Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 12. (Read 88281 times)

Allow me to inverse the question: How do you expect Bitcoin to survive if the average transaction fee is extremely expensive in the future?

I admit, it's a bit of a rhetorical question. I don't expect Bitcoin to disappear because of fees, but the average Bitcoin user won't be able to make a transaction. And can you really call someone "a user" if he can't actually use it?

What's the point of clogging up the network for a day? You'll be spending around a million dollars to force people rise their fee rates. So what? And how long can you retain this attack? If it's money waste, then it can't operate forever. There has to be profit for this to realistically occur.

Honest question. I know you're a miner. How do you expect for the network to survive if the average transaction fee is not extremely expensive in the future? Comparing Visa with Bitcoin is like comparing apples with spacecrafts.

Pools can easily choose what transactions they want to include based on their requirements if there is enough demand for those and they see they can have either a full block at 10sat/vb or 99% of it at 1sat/vb and one tx at 100sat/vb they can choose the largest one, plus with income this low no pool will refuse and extra 5k on the block with a behind the curtain deal, remember that these are extra money they will not pay the miners for it 


Oh, it might look for us as much, but when you take into consideration how many we are in this world and how some spend money it becomes peanuts. Ordinals have in the first wave managed to keep fees above 30sat/vb for 4 months, that's two years of tx at 5sat/vb and let's not forget that once the fees go down there are also genuine transactions and consolidations happening.

And even one block a day, that's close to 1% of the capacity, imagine the headlines and how much Bitcoiners would laugh if a kid were able to cut 5% of Visa capacity in day with $30k. 

I don't think that's how it works: the highest paying transactions in a block are much more expensive to replace than the average. To get the entire block, you must outbid the highest fee.

Yep. Create dust, move dust. Madness.

Got it. So trash.

Two things:

• If someone broadcasts 4 MB with the highest priority, it doesn't mean they are immediately mined. Such action would simply abruptly rise the high priority fee rate.
• $6k isn't nothing. It's $6k for just 10 minutes. That's $864k for one day with clogged up network, and that's without taking into consideration the fact that some people will simply choose to pay more than the spammer.

Somebody moving his inscriptions
It's those things:
https://www.ord.io/bc1qu2em6g2zaeqkluvxvjpa7zvesafu44u7ug2un0

I wonder how much better it can get, current block rewards are:
Total fees   ‎0.087 BTC $5,853
this means anyone willing to pay $6k to have his own block all by himself can do so, if we go even lower at 4 cents it's half of that, and we know there are guys willing to pay 2 million for a satoshi...

You can have high priority with just 8 sat/vb, so better consolidate or make important trades today.

I stumbled across this transaction: fed7f8dec7952a16c2130c882bd0b01678eef967d32542e6d551ea0af64410c4. Does anyone know what's that? I have never seen it before. Seems like a bad coinjoin with dust amounts and address reuse. It isn't Ordinals, as far as I can see. It's neither an experimental Tapscript, just an ordinary Segwit, which spends 451 inputs and creates 451 outputs with approximately the same values.

Bump: fees are a bit better again

it was intentional as it was the ½ ing block. So that will not be getting refunded.

That user has done that previously with 546 sats and 294 sats. They may be holding out hope that those numbers will become significant in the future or they like the symmetry that comes with it.

- Jay -

I've rephrased my statement. I think they're now consolidating the many small inputs they created in the past. I have no idea what's with the 4999 sat amounts.

I don't think miners will fall for that. It obviously wasn't a mistake, just a crazy weird idea

There is an interesting thing that happened 23 days ago. Guys, as you know, when someone pays enormously high fees, I mean some Bitcoins, they usually contact the miner who included this transaction in their block and ask them for refunds. The fee that many miners paid in this block are definitely out of this world, one miner paid up to 6.72 BTC, there are many others who paid up to a Bitcoin or more. As I understood, they wanted their transaction to be ranked top in halving block, so that's why paid such a high transaction fees but on another hand, I wonder, did they contact ViaBTC and asked for a refund? Did they claim that it was a mistake to pay such a high transaction fees? I ask this because in past people have made mistake, contacted miner and got refund. I really wonder if ordinals spammers did something like that.

What will be the purpose of spamming consolidations? All I can think of is they will want the fee to be cheaper when they make a transaction at a later time, does not sound much like spamming. If we have more of them conscious of how much are paid in fees, the feerate should not be all over the place as it has been since the halving and some months before that.

- Jay -

What do you know, 12 sat/vbyte is currently enough for a fast confirmation. That's the lowest I've seen in a month.
The data-spam still continues though. Without that, I'd expect lots of consolidations at 1 sat/vbyte.

Currently, there are many 11.0 sat/vbyte consolidations. But those all have 4999 sat inputs, and it looks like it's the Ordinal spammers that are now spamming consolidations consolidating the result of their previous spam. So one way or another, they occupy most block space.

IIRC it's limited to OP_RETURN. Meanwhile, address which mine genesis block receive many dust.


That's just wasting their time.

If your node excluded an UTXO, and a miner includes it anyway, your node will reject the valid block.

I was told that Bitcoin Core at least culls provably unspendable UTXOs from its UTXO set in order to save memory.

*Maybe* it might also be possible for a node operator to manually specify the kind of UTXOs that it wants excluded from the UTXO set. I'm not sure how that would be done if it is even possible. Compact block filters maybe?

Cats and dogs pee here and there to mark their territory. Runies and Ordies leave their shit marks, like dogs, it seems at such "famous" burn addresses or particularly with countless UTXOs on the Genesis block or those attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto.

I have a watch-only wallet with about 21954 combo-descriptors based on public keys of P2PK coinbases which are attributed to blocks supposedly mined by Satoshi Nakamoto (the "Patoshi" blocks that bitcoinexplorer.org shows and Block 0 and 9 which we definitely know belonging to Satoshi). Since the halving and "inception" of Runes, subsequent minting like crazy I observe a ton of dust (and maybe more) sent in majority to the Genesis block. It's like crazy.

Yes, dust and more has long been thrown at the Genesis block (not too long ago even 4BTC, iirc, but such big "donations" are very rare, especially at current five figures rates), but what is going on in past little more than two weeks is on another level of insanity.

And the shitheads don't care a f*** bloating the UTXO set. It's unlikely Satoshi will come to rescue and consolidate all the coins thrown at the Genesis block and others. Sadly, it's pure madness.

From start of April 2024 until block 839999 there were 585 confirmed transactions to my watch-only wallet (within 19 days); from block 840000 until 842493 there were 3312 confirmed transactions (within roughly 18 days).

How would you explain the fact that the transaction that already has high sat/vByte fee uses a RBF feature and significantly increases transaction fee during the short timeframe? There are many things that don't make sense in ordinals world.

By the way, can someone explain why runes and ordinals creators include 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 this address in their transaction outputs? This address is definitely a burn address but I don't understand why someone creates ordinals and one of their output (among others) is this address. For example, check this: https://ordiscan.com/tx/0810d5a3c334740ee211421ad00ac081815a5b64e17fa68c7891df20d174c305

Spambots don't take days off.