Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 7. (Read 88277 times)

Who is the voter, who gets to decide whether to shrink or expand the block size at a given time? I would assume it is the miners, but what would the miners incentive be to expand the block size? I guess it is the sweet spot where resource expenditure divided by the number of transactions lead to the economic optimum. But when we get to the point where the coinbase transaction is getting closer to zero, it might be against what bitcoin was intended to achieve. It will forever be a good place to store value for the very rich because they don't care about the fees. But the network would certainly not be incluse on a global scale.

How dynmaic would or could these adaptive block sizes be?


That's what I think, too. Second layer solutions are similar to small communities having their own required level of security as the number of nodes facilitating/validating those transactions is smaller in a local community than it is on a global scale so to say. But a local community might not require the same level of security whereas someone sending $100 million from A to B wants the highest level of security possible, hence goes for a base layer transaction and pays a fortune in fees, which in relation to the amount transacted is irrelevant again. It wouldn't be the same with adaptive block sizes I think.


That was a good one about our beloved Crack Wright!

---

Edit: and I am wondering what the backlashes could be of adaptive block sizes and whether there will only be issues once we get to see it in action. Comparing BTC to XMR now is a bit difficult to say the least. BTC is about 290 times the transaction volume of XMR as of now. The idea sounds compelling at first, but it may not be the solution to problems that can't fully be anticipated now. Ordinals only became a problem that everyone fully understood once this insane volume (or number of transactions) was generated with them.

It seems that way, I have been using trustwallet before and they've been like that for a long time already where the default fee that will be sent will always be higher than the transaction fee that we see in mempool.

Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?

Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that allows online payments to be sent directly from one party to another. The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper. I have read whitepaper and it looks like Ordinals completely ruin the Bitcoin. Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant. Bitcoin was created to send money, not JPEGs, so I think we are still in the frames of freedom even if we ruin the Ordinals party.
I completely understand your opinion but Ordinals ruin our freedom, not us - theirs. If anyone wants to send 1 cent but pay thousands of dollars in transaction fees, then they are welcome, it's their choice, their freedom and free will but Ordinals don't do that, they send the ownership of JPEG files, not money. That's why I am against them.

Binance owns Trust wallet, Binance owns Binance pool and collaborates with other leading mining pools, so high transaction fees are their interest. At the same time, keep in mind that Binance does many shady things, for example, on Binance, it's cheaper to withdraw Bitcoin to legacy address compared to SegWit address. Does this make any sense? No! They also do every dirty job to promote their own chain.

Exactly! The red flag is in their names:
TrustWallet - UnTrustWorthyWallet
Craig Wright - Craig Wrong

Really bad decision to use TrustWallet. The red flag is in the name.

Sorry for your loss.

I paid $760 for a transaction yesterday, sending bitcoins using TrustWallet.

This wallet offered me the default commission size, and I was stupid enough not to double-check the information (although I always do this in Electrum and other wallets). At that second I thought that TrustWallet should set the optimal commission according to the mempool, but now I started to think that these bastards are in cahoots with the mining pools since they offer users commissions of crazy size by default.

This was the last day I used TrustWallet  

There is nobody raising the fees apart from the natural law of demand and supply. A mining pool can decide to not mine any transaction paying less than 10 sat/vb as a policy of theirs, but these transactions will eventually be mined by other mining pools that don't like throwing their income to their competitors.

The problem is simple: You need to ensure those securing the chain will always have the incentive to do so, and the only ways to practically accomplish it is either by relying on transaction fees, or by subsidies. Bitcoin is capped at 21 million, therefore it has to rely on transaction fees. This means that being congested should be embraced, not criticized.

And on top of that the whhole centralized infrastructure is getting sucked in as well. If someone holds small amounts on an exchange or wants to withdraw a few bucks from an online casino, essentially not possible as they raise the fees through the roof, too.

If the coinbase transaction decreases further, obviously the incentive to raise fees artificially is getting stronger and stronger, thereby reducing the potential use base in return.

Is this a dilemma that may not be reasonably solvable? I just don't see how bitcoin can keep its level of security for the big wealth that is getting stored on the blockchain when it is not at the cost of all the smaller use cases.

I have been saying this for years.

This is precisely my point. If we are billions, then we can't all fit by making on-chain transactions on a daily basis. This is true for 4 MB blocks as much as it is for 40, or for 400 MB. It is only a matter of time before these sizes become considered insufficient as well, and we need to go even higher than that.

And this is the good scenario. For if the adoption (or demand for on-chain transactions) does not follow the block's capacity increase, then the network will not be sufficiently self-sustainable.

I agree, but you know what they say. The best argument for 4 MB block size is that we already have 4 MB block size. I would rather have something close to 20 MB, so that the network could be less hostile to people who just want to make on-chain payments, but political issues will arise. It'd give Bitcoin some "breathing space" until the softforks, though, I agree it wouldn't harm (apart from politically).

"Should" is a complex and problematic verb. One person's actions impact another. If you think about it, your transaction occupies the space another person could use. It might sound exaggerated, but your freedom to make on-chain transactions directly influences another person's freedom to do the same. Just because something is considered a "human right" or "privilege" doesn't mean it comes without a cost. Dictate who should bear that cost, and you've essentially created a government.

