Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 5. (Read 88487 times)

The majority of transactions are between 1-4 sat/vb range but I can't check on mempool.space how much of them are normal Bitcoin transactions. In the upcoming 7 blocks, majority of transactions are ordinals transactions and another part is UTXO consolidations. I don't know why there is not a high activity of normal Bitcoin transactions, that looks strange to me. Now I think, what if ordinals were really banned? Btw it's good that the transaction fee is 6 sat/vb.

How correct is Coinjoin filter on mempool.space? After all the problems that happened to Bitcoin mixers, I was expecting increase in conjoin transactions but according to mempool.space, people don't coinjoin.

Look at Mempool Goggles, it's still 80-90% spam:

Barely anyone makes real normal Bitcoin transactions, and that's really bad.

It's weird. I've done this before and right now I've created a watch-only wallet in testnet and successfully replaced my transaction using this method. Btw, I didn't disconnect from the internet, Electrum v4.5.5.

I tried that, but it didn't work (on my watch-only wallet). And even if it would work, it instantly syncs the unconfirmed transaction from the server again.

What a good feel to have for long period of time low fees, i really miss it, i remember the bad and not s long ago time when consolidate some tx was a nightmare thanks to the ordinal boys.

You don't need to manually edit the wallet file. Just execute in the console: wallet.adb.remove_transaction("txid") and refresh the wallet interface by pressing F5. This can be done online, everything works.

Fees are down to 6.05 sat/vbyte minimum.

I just consolidated many inputs at 7.2 sat/vbyte. I tried 3 months ago at 5.3 sat/vbyte, but it was still unconfirmed.

I manually edited (a copy of) my Electrum wallet, to remove the unconfirmed transaction (search for the txid). After that, I opened the same wallet again without going online, and Electrum let me create a new transaction.

Three options:
- 4.5cents per th/s income, end of fiscal quarter maybe some are plugging off
- heatwave in the US and miners shutting down (pool data doesn't quite match)
- bad luck (even 7.5% is not impossible just with variation)


Nope, highly possible we go +120 or at least just as likely as going just +60.

Yes. Hash rate sometimes drops a bit, or sometimes miners are just unlucky.

It's likely to happen though, with lower difficulty blocks should be faster, unless the hash rate drops further.

That's because the average block in the current difficulty period hasn't been 10 minutes. Since the last difficulty adjustment, blocks have been mined with the average time of around 10.8 minutes. That's due to decrease in total hash power.


Being 95 blocks behind doesn't mean we will have 95 blocks mined fast to compensate for being behind.

Note that the difficulty will be adjusted in ~ 5 days to maintain the average block time of 10 minutes and this doesn't necessarily mean blocks will be mined faster than the current difficulty period.

Mempool is still getting full of ordinals transactions. I just checked upcoming 6 blocks and almost 95% of transactions are ordinals transactions. Without them, right now fee would be 1 sat/vByte. By the way, does anyone know why are we 95 blocks behind? I check mempool.space very often and this is the first time I saw such a dramatic number. Or does it happen sometimes here and there? By the way, I expect that fees will go further down because being 95 blocks behind means at some point many blocks will be mined in a row and many transactions will soon get confirmed. That should dramatically drop fees for a moment.

Mempool has been dipping into the 7.x sat/vbyte region for the past 24 hours. I expect 8 sat/vbyte to be enough to be confirmed quickly now.

So fees are around 8-10 sats.

Price of btc has dropped time to consolidate your tx's

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,1w,count

I've seen you've visited the Ark topic, so you know very well this isn't about a shitcoin. It's Bitcoin. Nothing to do with this "ARK" on CMC.

Ark is a brilliant name. It's one syllabe, and you don't need to know much beyond that it is a second layer of Bitcoin. Sort of how "Electrum" doesn't have "Bitcoin" in the name, but it's easy to understand that it's a lightweight Bitcoin L1 wallet.

BTW, Ark takes the name from Noah's ark, which was used by Noah to save himself, his family and pairs of every kind of animal from the great flood by God. In this case, to save plebs from forfeiting custody and privacy to third parties.

It is like lightning. In fact, its founder started it as an alternative lightning wallet, and it was later observed that it fits better as another L2. It's like lightning, but it moves complexity to servers.

To understand the background? Of course. Bitcoin has a complicated background as well. The goal is to have a simple UX, not a simple background. You don't need to know the exact structure of a debit card payment, you only need to know the UX.

Not necessarily. All these people can gather and batch their transactions into one through the use of rollups, either by using a coordinator or even a decentralized mechanism. You'd have a transaction creating thousands of UTXO, not thousands of transactions.

And yes, it's still bad if such an activity occurred often, but as I said, the burden lies on the server. It'd be like boarding on the Wallet of Satoshi, in terms of lightning, instead of creating triangle channels with strangers who are likely to be experimenting with the protocol and are not reliable.

• I just recently revisited Ark, and I haven't invested much time into it.
• Every project at the beginning is hard to understand. There are no guides for wallet installation etc., just documentations. You're alone at the start.

At this point, I want to quote the prophetic Hal Finney.

Currently, there are only 53 million different funded Bitcoin addresses. That's barely enough for 0.5% of the world population, and having only one address is terrible for your privacy. So just for UTXOs, we're going to need a lot more blockspace.

