguators to tear down crypto - btc with them.  Read US / UK FCA stuff here - EU / China all in the same boat imo.

There is only one clean scaling option left - ready & cheap for all to use - but dark / ponzi loving trolling want to keep you out here

Oh, and it can do smart contracts and tokens on top as well, so we could get rid of eth or any other shitcoin here, just with clean Bitcoin.

Why is that bad?

1. You did not provide proof about a million dollars on the node. So, it looks like FUD.
2. Now no one is demanding to increase the block to 10-100GB.
3. It will be cheaper for me to keep a node with a 10MB block than to pay$ 10 per transaction.
Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE from the Core developer.
4.The fact that the node will be held by someone else, there is nothing wrong. 99% of users work this way now. Because a non-mining node can't harm the user in any way. After all, the user has the private keys. This is in any case better than working through Coinbase.


Do you forget side-chain, off-chain and tokenization?