Pages:
Author

Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 28. (Read 82151 times)

legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6205
Farewell LEO, you *will* be missed.
If 2 things happen we won't see any big fee spikes any time soon even with price surges or even if we see another small hashrate drop.
1. (smaller effect) If multi-sig users start using Schnorr instead after activation of it.
2. (biggest effect) If we move the traffic from big bitcoin exchanges to lightning network. If you look at each big fee spike in history they are almost always happening because bitcoin price either goes up A LOT or drops A LOT. That means the extra on-chain transactions are from traders. If that is moved to LN the on-chain capacity is left for other transactions. Not to mention the ability to deposit/withdraw bitcoins in an instant with virtually no fee while being in full control of the keys instead of having to leave them on the exchanges.

I hope that at least the withdrawals from exchanges will become smaller. That would be your [1] I guess.

I know that big variations in price make tx fees go crazy. I've suspected the arbitrage traders/bots, but it's more than that. However, as long as LN is "advertised" as beta, unfortunately the exchanges can easily make a point of not adding the LN support. And even afterwards it could be difficult to get all of them use LN (I'm sure you remember the we had the same with the adoption of SegWit).
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424
However, it's a bummer, since it would have been of great help for common people, especially as after the next difficulty adjustment (i.e. in less than 3 days) the fees will probably rise again.
If 2 things happen we won't see any big fee spikes any time soon even with price surges or even if we see another small hashrate drop.
1. (smaller effect) If multi-sig users start using Schnorr instead after activation of it.
2. (biggest effect) If we move the traffic from big bitcoin exchanges to lightning network. If you look at each big fee spike in history they are almost always happening because bitcoin price either goes up A LOT or drops A LOT. That means the extra on-chain transactions are from traders. If that is moved to LN the on-chain capacity is left for other transactions. Not to mention the ability to deposit/withdraw bitcoins in an instant with virtually no fee while being in full control of the keys instead of having to leave them on the exchanges.

If you have 10 inputs in a transaction, all 10 inputs will need to be in the transaction, even if they are all from the same key. If each address had a balance instead of unspent outputs, a transaction with 10 inputs could be potentially reduced to a single input with a nonce and an amount (and a signature).
Bitcoin design is based on outputs not addresses and balances so it is not possible to do this without significant changes to the protocol.
However it could be implemented as a softfork with a new witness version for example. Something like this:
Assume an address has 5 UTXOs and you want to spend 2 of it (input 1 and 3) in a transaction while aggregating their signatures: (P2W3 is pay to witness version 3 as an example)
Code:
[
 [input0_addrA_P2PKH][sig0]
 [input1_addrB_P2W3][empty_sig]
 [input2_addrC_P2WPKH][empty_sig]
 [input3_addrB_P2W3][empty_sig]
 
 [witness0_empty]
 [witness1_witnessB]
 [witness2_witnessC]
 [witness3_empty]
]
Code:
[witness1_witnessA] = [1][3][signature][pubkey]
[1][3] are integers saying the follow up signature is for inputs at index 1 and 3 then signature and public key is used in OP_CHECKSIG and witness3 is empty because we have already added the signature for both inputs in witnessB
copper member
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1898
Amazon Prime Member #7

That's something a lot of people miss. Even if they are from the same address each UTxO has to be signed individually which takes up a lot of space.
There is an argument to change from signing individual UTXOs, someone spending coin would need to sign an address plus a nonce. This would encourage address reuse, which reduces privacy, and would make CPFP more complex, but would increase transaction throughput. It would also eliminate change addresses, which would also reduce privacy. It would be required that nonces are confirmed in order, but two nonces could be confirmed in the same block.

I am not sure, but won't Schnorr/Taproot fix this too? Or is it only wishful thinking from my side?
Technically ECSDSA (Schnorr digital signature algorithm) has the defined method to aggregate signatures which could be used to produce a single signature for multiple public [different] keys. Also technically we can add an option where a single signature (regardless of Schnorr) is produced for the same output scripts.
But neither one (as far as I know but definitely not the second one) are going to be added in the upcoming softfork.

