Topic: Average block size was 0.951 MB - page 4. (Read 3454 times)

You failed to mention who agreed to this...

This is built upon, an overlay to, the status quo. It's backwards compatible, no client upgrade is required.

Who agreed to this? I don't believe this is how Bitcoin can be described currently, nor ever in the past, and I am not aware of any consensus for the status quo to be changed to this.

Uh, the lowest value transactions drop off. The agreed upon architecture is the main chain being a high value settlement network, akin to transferring gold. Lightning Network will be able to service general use payments.

Hey, please!
This discussion shall not be about transaction fees. I just gave an example. The MAJOR issue we should be talking about is that blocks are 95% full. To deny this problem is like walking on the edge of a cliff and saying that everything's all right.

Could we please imagine what would happen if next week, there's 5% more transactions than there were on the 15th of June. What do we do when blocks are full?

Core roadmap. Gmax.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
"In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."

Hedge your bets Core?
Block size "cannot" be raised, except with a patch when it all goes tits up?

Too late then Core. Trust will be lost.

I check this site before sending coins: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/
Look at the 15th June where I didn't do my homework...in normal times (like now) my transactions are in a block within 45min latest even with my very small fee

true.


and the funny part is if simply not having priority to get into the next block should be deemed spam.. then lets laugh at the term "locktime" too..


and thats why a "pay more or wait forever" is not a free market thing(its open market, totally different and bad). and should not be something we are pushing for especially when pools dont need fees right now anyway.

we should be opening up scalability. we should have done it last year. as it seems we are not even gonna get it this year either. even if segwit code is released it wont be usable for months. so dont expect blockstream(core) to be the saving grace any time soon. by the time their 1.8x proposed capacity growth arrives it would be too late.

(I haven't actually seen a txid for the OP's transaction, but okay). According to theymos, a "spam transaction" is one that create undesirable extra load on the network due to not following Bitcoin best practices(source). I don't think that creating a single transaction with slightly lower-then-"recommended" fees attached would be considered not following Bitcoin best practices, and thus should not be considered as spam.

From what I have been reading on reddit, some people are considering a spam transaction to be one that does not have a sufficient fee to be included in the first block (eg is not among the 1,000 kb of highest fee/kb as of when the first block is found after it is broadcast). This (greatly expanded) definition of "spam" however goes against the long standing practice of including a lower fee when a transaction does not need to be confirmed in the very next block.

The risk to the network, and to Bitcoin, is that either because of "spam transactions" or "genuine" transactions, that more then 1MB worth of transactions is created over long periods of time, which will create an ever growing backlog of transactions (even with RBF), and will cause the required fee to get a transaction confirmed to grow at an exponential rate.

Not raising the maximum block size also poses a risk to both the security of Bitcoin and Bitcoin itself, because there is a point at which people will decide to simply stop using/holding bitcoin when the cost to use Bitcoin becomes too high, and because there is a maximum transaction fee that users of Bitcoin will be willing to pay (in theory). This means that there is a cap to the total block reward, and that this cap will decrease over time (due to the decreasing block subsidy), which means that the cost to attack the network will decrease over time. If the maximum block size were to increase (to say 2 MB - now), then the (theoretical) maximum block reward would increase as well. I would also speculate that the total block reward would increase following a maximum block size increase due to more tx fee paying transactions being included in each block

lauda has no clue either.. he is arguing a one sided argument. he is not understanding the big picture.
no one should trust zero-confirms. and so when people talk about transactions they are not just talking about relayed data.. but a settled payment.

that should be what everyone should be thinking.
making a payment should be the term for just relaying it and having it zero-confirmed. but a settled payment is a transaction.

EG
"the transaction is complete when adam pays X to jeff and jeff pays Y and both parties are happy."

you can even google it. "transaction complete" no where does it say that a transaction is complete where a person just waves a bank note in the air. its complete when the deal/contract is deemed forfilled and settled

its also why LN prefers to call the multisigs sat in mempool and relayed adhok as "payments" and payment channels, rather than transaction channels.
because a transaction in the real world is about when a payment is deemed settled

its why a bank statement has a list of transactions and a separate list of "pending"..

Obviously he didn't. Let's all blame the network because people don't know that flat fees don't work (in a sense where a fee works for transaction A but does not work for transaction B).

It doesn't. The transaction speed remains the same. You might be talking about confirmation time.

Yes you can. It seems like you don't know how it actually works.

For most people, if you you use high fee, but the mempool transaction size is very large, you still cannot get confirmation in time.

Its a large block size so the speed of transaction is always depends in block size.. if it will happen in the future after block halving its impossible to use bitcoin as payment in other company and stores.. its nearly 1 mb i never experience it yet..

I also think same, if you like to get your transaction confirmed without waiting for hours the only way is to pay higher fees (recommended fee).

So your 2nd transaction was nearly 4 times larger, did you increase your fee for that transaction x4, no so what did you expect?

lauda's "extremely cheap".
even right now in some downtime when the mempool(yes it exists) is low, fee's are still atleast 0.00040000 per kb(40sat per byte)
thanks lauda for showing proof... you cant back out of that rhetoric
and yes the numbers are right because its not "pay minimum" mindset but "pay more then the rest" mindset. which is 30cents per kb(simple maths even lauda can achieve)

put it this way. when people start having to pay more then 50 cents with no guarantee's of it getting settled in 48 hours.. they might aswell put bank notes in an envelop and buy a first class stamp at 47cents knowing it will arrive in 1-3 business days.

we are already at halfway to the point of that figure.. and at a slight push that figure wont be enough to guarantee "priority".. so its actually conceivable people can send funds through the old mail system settled faster than bitcoin.

but hey lets wait for lauda to say transactions are meaningless, blocks will still be made no matter what and thats all that counts. empty or expensive blocks

all lauda wants to do is sell the bait (segwit) then when it doesnt solve anything he will sell the switch(LN) and when spammers dont use LN and bitcoin becomes mega expensive he will sell the next switch(sidechains AKA altcoins)..

We have enough time. We will get Segregated Witness soon, then we will get a block size increase later on since we will have enough time with the segwit addition to make things slowly and solid instead of rushed and failing like ETH.

1) You don't have to see the future.
2) It is not part of any known Core roadmap (there is only one that I'm aware of).

Well, you can start with this picture:

---

Almost all of the unconfirmed transactions include a fee that is a minimum of 5 times lower than what it should be. Then it comes down to how you define spam. An example would be signature campaigns that have daily payouts; those just waste space instead of paying weekly/bi-weekly or monthly.

This may or may not be a problem. Transactions are still extremely cheap, so blocks are filling up. But are those transactions that important? Are the blocks filled with mostly spam-like low-value transactions? I don't have the answer.

the point is not "just pay more" the point is if everyone "just pays more" the problem is not solved
5000 people paying 14cents each have the exact same problem as those same 5000 people paying $100each instead.
paying more solves nothing but drives bitcoins utility down

deciding to go with a plan that expands scalability by 1.8x instead of 2times is the weak choice in regards to scalability. oh and lets not forget that you cant segwit a segwit to go beyond 1.8x.. but you can increase a block limit by increasing a block limit to go beyond 2mb

deciding to go with a plan that discounts fee's is a weak choice in regards to reducing possibility of spam attacks as i said before.. it actually makes it easier and cheaper thanks to segwit