Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 28. (Read 88323 times)
September 30, 2023, 01:23:31 AM
Bump: Transactions with less than 4 sat/vbyte are now getting confirmed. The last time this happened was July 5.
September 28, 2023, 04:17:02 AM
Update: Mempool is down to less than 6 5 sat/vbyte 
It keeps dropping. Did the ordinal-scamspam finally fail?
It keeps dropping. Did the ordinal-scamspam finally fail? September 26, 2023, 04:19:31 AM
It's been weeks since I could bump this thread. Fees are the lowest they've been in weeks, and at the moment transactions with less than 8 sat/vbyte are getting confirmed.
July 19, 2023, 02:07:12 AM
Bump: 4.1 sat/vbyte should be enough for a fairly quick confirmation now. Just make sure to enable RBF, in case fees go up again and you can't wait.
July 15, 2023, 03:03:00 PM
The block times deem to go slower than the 6/h (well, last hour was unusually good, ignore that) and that will not do good for the tx fees.
While the difficulty is expected to drop at next adjustment, I would be rather careful with predicting/expecting low fees.
But maybe I'm just too pessimistic...
While the difficulty is expected to drop at next adjustment, I would be rather careful with predicting/expecting low fees.
But maybe I'm just too pessimistic...
July 15, 2023, 02:14:10 PM
Bump! Consolidate this weekend if you can
The perfect opportunity never presented itself today. I guess it depends on what you consider a low enough fee to consolidate multiple UTXOs. Looking at the data on Johoe's mempool, it doesn't look like we dropped below clearing some 5 sat/vMB transactions today. On top of that, the number of unconfirmed transactions is rising and is close to 300k now. Let's see what tomorrow brings. 
July 10, 2023, 10:02:49 AM
Back to the main topic: does anyone know why there are still a lot of unconfirmed transactions and yet fees have dropped considerably? Have those spaming images in the mempool decided to send their transactions with low fees?
Thousands of users with dust in their wallets that was not worth spending at 30-50sat/b, and not just users but exchanges also as it wasn't worth even collecting it, then tumblers, when you pay 10$ on a tx and have to do it 30-50 times you're going to end with clean zero funds so everyone that has put their activity on hold at that point is coming back and trying to clear the backlogs.
Oh, and it's not just normal tx, ordinal minting is coming back also.
July 10, 2023, 09:31:33 AM
I'm not clear to me if the discussion about block size is not a bit off topic here, but in any case I think it would not be convenient to lengthen it too much in this thread and maybe create one dedicated to it (although I'm sure it would not be the first by far in the forum, I imagine that in 2017 this was debated quite a lot).
Back to the main topic: does anyone know why there are still a lot of unconfirmed transactions and yet fees have dropped considerably? Have those spaming images in the mempool decided to send their transactions with low fees? Or is it that they have stopped spamming and we are slowly getting back to normal?
Back to the main topic: does anyone know why there are still a lot of unconfirmed transactions and yet fees have dropped considerably? Have those spaming images in the mempool decided to send their transactions with low fees? Or is it that they have stopped spamming and we are slowly getting back to normal?
July 10, 2023, 08:35:48 AM
If Bitcoin ever reaches mass adoption and has many users, we'll need several GB per block. At that size, you can't have decentralization anymore, so as much as I'd want to see larger blocks, that's not a long-term solution.
I think that there is too much confusion and some think that just because people like me or mikey argue about bigger blocks it means we want every single transaction on the chain. NO! I don't want that and I know it's going to be impossible, but at this current size and usage there is no way in hell we could ever migrate to a secondary layer, that's it!
Let's say that p2p tx will go each year from filling 100% to 75% to 50% and next year zero block space and let's see how many people can we get on board LN for example! Even better, how many we will get in 10 years?
