Topic: Bitcoin transaction time - page 3. (Read 6837 times)

Wow, so all of that "were better than the banks" they were using to market bitcoin for 4 years, really was, bullshit. I even remember a bunch of talk about how versatile it was, and able to change with the times, implement new features. Just more bullshit I guess. I'll start supporting and using DGB.

Sure, that could be true.

It still answers his question.

What you're suggesting is pretty much the goal of BCH and many altcoins that already exist. If you aren't happy with the state of Bitcoin then abandon it and move to an altcoin. That will speak much larger volumes than just a post that the devs and most of the community will ignore. Core devs and followers will never accept these changes, many of the core devs actually want to decrease block size (which would make transaction times even slower).

it's simple

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000000c3a0457533235d504f13750e334addd858dd7b7ce5cb17

outside of some priority transaction or miner preference,

this block, if you had a fee higher than 384.43 sat/B, you would have been in it.

and if you look in this block, yo u'll see someone spending several thousand dollars to make some 100KB transactions that move about 1 bitcoin at the cost of 0.3.  

...... and perhaps at some point, these places like Antpool, will come to the realization that while it's great to get an extra $20k out of a $50k block,   in the long run, this is going to be detrimental,


here is one :

https://blockchain.info/address/13khWZhS5wv7a5tCdTmtJtRmvwouK67Nci


let's be honest now, the more important thing here is how intelligent this person is with the address 13khWZhS5wv7a5tCdTmtJtRmvwouK67Nci (or persons, I don't mess around much w/ bitcoin anymore, so haven't studied this situation in depth)...  presumably, the goal would be to push the transaction fee up while having as few of your transactions included as possible, and continue to gradually increase it like this.  to exit,  drain this balance entirely w/ a final transaction & a large enough fee that you know it will be included in next block.

it's not like we're talking about tens of millions here... though i wish they'd just send me $10k instead.  i think I could do it more efficiently

...  & feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here

ed: do any mining pools  even keep these transaction prioritizations anymore?

ed2:  it also becomes a problem if these handful off conglomerates with the ASICs decide to either stop mining, or mine something else.  Mentioning this some 4 or 5 years ago brought me nothing but grief though... you know, because more hashpower means the chain is more secure!.... vs these bastard hobbyists and their graphics cards.   

god forbid another Haicheng that knocks everything offline for an extended period of time (like, say, right after a difficulty refactor)

86 hours and counting to send $400 with .40 fee from my blockchain wallet to coinbase

still 0 confirmations , anyone else experiencing long wait times?

wtf is going on?

I'm hearing a bunch of noise out there about congestion , segwits , forks , bitcoin cash coins wtf

But how do miners choose their fee? if I was a miner I would choose the highest fee but that would make me against the network. The fee would be alright if wasn't slow with confirmations, but be like ethereum.

This problems has been debated for years, we know all of it, high fees, long time to be confirmed, spam attacks and so on.
But the thing is, core developers thinks and treat bitcoin from technical or engineering perspective and bitcoiners demand for better user experience which can't be fulfilled for now because there are some people called miners which always looking for profits, as long as we have to pay higher fees > miners always like it and trying to prolong the process to upgrade bitcoin nodes for a better user experience.

Just have space in blocks, get rid of replace by fee, bring back trusted 0 comf.
Doesn't matter how long blocks take then.

As it was.

It doesn't really matter how easy it is to make thousands of nodes. We should assume that the government can do it. The security of Bitcoin shouldn't and doesn't rely on it.

Even if you have 99% of the nodes, it is your client that chooses which and how many of the nodes it connects to and even then, no one can really trick you that a transaction is confirmed when it isn't, since that attack requires hashpower and your client won't accept new blocks if they below the difficulty. That is another reason to not decrease the difficulty period, otherwise an attacker has to keep you in the dark for a lower amount of time, but still it would be quite suspicious to have such a drop in difficulty so suddenly.

Bottom line is that difficulty adjustments can't protect against a sudden drop in hashpower due to the outside forces. The drop can happen in an instant and when it does it can be suspicious, since the above attack could be happening, so you shouldn't run to readjust it.

Default on Bitcoin Core is for your client to connect to 8 other nodes and any additional that try to connect to it. Even if it does it randomly, and usually it just uses the ones you ware previously connected to that it can trust more, then you need to have luck to control all 8. If at least one in 8 is legit, that would mean that on average legit network is 12.5% , means you have to control 97.5% nodes on average for your attack to be successful. But also you can be lucky, or have no luck at all. But a user can always be more careful.

Also, I believe that on the next difficulty readjustment Segwit should activate. So that 100 blocks shouldn't only be when you get more regular blocks, but when they will be more space in them as well, since transactions will be able to take less of the space in them.

Genrally It Does not Looks that much of easy but you can make it easy by concentrating for long time.

If you observe carefully, you should realise that they are in the same /24 blocks, especially if they were from the same location. If you're trying to get IPs in different /16 blocks, it would be much more expensive, or you need a lot of service providers. Most of them charge $8+ for even 512mb, depending on the quality and where the servers are from (eg. colocrossing). Still, you have to control a significant percentage of the network nodes or its pretty useless.

The whole community probably wish that the problem can be solved this easily. There are definitely several trade-offs with faster blocks. With regards to the difficulty adjustment, if an attacker were to have a limited budget, they can easily place in large amount of hashpower for a day, lets say and the difficulty would increase significantly. The network would pretty much take more time to readjust. Same goes for varience.

That being said, I really doubt the possible decrease in hashrate was the main factor in the frequency of the block yesterday. I would guess that varience did play a part too.
Confirmed .

For $10 it should include the node. Who is charging $10/month for just the IP? That's crazy. I've never paid more than $2-$3 for additional ips and at least 1 public ip is included per node when I fire up VMs.

More transactions on top of increased block time. Once we had some bad luck and blocks went to 30-60minutes per block things got real bad (thats when it jumped to 500+sat/b.). If we had faster blocks, it would be fine, if diff readjustment happened faster, it would be fine. Since we have neither, we get 500sat/b tx fees. I really expect it to increase to 750-1000sat/b over the next 2 weeks. It's just lucky that this happened at the end of a diff adjustment period. We're only 100 or so blocks away from the next diff adjustment. It won't trend down as much as it should but it will improve a little. We'll have to wait another 2 weeks for the full correction in diff.

Thanks, txid is f229ec6a9072fc1c49d9340ffc1d3b0064a2599b6b60d9a81ef3abf3e9f8182d
 

I like the node part. Dash at the moment has both hash mining and nodes, that require 1000 dash to run and they receive around 8% per year i suppose. This is first time i notice the transactions going further then 87000 as unconfirmed, for two days? Txid accelerator is full, so no other possibilites.

Hmm? Given that an IPV4 address can cost up to $10 per, for a /16 block. For 10,000 addresses, that can cost up to $100,000. That is, without factoring in the resources needed to run a node. The cost is one thing, having the nodes to connect and only connect to your node is an entirely different thing. If a separate node that is not controlled by you connects to that node, your attack has failed. Sybil attack isn't the thing that we're concerned about right now.

I definitely feel your frustration, having a $500 transaction being stuck in limbo right now. The worst part is that its sent from a service and not my wallet.

Nope, the hashrate isn't the main problem here. The more glaring problem is the substantially higher volume of transaction that I'm currently seeing. Block intervals aren't super slow but the amount of transaction is extremely high. Faster blocks doesn't work, faster difficulty adjustments doesn't work, the block interval can be affected by varience and its better to have a larger sample size for the difficulty adjustments.

Btw, let me know your TXID. I will try to rebroadcast it continually using my node and try to get it confirmed.

It's not as difficult as you'd think to get 10,000 IPv4 addresses on different /16 blocks. 10,000 on different /24 is even easier. A previous response was saying that it would be 'centralized' by offering a payment for running a full node when there are already less full nodes than he thinks there are.

I never said it wasn't my fault for not paying the fee. The fees have skyrocketed in a period of hours. Even if I had placed the fee at 300 sat/b there's no guarantee it would have processed by now. There are still many unconfirmed transactions around that range. Fees went from 300sat/b to over 500sat/b in 2 hours yesterday.

I'm guessing this is due to so much hashrate switching over to BCH. Now we're stuck with very slow blocks until the next diff change. It looks like BTC lost around 20% of it's hashrate, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. If difficulty adjustments were faster this would be a non-issue.

Bitcoin reference clients connects to one IP per /16 block. Good luck getting that many IPs in the different blocks such that you can completely isolate someone from the chain. Even one node that connects to the victim would ruin your plan completely. Hence, you would probably need way more than 10,000 node to guarantee a reasonable success rate.
It's honestly not the fault of Bitcoin if you didn't bother to check the average fee using one of the sites or at the very least use a reliable client. You can't push the blame to Bitcoin protocol if the reason your transaction isn't being confirmed is because of it. Honestly, at that time, the fees were at the 300 sat/b range.

There are more than a few hundred altcoin. There are a few hundred on Coinmarket cap alone. Not all altcoins are on that site. And when you add tokens into the mix we are talking closer to 1,000 coins/token which have existed, probably more. Sure a lot of them are dead, but I would say at least 500 are active right now.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Altcoin have 55% combined, there's a few hundred active altcoins. So combined they probably do have better acceptance than BTC, but non of them have nearly the acceptance of BTC when evaluated on their own. Therefore non of them can currently overtake BTC even with superior block time.

But their combined dominance does speak to me that faster blocks is the way to go.

Bitcoin has many advantages over the banking system, it isn't all in the fees and confirmation time.
Like a lot of people, I got interested in Bitcoin due to it's decentralized, pseudo-anonymous and secure nature.

That is why using an online wallet is, for me, defeating the purpose of Bitcoin, since you lose all of the above benefits.
It is ok to see something else as the main benefit of Bitcoin for you and if you are not pleased with how it is doing, then you are free to not use it.

High fees are not intended for Bitcoin and that is why the scaling debate took place in the first place. Tomorrow segwit should activate and fees should drop so you might be happy with Bitcoin anyway, if not, you are free to leave. I don't think that Bitcoin will change so much just to lower the fees, since a lot of people don't see that as the Bitcoin's purpose here.

Nodes were never a backbone or representation of Bitcoin's security and never will be. There is nothing in the protocol that gives the nodes such power and it should stay that way. Bitcoin nodes are not and should not be important in Bitcoin.

I would calm down about the fees, if I ware you, Things are being done and no one is going to put such a stable and secure system in a state of emergency just for the higher fees. No one really cares that much about it to make such a quick and radical change.

Bank to bank with swift. Your sending bank needs to clear the transaction on swift immediately and the receiving bank needs to update your account as soon as it detects the transaction. As long as both the sender and receiver are setup this way you can do instant swift transfers. I do have another bank account here that takes 3 days or so for the swift to clear. I don't use that bank very often for obvious reasons.

Oh ya, some banks don't have their own swift access. They use an intermediary bank to process the swift and that usually happens in batches. Only big name banks are able to clear swift transactions instantly. I'm using Chase in the US and BPI in the philippines. HSBC is also a great bank to use for international wire transfers. IIRC, they offer FREE international wires for certain account / status levels. It's called HSBC premier??

..

Up to 3.5K pending transactions > 421sat/b

Something needs to be done about this, ASAP.