Topic: Blocks are full. - page 7. (Read 14985 times)

+1

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000006a501607938025b9b10c2e4c61db861ff1b03724fb09300

some are ''full'', some are full of shit

i think it is the only solutiuon is to increasce size limit.

yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit

Do these miners have poor internet connections? It is very difficulty to find a balance between more transaction fees and orphan blocks.

Sorry, but you're wrong on a few points here. 

Increasing fees is not a substitute for increasing thoroughput.  And it never will be.

Also, you don't seem to understand that miners will always be (marginally) profitable.
Those that aren't profitable will stop mining.

Many miners still use the soft cap which is like 720kb.  So that's considered a full block.

The blocks are not exactly full.

the biggest problem is one simply cannot just increase the fee. once you send the bitcoin with whatever fee you decided, if you find out its not enough you are screwed.

Sorry i can't let these statements stand this way.

Just increase the fee and your transaction goes through. But don't you realize that this means that at the end of the line legit users, who paid legit fees, will be pushed out and never implemented too at one point in time? The higher the amount of transactions that want to be included the higher the fee. And that means you sending a transaction will never be sure that you added enough fee. All the others might have thought that a higher fee is needed already. And you are out.

Surely that is very bad for bitcoin. Imagine using your bank, doing a bank wire and then you have to wait three days. Only then you know if your transaction went through or not. That is a plain stupid payment system and users will run away in masses.

Well... it would solve the problem, less users more space in blocks. 


What are you speaking about? It did not get more expensive in that way, it is too profitable. So that more and more miners want to have their share of the rewards. Some months ago we already had a network that was 100 times more secure than needed. Which means you easily could drop 99% of all mining hashrate and bitcoin still would be secure. And oh wonder, what do you think how rewarding mining would be for the 1%?

It did not get more expensive. Only too many want to play with it. Simple market rules.

By the way... giving out these high rewards make the network a huge mess for power consumption. There was a study some months ago that claimed that one regular bitcoin transaction consumes as much electricity like 1.75 average US households use in one day. 1!!! normal transaction. Bigger transactions eat even more.

Again, this shows we have way way too many miners. And we have too many miners because mining is way too rewarding.

That the one who can produce miners the most cheap has an advantage is clear too.


There is no right for miners to stay profitable. What do you think will happen when we pay double the fee now? Simply more miner will find that mining is profitable and they will fill up. Mining is expensive again.

Sorry, higher rewards is no solution at all.

Though SPV Mining only has a small advantage in time. There was an experiment i have read about that used Mikes Network, or whatever it is named, to check out if SPV-Mining is needed to prevent you block being orphaned. Matts network is a relay network that propagates new found blocks in a very short time to many big nodes. So reaching 50% as fast as possible.

Turned out that system was faster than SPV mining.

Don't know anymore where i have read that.

I didn't *subconsciously* poke fun at the 'manipulator and saboteur' story, it was wholly intentional. Ridiculous hyperbole can't be responded to seriously, that would be feeding the trolls.

I concluded nothing about your statement "Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough. "

You didn't say anything about what it actually means, so I ran with your inference asked a series of questions!

If those questions upset you then I am very sorry.

However, if you didn't even laugh a bit at the graph then I'm afraid you may have a terminal case of 'taking yourself too seriously'!

OH GOD ANOTHER ATTACK SAVE US

have at it. I am wearing a silly hat after all.

Full blocks are no big deal - just increase the fee to a reasonable level and your transaction should go through no problem.

The problem with Bitcoin is that the network has become VERY expensive to maintain and is borderline unprofitable for most miners. As a result, nearly all the mining has been concentrated in China where space and power are cheap.

It is very unrealistic to assume that the price of Bitcoin will just increase arbitrarily to ensure miners stay profitable. That assumes a continuous increase in the number of investors who horde the coin. With prices down from a peak of $1000+ to under $400, many prospective investors got cold feet and it can easily be argued that the long term trend is now down not up. If BTC is used primarily for transactions the price could fall back to $100, or $40, or $5. There is really no floor.

I wish and pray when we all hear that Blocks are opened for every one since it makes no sense to keep Blocks Full and restrcted for longer time without increasing their size. Manipulation no way is acceptable in any sphere of life including BTC and pray BTC would be in safe hands always to give away more opportunities to all others.

well you must fork to apply the next change, be it soft or hard fork, you need to do it

there was a thread asking why it's not simply possible to soft fork with a simple capacity increase, since it is only a simple change in the code, from 1 to 2mb...

I may very well belong to those untechnical, but to may understanding some blocks are empty, because some pools decide to distribute work that way.

Some pools never mine empty blocks (e.g.) Kano.is.

Every block has plenty of transactions

https://kano.is/index.php?k=blocks

Wel its those untechnical people who cant understand why you cant have every Blocks close to 1 MB, and why some blocks are empty.

Also there are peak times with high usage when users suffers unecessary waiting for confirmation already - not good for any business, not good for Bitcoin either.

This is the conclusion that you've just come to, on your own. I have never said such a thing nor assumed it. Nice to see what your subconscious is thinking about. One must learn to embrace the personal attacks though.

They guy from April 2013 tells the guy from August 2014 that he can tell that there is manipulation and sabotage, he can tell from some of the pixels and having seen a few sabotages in his time!

What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said, anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur.

This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin?

No, I think I have it! Maybe its more like the Ballmer peak: