probably there is spam going on
I use a service that needs 0.0005 BTC each time I use it. I do not want to pay a high fee for such a small transaction. For Bitcoin to grow, that should be possible. My bank does not tell me I am not allowed to make a small payment without paying a fee. Bitcoin should not be more expensive than my bank. 
Topic: Blocks are full. Are pool owners sleeping ? - page 2. (Read 2389 times)
increasing block size will increase low fee transaction
and miners will be in loss
i think this is a right blocksize
probably there is spam going on
and miners will be in loss
i think this is a right blocksize
probably there is spam going on
Again, extremely small sample set. 50 blocks? Come on, now 
. In the last 2 diff changes AntPool has ~12% of its blocks empty. When I ran the data yesterday 223 of their 1870 blocks were empty.
223 blocks multiplied by an average 1500 transactions per block: 334500 transactions that could have been confirmed but weren't.
That's one pool - granted they are the worst offending one.
So, how about everyone stops mining on the pools producing the empty blocks and starts mining on pools that properly validate the work and always have transactions in the mempool? Once that happens and we are straining against the limit of the block size, then we can worry about increasing it.
. In the last 2 diff changes AntPool has ~12% of its blocks empty. When I ran the data yesterday 223 of their 1870 blocks were empty.223 blocks multiplied by an average 1500 transactions per block: 334500 transactions that could have been confirmed but weren't.
That's one pool - granted they are the worst offending one.
So, how about everyone stops mining on the pools producing the empty blocks and starts mining on pools that properly validate the work and always have transactions in the mempool? Once that happens and we are straining against the limit of the block size, then we can worry about increasing it.
Chinese and some other miners mining empty blocks is a bigger problem IMO.
Among last 50 blocks (404865 - 404816) only 4 blocks are below 0.9mb, whereas only 1 is empty block. The empty block (404827), mined by AntPool was released within a minute of the last block mined by Bitfury before. So, it is clear, that they released the one they immediately hit. In a tight market like mining, u can not expect someone to wave out 25 BTC. 
Chinese and some other miners mining empty blocks is a bigger problem IMO.
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
I agree. Transactions used to be much faster than they are now. How can Bitcoin become mainstream if transactions are not processed within reasonable time?
Just posting a screenshot and stating that the last 30 blocks have been full, and there are still unconfirmed transactions doesn't give the whole picture.
On my pool, prior to the latest block (404861) I had just over 2000 transactions in my mempool with just over 1BTC in fees. When Bitfury hit the block, my mempool went down to under 30 transactions.
My point being that the vast majority of the unconfirmed transactions on the network right now don't meet the rate limiter qualifications - i.e. they are spam or very low fee transactions that most pools are simply going to ignore until such time as the higher-paying, higher-priority transactions are processed.
Don't get me wrong - I support larger blocks. However, you are taking a very small sample set to make your argument.
On my pool, prior to the latest block (404861) I had just over 2000 transactions in my mempool with just over 1BTC in fees. When Bitfury hit the block, my mempool went down to under 30 transactions.
My point being that the vast majority of the unconfirmed transactions on the network right now don't meet the rate limiter qualifications - i.e. they are spam or very low fee transactions that most pools are simply going to ignore until such time as the higher-paying, higher-priority transactions are processed.
Don't get me wrong - I support larger blocks. However, you are taking a very small sample set to make your argument.
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
SegWit is in pipeline, Lightning Network helps... all I agree. But, raising blocksize to 2mb wont break the decentralization either. In fact, Adam Back, Matt Corallo et all has already promised this to happen in 2017. So, if something is not broken in 2017, that is not broken in 2016 either. 
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail.
Did u even understand the meaning of this statement ?Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
100% of the last 30 blocks (404860 - 404828) are over 0.9mb. 2000+ BTC in Tx fee available from 6618 transactions. Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeujvdAWEAALL9p.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ceu3htGWwAAvR8B.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeujvdAWEAALL9p.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ceu3htGWwAAvR8B.jpg
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail.
100% of the last 30 blocks (404860 - 404828) are over 0.9mb. 2000+ BTC in Tx fee available from 6618 transactions. Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
Jump to: