Topic: Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 3. (Read 25071 times)

I just made 4 transactions. Paid 0.001 each time. They all got confirmed in a block in ... I dunno 20 minutes. (I actually wanted to increase the tx fee, but the reference core client wouldn't let me.)

Each transaction except the last one was about 60kb. I tried to do a large transaction of 170kb but the reference core client wouldn't let me, said it was "too large". I looked up a few sites and found out that transactions above 100kb are not standard, so I broke up my thousands of inputs into 3 transactions. The 4th transaction was a consolidation of the previous three, to send to where I had intended to send originally.

So, I paid 0.004 total. Not so bad for 170kb total. This would only be a concern if the absolute total bitcoin amount was small. If you're moving 10 BTC or more, 0.001 isn't so bad, and you could get away with smaller, 0.0001.

Is the little guy squeezed out?

I believe they should just raise it 1mb more to allow the time to atleast talk it out and it won't dramatically cut the little guys out because of the cost. 

Suppose I create a faucet.

I claim that I will give 1 satoshi for every request that is made through some web form. Meaning, any user who inserts his btc address will get 1 satoshi from me.

I place no limits on how many times users do that. A user may do it 100mn times and he'll get 1 BTC.

I am willing to pay 1 satoshi for fees per transaction (250 bytes).

So for every user who wants 1 satoshi, I pay 1 to him and 1 to fees.

What do you think will happen in terms of network demand?

Even if you have 10MB blocks, they'll be full.

My cost for doing that, and assuming nobody else transacted in the network, would be:

10mb per block / 250 bytes per tx = 40k txs per block x 144 blocks per day = 5.760.000 txs per day, moving 1 satoshi each and paying 1 satoshi in fees each = 11.52mn satoshi = 0.1152 btc per day.

So for 0.1152 btc per day, I can have 10mb blocks full by running a faucet that hands out money to everyone, no strings and no limits attached.

The number is 1.1152 btc per day for 100MB blocks, of which 0.576 btc will be donated to the users and the other 0.576 will go the network as fees.

For 11 btc per day, even 1 GB blocks can be full while users are scrambling to take the 5.76 BTCs that I'm donating (another 5.76 will go in fees).

As long as there are nodes relaying and miners mining my txs, this is quite achievable.

Do you understand why "blocks full" is irrelevant? The lower the cost of transacting, the bigger the demand for cheap txs, ensuring "blocks are full" for any capacity scenario (even 1gb blocks).

I'm seeing this right now: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

In the last 24 hours, 512 txs had zero fees. Another 36000 txs had fees ranging from 1 to 9 satoshi per byte. So ~36500 txs were in the range of 0$ to 0.01$ in fees.

If there was real congestion, you wouldn't see these kind of transactions getting processed. They'd need at least 5-10x in fees.

https://blockchain.info/nl/block-height/431209
https://blockchain.info/nl/block-height/431108
https://blockchain.info/nl/block-height/431103
https://blockchain.info/nl/block-height/431033
https://blockchain.info/nl/block-height/430749

We are reaching 1MB blocks a lot.

Also more than half the blocks are at least 900 kB now.

I hope it reach the 1MB limit . Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Hello OP I would assume when you made this post a while ago that when you said to increase the block size limit you meant for the core development team to do a hard fork just like the proposal of the XT backers?

Fast forward to today and knowing what we know now, specifically with Ethereum's hard fork fiasco where the result was the original chain has become its own competitor, do still think the core developers should still hurry up and do the hard fork now? 

The sheer amount of comments about this topic, from people who know little or nothing - gives me a headache.  Learn from the Ethereum hard fork please - that had more consensus than this does and observe what happened. Mainstream media don't even discuss Ethereum, the press Bitcoin would get - would set it back years in the minds of the tech scared.

mempool it isn't full now. unfortunatelly bitcoin is under Blockstream hands.
bitcoinfork will happen lately.