Second layer solutions aim to minimize your influence on others' freedom as much as possible. That is the goal, in my view.

I respect your opinion too but I simply don't understand why you advocate it when there are so many cons. It's simple, if Bitcoin transaction fees will remain high, people won't use it. The less people use Bitcoin, the less there will be a need of it as a payment method which leads to less adoption. Less activity will result in the death of Bitcoin as a payment method, at least. Less activity on Bitcoin will also promote alternative cryptocurrencies and I won't be surprised if any altcoin will take the first place on the market.
If block size won't increase, there will be no space for new customers who want to make Bitcoin transactions daily and there are billions of people on earth. 600K daily transactions that we see on Blockchain, is really nothing for such a big population. Block size limit is the limit of how many people will be able to use Bitcoin. If we want massive adoption in forms of payment and protection from DDOS, a new model is necessary. At the moment, a slight block size increase is necessary, we can't have 1 MB or 4 MB block size in 2024, the technology has advanced, RAM, CPU, GPU, SSD, everything is significantly more powerful than in 2009 and significantly affordable.

To be honest, I don't understand why should I use a 2nd layer solution. If anyone has to use 2nd layer (I don't mean LN exactly), it's ordinals and runes spammers. Normal users, who want to use Bitcoin as a p2p payment method, should be able to use Bitcoin as it is without 2nd and 3rd layers.

That's what I think, it became a too dirty deal. I even think that ordinals and runes creators work with big mining pools to artificially increase the transaction fee. The scheme should be this: Some people inscribe ordinals and runes, pay extremely high transaction fees (then get all the fees back from pools), increase the transaction fee for everyone, they scam people with dumb ape and other JPEGs and that's all. They make money from creating and selling tons of ordinals, miners make money from increased transaction fees. I have no other explanation because I have seen many posts when NFT creators where crying for increased ETH transaction fees and now they want to pay thousands of dollars on Bitcoin blockchain? Doesn't make sense.

if a runes and or ordinal guy is in collusion with 40% of the pools it could be true.

Mempool is now a pump and dump scheme LOL

Well remember if they have a direct deal with foundry (biggest pool) they could get a fee kickback.

I have been studying the high fee attacks since 2017. I have multiple examples  that can be done that could make money.

Most of them you need to involve 40% of the hashrate not 51% and the pools need to share with at the person jacking the fees.

Yes, it does. In 2017, people started working on lightning, because they thought it'd incentivize everyone to use it for instant, cheap micro-transactions over on-chain means. And it does work, to an extent, but they didn't think it'd be very unappealing to use for the average user. Now people want to implement other second-layers, some of which will be independent with optional lightning support.

This is a free market. It's a matter of trial and error. Unfortunately, it takes time, because of two reasons:

• Softforking Bitcoin is an extremely slow process, and many L2 solutions require certain softforks.
• Writing code voluntarily takes time. Even to Satoshi, it took 2 years to write Bitcoin, as far as we know.

With ordinals or runes, I can imagine someone's selling that crap to countless dumb people. But in this case, I don't see how anyone can sell it to gullible victims. It looks like one dumb person who's wasting millions of dollars, and usually people who are that dumb don't have that kind of money (anymore).

That's not really possible: most addresses have multiple inputs.

Even better if they keep creating small inputs to consolidate. See this address: none of it makes any sense.

I "joined Bitcoin" in 2015. In 2017, blocks were full for the first time, which lead to very high transaction fees. That was 6.5 years ago. I'd love to see an actively used second layer solution, but it's taking too long.

Why would anyone burn 15 million dollars on this?

It's not worth it, no!

That's absolutely true.

That's your opinion, and it's totally respected. As I said, in my opinion, it's more preferable to have that undoubtedly big loss than risk destroying this beautiful concept in 20 years from now.

Sounds reasonable if the people who build the houses must continue building and selling them, no matter what, or all houses disappear. I don't want a large mansion for a few thousand dollars if I risk having it gone.

Thanks for quoting me because I received a message on Telegram. I'm on vacation and haven't visited mempool.space and thanks to this quote, I received a notification on Telegram and I can't believe what my eyes has to see. Why on earth is anyone consolidating all the unconsolidated transactions today with 300-400 sat/vByte fees?

Is there any explanation to why they overpay? Usually, every business tries to save as much as possible and it's a little confusing why should they be overpaying transaction fees (a lot).

Call that an evidence but can you afford to make a Bitcoin transaction? I can't afford (maybe can but don't plan to waste money stupidly). It's becoming unattractive payment method for so many people, I think that that's more of a loss than an evidence that it works (DoS protection and a self-sustainability assurance mechanism).

To me, it looks like advocating for an extremely high house prices while not being able to afford a house.

blocks 846,874 to 846,934

fees are all over 1.04 btc and some are over 5 coins

so 60 blocks average fee for them around 3.5 coins

It might be a controversial take, but I'd rather have a delayed yet proper second layer solution, even if it's going to dissatisfy those transacting on-chain for a long time, than have every user temporarily satisfied but tricked into believing that rising the on-chain capacity arbitrarily is the way to go over the long term.

The future of money requires proper DoS protection and a self-sustainability assurance mechanism, and that's the block size limit. The fact that an on-chain transaction currently costs $30 is evidence that it works.

I stand corrected: they're now paying $15,000 per transaction.