I couldn't help notice that a year after you created the topic, you're still having a hard time understanding how it works. That's not very promising for mass adoption. A centralized solution, like keeping "your" Bitcoin on an exchange, is already used by millions of users.
Depending on which source you believe, this would mean there are 10 times more custodial Bitcoin "owners" than Bitcoin owners who control their own private keys.

"Kinda" is the key word here. It doesn't actually do it. It does it only under the bold assumption that people will be opening and maintaining their channels, which we all know how difficult and unappealing it is.

In my opinion, the goal is to scale the system in such a way that every person has the option to own an UTXO, but be disincentivized from creating more than that. For example, in Ark, you wouldn't need more than that. You might not even need an UTXO. You'll just download an Ark client, choose a server, generate an address and you're ready to go. You give it to anyone, create your VTXOs, and if you ever want to leave for some reason, you can exit (either unilaterally or not). But you would be disincentivized from doing so.

No inbound liquidity problems, no channel maintenance, no backups, no computer running for 24 hours a day, no bullshit. Just a pair of keys, and that's it, as it should.

I don't know Ark, but LN kinda does this: one on-chain transaction can be used for many follow-up transactions. Your NAT comparison doesn't really work though: the number of IPv4-addresses is much larger than the number of Bitcoin transactions we can handle per year. We now have houses behind NAT, in Bitcoin-terms it would be more like having an entire city behind one IPv4-address. And that's why I don't think non-custodial LN can really scale. If it's custodial, then indeed one entire city can make all their payments through one node.

I'm not ready to give up just yet

Can you blame them? Investing in Bitcoin means risking a 80% drop just because you want to avoid 20% inflation. Once central banks started raising interest rates, there wasn't really any safe way to avoid the high inflation. I'd say interest rates shouldn't have been that low to begin with, but that's for a different discussion.

You're talking about ATM usage, right? That's really shitty.

But you know very well that my analogy was referring to BTC's fixed block size, don't you?

Just like IPv4 cannot be extended to more than 32 bits, BTC block size cannot be extended to over 4MB.

Engineers try to find smart solutions (like NAT/RFC 1918, SegWit).

It's perfectly acceptable to use NAT and share the same public IP address among different devices, despite the fact it violates the end-to-end principle (sounds like the BTC whitepaper maximalism in a way).

So if BTC engineers find a way to share the same UTXO (like Ark promises to do) in the same fashion like NAT does, that'll be a game changer for Bitcoin.

Keep in mind that RFC 1918 came out 15 years after IPv4 and it took even more years to become truly mainstream in home routers (early 2000s) and I didn't even mention UPnP which came later on:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4

I have to mention this for people who are generally impatient and want a solution right now.

If you believe that BTC is the TCP/IP of money, then honestly I don't see any delays here. Smart solutions take time to be devised and implemented.

I feel you, but history tends to repeat itself.

Oh, I love it too!

I'm just saying you can either have deflationary money + high fees (in the long term I expect fees to reach $1000) or inflationary money (EUR/SEPA, DOGE) + low fees.

There's tons of gold even in asteroids waiting to be mined (imagine if SpaceX invents an AI-controlled spaceship for gold mining...), but for the time being we treat gold as a scarce commodity:

https://theprint.in/opinion/giant-asteroid-has-gold-worth-700-quintillion-but-it-wont-make-us-richer/260482/

No, they don't.

I know tons of anti-CBDC/pro-cash people (99.99% of them are no-coiners) and they don't seem to care about inflation (they do cry about it, but they don't take any action).

That's like crying that your husband beats you every single day, but you don't dare to ask for a divorce, FFS!

I don't have a problem with the "loophole", because I know they can re-create another protocol after the loophole is fixed. For example, store their Ordinals in the UTXO set, which would be even worse for us then. It's like beating the air. As for the scam part, I am not the sole arbitrator of truth. If some people find it funny, entertaining etc., I have no right to trespass their freedom. I can warn them, but that's the most I can do, and so should everyone else.

If you don't have the freedom to make mistakes, then what kind of freedom do you have?

I mean, let's leave asides principles for a moment. How are you thinking of doing this? Suppose that I'm a miner. Please convince me that I should censor Ordinals.

Here's mine.

Bitcoin is a hell of a lot things. It's peer-to-peer cash, it's a decentralized computer network, it's a living organism, it's sound money, it's digital scarcity, it's an idea, but more importantly: it's money separated from the state. It's not prone to human corruption. Please take a moment to comprehend the significance of this property.

Trade is what keeps us civilized. Because I can trade with you for what you have, I don't have to kill you for what you have. To facilitate trade, we need money. Therefore, money is extremely important for the human species. However, all the money we've had so far has been prone to corruption, often controlled by an entity, a government, or the elite. This control allows them to manipulate money for their own benefit, which takes us back to primitive times. When money is corrupted, the free market becomes corrupted as well. Trade is then based on false positives, and the signal of prices becomes distorted.

You might have heard of Bitcoin being peaceful revolution, or freedom money. That is what it fixes. And it'd be unforgivable if we started experimenting recklessly with that invaluable property. If you simply want to experiment with a new payment system, there are altcoins for that.

I now see that you don't just want to increase the block size. You want to change more than that.  

That doesn't change the situation. We could argue that it'd discourage ordinary users, but it doesn't discourage miners since that 1 sat/vb goes back to them. Ordinary users could still come to an agreement with the mining pool and get their money back. (Or just pay them off-chain to include it with a 1 sat/vb)