By the time the blocksizes becomes large like that the advance in technology would cause almost everyone to have internet speed and hard drive sizes that would make even 130Mb/s look like a joke.

We can't limit ourselves by worrying about the size of the blockchain in 5/10 years because by then the hard drives would be orders of magnitude cheaper than today anyway, and so would internet speed.

We need bigger blocks.

You are correct that this issue isn't nearly as pressing as supporters of immediate blocksize increases would suggest, but it is untrue that there is no backlog of unconfirmed transactions; any node running 0.12.0 should easily be able to max out its mempool with unconfirmed transactions, many of which will likely never confirm. This is true at 1MB blocks, would be true at 2MB blocks, and potentially at ANY block size because, as sturle stated, it is FREE to spam the network with free transactions (or transactions which will never confirm, as these are never actually spent). I run a Core node and have lowered my mempool limit to 100MB to just catch the, "upper crust", of transactions--there would be a lot more if I left the limit higher (300MB is the default). At the moment, this is the report of the getmempoolinfo call:

{
  "size": 4172,
  "bytes": 44798273,
  "usage": 96574336,
  "maxmempool": 100000000,
  "mempoolminfee": 0.00001183
}

The min fee under which my node will not relay transactions is 0.00001183BTC/kB; this is extremely close to the default required fee of 0.00001 and seriously a non-issue. I've seen my mempoolminfee hit about 0.00002, but that's about it. Granted, transactions still may not confirm at these fee rates, but that should be understandable considering how low these fees actually are. I tested sending a couple transactions at very low fees within the last couple weeks, one with a fee rate of ~0.00005BTC/kB, which took about 20 hours to confirm, and one at ~0.00007777BTC/kB, which confirmed in two blocks. Core's floating estimates generally suggest a minimum fee hovering around ~0.0002BTC/kB, so if you use anything that makes similar estimates (I know Mycelium also does something similar), there should be no issues getting your transactions to confirm.

EDIT: Just sent a tx at ~0.000051BTC/kB; it confirmed in the next block.

Only 700 unconfirmed transaction now.

I feel like every day its getting smaller and smaller, I dont see any evidence that its getting too big.

Just many shills thats all.

Don't worry, the Evil Chinese aren't going to kill Honey Badger.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-details-100-million-georgia-data-center/
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kncminer/funding-rounds
http://www.coindesk.com/21-record-116-million-funding-all-star-investors/
http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/spondoolies-tech-gets-5-million-in-series-b-funding-aiming-for-16-nm-asic-in-2015/

Bitfury 9.74%
KnC 3.8% mining classic blocks exclusively
21 Don't even register... solved a block days ago?
Spoondoolies  That Guy who wants to change the PoW? do they have a pool?

Bitfury?  Not Chinese.
KnC?  Not Chinese either.
21e6?  Again, not Chinese.
Spondoolies?  Chinese!  Oh wait no, still not Chinese.

Why don't you wait until we get to an AMD/Intel/Nvidia type oligopoly before you starting fretting about Yellow Peril.

Didn't you know? Being expensive is your greatest advantage against budding competitors...

People will pay more for the sanctity of decentralization embodied by four giant chinese chicken coops.

Blocksize will be increased eventually.  But sorry, Not Tonight Dear.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates

That's nothing.  Blockchain.info must do some kind of filtering.  I have 437 MB of unconfirmed transactions in my mempool.  Average fee is 1.05 satoshi/byte, i.e. nothing to worry about.  Keeping the mempool artificially large by spamming free transactions is free, and doesn't impact conformation time of any normal transactions.  Keeping blocks full is free as well.  This is a non-issue.

Hi guys!
I'm new to the blocksize debate. I have one question though (please excuse me if it is stupid or if it was already ecplained).
Why is there only blockSIZE debate and not a blockTIME debate? If I understand the concept correctly, time can be manipulated without any hardforks.
Thanks for your answer(s)!