What Taproot does is that you can have a more complex spending script that is bigger but you only reveal a portion of it that has to execute, that way you reduce the transaction size. There are also other benefits using Schnorr which include smaller fixed signature size and signature aggregation for multi-sigs.
If you have 10 inputs in a transaction, all 10 inputs will need to be in the transaction, even if they are all from the same key. If each address had a balance instead of unspent outputs, a transaction with 10 inputs could be potentially reduced to a single input with a nonce and an amount (and a signature).
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6205
Farewell LEO, you *will* be missed.
Technically ECSDSA (Schnorr digital signature algorithm) has the defined method to aggregate signatures which could be used to produce a single signature for multiple public [different] keys. Also technically we can add an option where a single signature (regardless of Schnorr) is produced for the same output scripts.
But neither one (as far as I know but definitely not the second one) are going to be added in the upcoming softfork.

Thank you for clearing it up.
However, it's a bummer, since it would have been of great help for common people, especially as after the next difficulty adjustment (i.e. in less than 3 days) the fees will probably rise again.
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424

That's something a lot of people miss. Even if they are from the same address each UTxO has to be signed individually which takes up a lot of space.
There is an argument to change from signing individual UTXOs, someone spending coin would need to sign an address plus a nonce. This would encourage address reuse, which reduces privacy, and would make CPFP more complex, but would increase transaction throughput. It would also eliminate change addresses, which would also reduce privacy. It would be required that nonces are confirmed in order, but two nonces could be confirmed in the same block.

I am not sure, but won't Schnorr/Taproot fix this too? Or is it only wishful thinking from my side?
Technically ECSDSA (Schnorr digital signature algorithm) has the defined method to aggregate signatures which could be used to produce a single signature for multiple public [different] keys. Also technically we can add an option where a single signature (regardless of Schnorr) is produced for the same output scripts.
But neither one (as far as I know but definitely not the second one) are going to be added in the upcoming softfork.

What Taproot does is that you can have a more complex spending script that is bigger but you only reveal a portion of it that has to execute, that way you reduce the transaction size. There are also other benefits using Schnorr which include smaller fixed signature size and signature aggregation for multi-sigs.
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6205
Farewell LEO, you *will* be missed.

That's something a lot of people miss. Even if they are from the same address each UTxO has to be signed individually which takes up a lot of space.
There is an argument to change from signing individual UTXOs, someone spending coin would need to sign an address plus a nonce. This would encourage address reuse, which reduces privacy, and would make CPFP more complex, but would increase transaction throughput. It would also eliminate change addresses, which would also reduce privacy. It would be required that nonces are confirmed in order, but two nonces could be confirmed in the same block.

I am not sure, but won't Schnorr/Taproot fix this too? Or is it only wishful thinking from my side?
copper member
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1898
Amazon Prime Member #7

That's something a lot of people miss. Even if they are from the same address each UTxO has to be signed individually which takes up a lot of space.
There is an argument to change from signing individual UTXOs, someone spending coin would need to sign an address plus a nonce. This would encourage address reuse, which reduces privacy, and would make CPFP more complex, but would increase transaction throughput. It would also eliminate change addresses, which would also reduce privacy. It would be required that nonces are confirmed in order, but two nonces could be confirmed in the same block.

The topic of "consolidating inputs" has come up often in this thread, and the above would largely eliminate the need for that.
hero member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 882
Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2
Hi thanks! I've done it just now. The thing is I was not thinking about the small inputs of that address for a while, because they were part of the same address and as I am a bit of a noob I was not aware that although they are the same direction they are small inputs that will cost me more expensive to spend in the future if I do not consolidate them.

That's something a lot of people miss. Even if they are from the same address each UTxO has to be signed individually which takes up a lot of space. Fees haven't been this low for four months and it could easily be as long again until the next chance to consolidate cheaply. If you needed to spend them when fees are higher it could you many times more.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
What do you think about it. Should I consolidate them next Sunday if fees are still low or maybe just wait?

I would do it right now while you can at 1.2 Sats because there will be a difficulty increase before next weekend. Fees can't get much lower than they are right now so there is no point in waiting.

Hi thanks! I've done it just now. The thing is I was not thinking about the small inputs of that address for a while, because they were part of the same address and as I am a bit of a noob I was not aware that although they are the same direction they are small inputs that will cost me more expensive to spend in the future if I do not consolidate them.
hero member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 882
Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2
What do you think about it. Should I consolidate them next Sunday if fees are still low or maybe just wait?

I would do it right now while you can at 1.2 Sats because there will be a difficulty increase before next weekend. Fees can't get much lower than they are right now so there is no point in waiting.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
Hi, thanks to this post I sent a low fee transaction yesterday that was confirmed relative quickly.

I would like to ask a (probably simple) question: until now I had thought about saving everything I earn in the signature campaign and leave them in the same address where I receive the payments.

After discovering this thread, I have made some transactions to consolidate small inputs but from other addresses I had years ago where I had small amounts.

What I have been thinking lately is that I will have to consolidate some inputs from the address where I receive the payments of the signature campaign, because the first payments were of very little amount (the payment system goes by tiers and the lowest tier pays very little). In particular, I see that I have several payments from the beginning, of around 0.0001 BTC.

What do you think about it. Should I consolidate them next Sunday if fees are still low or maybe just wait? Maybe if I save everything I have in that address, and the price continues to rise in the future, that amount might be more tradable even if I pay fees.
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Last call this weekend for low fees Cheesy 2.x sat/byte is now being confirmed, and only 5 MB to confirm transactions with a fee lower than 2 sat/byte.
hero member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 882
Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2
Someone just broadcasted 38 MB of transactions at 4 sat/byte:

In the same picture you can see an earlier broadcast of 6 MB at 3 sat/byte too. I see this a lot nowadays: the moment fees drop enough, someone (maybe an online casino) uses the opportunity to fill up many blocks (most likely consolidating a couple hundred thousand inputs).

I keep track of the total number of funded addresses. When fees drop, the number of funded addresses often drops too.

The 4 sats/vbyte consolidation is all going to https://btc.com/3EiEN1JJCudBgAwL7c6ajqnPzx9LrK1VT6

With a balance of over 3000 BTC I would guess an exchange rather than a casino.
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
next diff jump it will end.
I'm afraid so. It's nice to see though how much difference a small increase in block capacity makes.

Someone just broadcasted 38 MB of transactions at 4 sat/byte:
Image loading...
In the same picture you can see an earlier broadcast of 6 MB at 3 sat/byte too. I see this a lot nowadays: the moment fees drop enough, someone (maybe an online casino) uses the opportunity to fill up many blocks (most likely consolidating a couple hundred thousand inputs).

I keep track of the total number of funded addresses. When fees drop, the number of funded addresses often drops too.
legendary
Activity: 4032
Merit: 7391
'The right to privacy matters'
Who feels like us? 💜
It took a coal mine accident in China, which caused a blackout, drop in hash rate and very high fees. Eventually this lead to a lower difficulty while miners were back online.

TL;DR: enjoy it while it lasts!

next diff jump it will end.

but we should have three to five more days of it.
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Who feels like us? 💜
It took a coal mine accident in China, which caused a blackout, drop in hash rate and very high fees. Eventually this lead to a lower difficulty while miners were back online.

TL;DR: enjoy it while it lasts!
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 9272
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
@PocketBitcoin
Mempool soon to clear 1 sats/vbyte transactions which hasn't happened since early January 🔥🥰

Who feels like us? 💜

https://twitter.com/pocketbitcoin/status/1390595067547721728?s=21
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Update: In the past hours, transactions with 2.2 sat/byte have been confirmed.
My Bitcoin Core shows 168 MB waiting in mempool, Johoe's site shows 79 MB. I don't know what causes the difference.

It looks like the coming weekend is going to be a great chance to consolidate small inputs, 2 sat/byte or less might just get through. Fees haven't been this low in 4 months.
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Fees are still very low, which is quite rare for a Wednesday. Consolidate small inputs while it lasts!

Update: 4 sat/byte is currently enough for a fast confirmation!
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 16303
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
And the week-end is far from over  Wink
Miners are chewing their way through mempool:
Image loading...
(Screenshot taken from jochen-hoenicke.de)
Pages:
Jump to: