Topic: Bitcoin transaction Times SUCK (Read 6324 times)

Yes, but that doesn't mean the miners are using the same model. It's only a minimum fee that a transaction has to meet in order to be able to be accepted by the miners.

But miners should care about fee per satoshi or millibit. And about the general size of the block, leading to faster or slower propagation. It might be that the spamtransactions would not be worth it then.

Fees are per size in Bitcoin Core as follows:

A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:

• It is smaller than 1,000 bytes.
• All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
• Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)

Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes.  As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction.  Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction.  Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee).

Note that a typical transaction is 500 bytes, so the typical transaction fee for low-priority transactions is 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC), regardless of the number of bitcoins sent.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

Lucky you. It is very rarely that one transaction have confirmation so easy and so fast. I use coinbase wallet and I don't know how is the amount of fee paid for every transaction because the fee is paid from my wallet (coinbase) but normally the confirmation needed much more time than 10-15 min. Seems that this have to do with the block sizes that must be increased. There are discussions about this but until now no agreement.

I understood that. What i ask is why the miners doesn't include transactions based on the fee AND the size. I mean when they include a big transaction only because it has a bigger fee than others then they will lose either because they could have include many small transactions that in total could create more fees for him and because such a big block can be propagated through the nodes more slowly. They risk getting their block orphaned.

That was what i was wondering about.

yeah you bet it sucks... and if you want to speed up the process you will need to pay higher fees!
 The Block size needs to be increased to avoid these issues!

I can confirm with this;

c25077f152401fd7245d4b99dbd2a240380680118e824bf8b85bcca567fa34b8

150 confirmations instead of the usual 50-70 during the "stress test". Over 24 hours.

Agreed.

I both sent and received coins last night in a timely manner, they both confirmed within a short amount of time. The one I received had a fee and the one I sent out did not and both took the same amount of time to get 6 confirmations.

the transaction "confirmation" time is back to normal and it is at a decent time .

I'm afraid it's something you just have to get used to as it's going to get worse, even if they temporarily improve it.

Miners get to include whatever TXs they want.  I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them.  If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want.

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

The transaction fee is a statistical question... As long as the entire mempool can fit in one block (which it can as of right now), you can go all the way down to 1 sat/byte.

The minimum TX fee to stay on the network (as of today) is 1000 sat / 1000 bytes (or 1 sat/byte).

If your TX has old coins, it is possible that the priority is high enough (as of today 57,600,000) to stay on the network with no TX fee

If the mempool is larger than one block (1,000,000 bytes) then your TX will need to compete with other TX to get in a block.

When transactions have to compete for blockspace the following sorting is used.

• The transactions are sorted by priority
• The highest priority (coin age) TX are selected until the block is 5% filled
• The remaining transactions are sorted by TX Fee / byte
• The highest fee paying TX are selected for the remaining 95% of the block space
• The rest of the TX are left into pool for the next sorting

If you studied statistics, this is straight forward problem to solve, but as others have stated about 76 times already... hard coding a fee value will not solve a statistical equation.  Best to get a wallet app that is mempool aware with sliding fees, or do the stats yourself if the mempool ever fills up again.

Slightly!!!!!!  Majority of people use 10k Satoshi as transaction fee and if we use 10001 Satoshi then it should give us a major advantage over others.

If they are the same in size (byte) and miners sort by fee per byte this would put you ahead in the list slightly, yes.

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

Your'e right. 0.0001 BTC as the minimum fee worked for me too at the end.

Luckily this spam attack, looked like to go endlessly , stopped. It was really annoying.

To reduce cost, spammers simply put the amount that is higher than average as fees. Miners have to include 50kb worth of transaction based on the priority first before going into the fee part where they rank transactions based on fee/kb not fee.

Putting 0.0001BTC/KB works fine for me. Mine was confirmed within the next block.

Your fee simply was too low for a transaction that you try when the bitcoin network is spammed since days. If you would have used the double value as fee then you surely wouldn't have had a problem. The thing is the spammers put in nice fees too and they create so big transactions that the blocks get full pretty fast.

So you simply need to pay more to get your transaction included faster. And maybe use 0.000201 or so since then you even have a slight advantage against users with 0.0002 Bitcoin as fee. Miners always use the best paying transactions first.

It seems that the OP (yourself) has edited the thread title, I was a bit interested in how the Golden Ratio Attack was executed and from what I can surmise it is a mining ROI through higher transaction fees reading through the comments in the other thread, in a sense that would work as Satoshi did plan on transaction fees at some point in time transitioning and replacing the reward for discovering blocks accelrating that process involves an increase in mining fees but in addition to the stable block rewards pools would have an incentive to keep the fees high, the issue would not be a concern usually but in the case of space limitations it does present a possible problem and issue.

Not a bad idea in any sense as it could have happened when Ghash.io was near 50% but it looks like Gmaxwell came in and did some math but the concept looks like it has feet in my opinion.
Especially if a consortium of pools decided to group together to perform and execute this attack at cost to maintain a new quo in which case the honest miners would still make more but through block discovery on average the attackers would discover the transactions and reward themselves in the long run.

_
Lets imagine your mine with half hashpower. Lets imagine that a block can contain 6000 transactions.  Attacker has 1/2 hashpower.  Offered load is 4000 tx/block.

Attacker crafts 2000/tx block at 1coin/tx fee level. Making the rest match him (plus episilon, which we'll disregard).

His average cost for spam is 1000 coin/block (2000 * 1-rate).
His average income is 2000 coin/block (4000 * rate).  (He doesn't get income from his spam, he saves its cost however; see prior line)
His net income is 1000 coins/block, on average.

Now consider the consolidation of other miners:
Their average cost for spam is 0.
Their average income is 3000 coin/block (6000 * (1-rate)).
Their net income is 3000 coin/block.

Both groups have 50% hashrate, so the non-attacking miner has a fee income of three times greater the attacking miner per unit hashrate!

Normalized for hashrate thats 2000 vs 6000.

Let's be honest, Mr. Leroy Fodor. You just came here to hawk your snake oil. Ha Ha HAHA JAJAJA! Follow the first link in my sig to get up to speed folks; Click the second one for a good laugh, as in HAHA!

Leroy's timeline within 6 month period:

Massive solar power bitcoin mining operation burned to the grown in the Philippines.
Came to this forum and begged for coins because he was flat broke and Filipinos suck (his words).
Couple months later had the largest bitcoin mining farm in all the Philippines.