It's somewhat peculiar because one would anticipate that the majority would appreciate the low fees associated with an 8 MB block size, or the 32 MB block size offered by the Bitcoin Cash fork (Bitcoin Cash ABC). However, evidently, they didn't. There seems to be a factor preventing people from transitioning to the fork, and that factor is the people themselves. Instead of assuming that everyone will eventually embrace the switch, I believe we should analyze why we are reluctant to switch.
You're using the price as the only indicator of adoption. People who USE BTC will switch!
Guess how the mempool looked in that timeframe!
Do this for 10 months and not just two weeks for ~$10/simple 1/1 tx and let's see what happens.
July 10, 2023, 05:18:26 AM
At one point in the future, I imagine that full blocks will be the norm, fees will be high and remain high, and people would want larger blocks
The problem with larger blocks is that it's not enough for scaling. It will work for a while again, until blocks are full again. Then rinse and repeat.If Bitcoin ever reaches mass adoption and has many users, we'll need several GB per block. At that size, you can't have decentralization anymore, so as much as I'd want to see larger blocks, that's not a long-term solution.
July 09, 2023, 04:04:41 PM
There is a majority that directs Bitcoin. We can debate on whether that majority is users, money, or certain groups, but there is a majority of "something" that makes it working. Just as there's a majority of big blockers who're responsible for the operation of the Bitcoin Cash network.
To me, that still does not sound like the correct way of framing the matter (or "what is consensus" in bitcoin in comparison/contrast to some shitcoin), yet I am not going to pursue the matter at this time. Perhaps if I sleep on it, or I think about the topic for a few days, then maybe I might be able to better pinpoint where lies my contention (if I might not end up conceding in some kind of a way?)...
Not trying to be too difficult.. even though maybe I am?
.. And, maybe my quibble was getting too far from this thread topic, and Loyce will extinguish further attempts to "contribute" in this direction?
July 09, 2023, 03:50:25 PM
There is a majority that directs Bitcoin. We can debate on whether that majority is users, money, or certain groups, but there is a majority of "something" that makes it working. Just as there's a majority of big blockers who're responsible for the operation of the Bitcoin Cash network.
July 09, 2023, 03:41:18 PM
we didn't switch to Bcash because the majority of people don't think it is/was necessary to raise blocksize
It's somewhat peculiar because one would anticipate that the majority would appreciate the low fees associated with an 8 MB block size, or the 32 MB block size offered by the Bitcoin Cash fork (Bitcoin Cash ABC). However, evidently, they didn't. There seems to be a factor preventing people from transitioning to the fork, and that factor is the people themselves. Instead of assuming that everyone will eventually embrace the switch, I believe we should analyze why we are reluctant to switch. At one point in the future, I imagine that full blocks will be the norm, fees will be high and remain high, and people would want larger blocks
Which, if implemented and consented by the network, we will inevitably find ourselves caught in a continuous cycle. The blocks will eventually become full once more; there's no reason to believe otherwise. It's illogical to assume that the blocks will remain full with the current limit, but there won't be enough users to fill new blocks. Then fees will rise again, and people would want larger blocks. If this cycle continues, we will find ourselves trapped in a loop. Eventually, Bitcoin would transform into a Visa data-center, with decentralization scarcely discernible.Probably why we are reluctant to switch.
I find it a bit strange that each of you mentioned (or maybe you just made a kind of mistake?) that bitcoin is directed by what the majority wants, which seems to me to be a strange way of being technically imprecise in your word choice.
July 09, 2023, 03:23:28 PM
we didn't switch to Bcash because the majority of people don't think it is/was necessary to raise blocksize
It's somewhat peculiar because one would anticipate that the majority would appreciate the low fees associated with an 8 MB block size, or the 32 MB block size offered by the Bitcoin Cash fork (Bitcoin Cash ABC). However, evidently, they didn't. There seems to be a factor preventing people from transitioning to the fork, and that factor is the people themselves. Instead of assuming that everyone will eventually embrace the switch, I believe we should analyze why we are reluctant to switch. At one point in the future, I imagine that full blocks will be the norm, fees will be high and remain high, and people would want larger blocks
Which, if implemented and consented by the network, we will inevitably find ourselves caught in a continuous cycle. The blocks will eventually become full once more; there's no reason to believe otherwise. It's illogical to assume that the blocks will remain full with the current limit, but there won't be enough users to fill new blocks. Then fees will rise again, and people would want larger blocks. If this cycle continues, we will find ourselves trapped in a loop. Eventually, Bitcoin would transform into a Visa data-center, with decentralization scarcely discernible.Probably why we are reluctant to switch.
July 09, 2023, 02:58:08 PM
There is denial about this, for if there wasn't, we'd have already switched to Bitcoin Cash. But I'm looking forward to see how the block size limit increase proposal will look like.
I am talking about the future, you are referring to the past and present, we didn't switch to Bcash because the majority of people don't think it is/was necessary to raise blocksize, and there is a great argument to support the lack of need for a larger blocksize, the majority of blocks are not close to being full, there was never a time in the past where fees skyrocketed and stayed there forever, it was always a matter of spam attacks, ordinals, some fud causing people to rush and send their coins to exchange to sell.
At one point in the future, I imagine that full blocks will be the norm, fees will be high and remain high, and people would want larger blocks, not too long ago we had those NFTs and ordinals bring fees to very high figures, lasted only a week or so and created a huge mess, I think if something comes along and afford to stay there for a few months without showing any signs of weakening, it would be near impossible not to ask for large blocks.
How soon would that happen? no clue, but sometime in the future.
July 08, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
blocks will have to increase in size at some point the future there is no denial about it
There is denial about this, for if there wasn't, we'd have already switched to Bitcoin Cash. But I'm looking forward to see how the block size limit increase proposal will look like. It's the same here, why everyone assumes there will be 7 times more people spamming the chain with brc-20 with the same fees?.
I have already pointed you out that the car analogy is flawed in the past. The median fee will surely go down, but the transactions will increase (or at least, the total size to be confirmed). Not because we will have 7 times more people doing transactions (as in cars), but more transactions made by a few people. Just take the BSV as an example, which is barely used as currency, and the blocks were filled with movies, because it's simply cheap and possible. Btw, sorry for bumping these. I just noticed they're posted in May. Scaling is always relevant anyway.
July 08, 2023, 09:38:28 AM
Use this if you can
Seems like at least someone has taken your advice:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/3JSdUu1ivm3rqMvuCTAdAj6Dc2hdVhHiEe
I've countered over 15k inputs being consolidated just here today, not spending time tracking if it's a tumbler or an exchange but this guy with his few addresses has used just today about 10 blocks today at least. While they will go down to 2-3 probably this weekend I doubt we will see too soon blocks with empty space, there are probably a ton of users waiting for this breather just to consolidate.
Also, a sudden increase in hash rate is also helping,
Current Pace: 106.2707% (1472 / 1385.14 expected, 86.86 ahead)
86 blocks more than normal, about 8 blocks a day extra.
in the last two days we are plus 60 blocks so a lot of gear went on line.
July 08, 2023, 08:39:06 AM
Use this if you can
Seems like at least someone has taken your advice:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/3JSdUu1ivm3rqMvuCTAdAj6Dc2hdVhHiEe
I've countered over 15k inputs being consolidated just here today, not spending time tracking if it's a tumbler or an exchange but this guy with his few addresses has used just today about 10 blocks today at least. While they will go down to 2-3 probably this weekend I doubt we will see too soon blocks with empty space, there are probably a ton of users waiting for this breather just to consolidate.
Also, a sudden increase in hash rate is also helping,
Current Pace: 106.2707% (1472 / 1385.14 expected, 86.86 ahead)
86 blocks more than normal, about 8 blocks a day extra.
July 08, 2023, 03:12:47 AM
Bump: you might even get away with 3.2 sat/vbyte this weekend
July 04, 2023, 02:49:39 PM
Fees are the lowest they've been in a while. 5 sat/vbyte seems to be enough for a quick confirmation. Use this if you can
Jump to: