Topic: Delayed transactions (Read 920 times)
It has become normal, actually using bank transfer is quicker than bitcoin at the moment, and also cheaper if you live in a SEPA zone...
It is sometimes difficult for a newbie to know whether a spam attack is in progress. It's too late to do anything when the transaction is send with a standard 0.0001 fee. So it is good practice to check the network before sending. An easy way is to check:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
In recent months the pending transactions are far more than the limit of current block size.you could see the bar in here Cointape.com . So the senders have to pay more than recommended fees to get the transactions confirmed! https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
No i dont think so, its normal,its happen sometime,but i rare to find delayed like this,i feel it when i receive payment from sigcamp
It is sometimes difficult for a newbie to know whether a spam attack is in progress. It's too late to do anything when the transaction is send with a standard 0.0001 fee. So it is good practice to check the network before sending. An easy way is to check:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
Then Bitcoin is done in its current stage. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
The bitcoin network is handling spam quite well in my opinion, it is far from done. Watching fee trends is necessary irrespective of blocksize limit. I support the increase of the limit. Even when the limit is raised, we would still need to watch fee during peak times.
-snip-
Having artificially limit does not provide any meaningful prevention. Nodes should have better rules for that and there are already antispam filter rules you can use.
Having artificially limit does not provide any meaningful prevention. Nodes should have better rules for that and there are already antispam filter rules you can use.
Should have or are implemented? Examples?
-attack on person no real argument-
The only valid argument regarding bigger blocks is blocks relaying. Sadly we dont any useful discussion about it on this forum. You can search elsewhere for that. Its been discussed and being tested right now.
BIP101 is not a rush, its already conservative. The blocksize limit debate has been going on for more than 2 yrs now. Slowing down is just a dumb reflection of the topic.
The only valid argument regarding bigger blocks is blocks relaying. Sadly we dont any useful discussion about it on this forum. You can search elsewhere for that. Its been discussed and being tested right now.
BIP101 is not a rush, its already conservative. The blocksize limit debate has been going on for more than 2 yrs now. Slowing down is just a dumb reflection of the topic.
Increased costs for private run 24/7 nodes might not be an issue for you, but for me it is. Without pruning I could not continue to run my node. Just because its not an issue for you does not mean its not an issue. This is exactly the point. The goal is to keep a higher number of full nodes because they are important for the network. O(1) propagation is discussed and tested yes, but from what I read not read to go live. Same for pruning with wallets.
BIP101 addresses none of the issues, but TX spam related delays. The most recent attack (sig OP spam) would still be possible and would still have resulted in higher fees, there are over 10k TX in backlog constantly, yet not all blocks are full. This is not solved by just increasing the size. Its also dangerous to just force a fork on the live network as the last test on testnet have shown. If miners would switch to BIP101/XT en masse without further agreement from the rest of the bitcoin community it would very likely make the network unusable for weeks.
-snip-
Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes.
Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes.
Its prevents spam that fills up the disks of nodes, which is why it was implemented.
This has been covered many times. I get sick of seeing this same false BS feed by Blockstream folks.
I have no affiliations with that company. I think block should be bigger you might have missed that. I just think it should not be rushed.
-snip-
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
The argument is not "we have time", but "better slow and good instead of rushed and broken".
Having artificially limit does not provide any meaningful prevention. Nodes should have better rules for that and there are already antispam filter rules you can use.
Stop with this nonsense b4 embarrassing yourself.
The only valid argument regarding bigger blocks is blocks relaying. Sadly we dont any useful discussion about it on this forum. You can search elsewhere for that. Its been discussed and being tested right now.
BIP101 is not a rush, its already conservative. The blocksize limit debate has been going on for more than 2 yrs now. Slowing down is just a dumb reflection of the topic.
-snip-
Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes.
Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes.
Its prevents spam that fills up the disks of nodes, which is why it was implemented.
This has been covered many times. I get sick of seeing this same false BS feed by Blockstream folks.
I have no affiliations with that company. I think block should be bigger you might have missed that. I just think it should not be rushed.
-snip-
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
The argument is not "we have time", but "better slow and good instead of rushed and broken".
It is sometimes difficult for a newbie to know whether a spam attack is in progress. It's too late to do anything when the transaction is send with a standard 0.0001 fee. So it is good practice to check the network before sending. An easy way is to check:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
Then Bitcoin is done in its current stage.
Stupid ppl still argue that "we have lots of time." " blocksize limit is there because of spam"
How about you stop being cheap and start including a higher fee? I've had no problems transacting ever (IIRC). I add a pretty high fee and it ends up usually confirming within the next block. Another factor to consider is the priority of your coins on your addresses (could be e.g. low). If you combine a lower fee with that it could explain your situation in general.
-snip-
How about you got a fucking clue b4 openning your mouth like an idiot?-snip-
Its true though, most issues due to attacks (spam TX, OP spam) are solved by paying a higher fee.
Cheap is a relative term. Unless you're too narrow minded to see bitcoin needs to work for many other countries beside USA.
Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.
Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.
Your metaphor is bad. The blocksize limit was put in place in fear of spam. So its like Netflix allowing only X movies or episodes to be watched at a time over all users because they are afraid their servers cant handle the load, which might crash the service and affect all users. Im pretty sure Netflix has these limits put in place, but because its a central service its easy for them to increase the limits (more servers, more bandwith). Bitcoin handled the spam very well, the question is whether there will be enough people running nodes if the blocksize is increased too high and if there are actually bigger blocks despite a higher limite because miners are afraid of orphans. There are possible solutions. Rushing to the first best is not a good idea though.
Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.
Not all of them are full out of the last six blocks.
Height Age Transactions Total Sent Relayed By Size (kB)
386078 21 minutes 284 1,337.94 BTC F2Pool 976.54
386077 22 minutes 1808 36,261.60 BTC BitFury 971.84
386076 30 minutes 1720 31,228.98 BTC BitFury 968.77
386075 49 minutes 1450 49,481.13 BTC AntPool 912.46
386074 1 hour 0 minutes 2232 34,151.33 BTC KnCMiner 912.66
386073 1 hour 12 minutes 2 25.26 BTC BTCC Pool 0.42
The last block by BTCC Pool was 0.42 kB in size compared to over 900 kB for all the other five blocks. BTCC Pool could help alleviate this attack on the network by including its fair share of transactions in its blocks.
...because BTCC found the block 386072 as well within the same minute. They flush their mempool once they found a block AFAIK.
Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes. This has been covered many times. I get sick of seeing this same false BS feed by Blockstream folks.
It is sometimes difficult for a newbie to know whether a spam attack is in progress. It's too late to do anything when the transaction is send with a standard 0.0001 fee. So it is good practice to check the network before sending. An easy way is to check:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
Follow the optimal fee specified on the page, can't go wrong.
Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.
Not all of them are full out of the last six blocks.
Height Age Transactions Total Sent Relayed By Size (kB)
386078 21 minutes 284 1,337.94 BTC F2Pool 976.54
386077 22 minutes 1808 36,261.60 BTC BitFury 971.84
386076 30 minutes 1720 31,228.98 BTC BitFury 968.77
386075 49 minutes 1450 49,481.13 BTC AntPool 912.46
386074 1 hour 0 minutes 2232 34,151.33 BTC KnCMiner 912.66
386073 1 hour 12 minutes 2 25.26 BTC BTCC Pool 0.42
The last block by BTCC Pool was 0.42 kB in size compared to over 900 kB for all the other five blocks. BTCC Pool could help alleviate this attack on the network by including its fair share of transactions in its blocks.
What part of " alot " dont you understand?
All the blocks you listed, only one block by BTCC pool (thanks to their " block priority" feature for their exchange customers), that certainly fits "alot" perfectly.
Seems to be a big spam attack clogging everything up and it also doesn't help with the way certain pools are working.
How about you stop being cheap and start including a higher fee? I've had no problems transacting ever (IIRC). I add a pretty high fee and it ends up usually confirming within the next block. Another factor to consider is the priority of your coins on your addresses (could be e.g. low). If you combine a lower fee with that it could explain your situation in general.
-snip-
How about you got a fucking clue b4 openning your mouth like an idiot?-snip-
Its true though, most issues due to attacks (spam TX, OP spam) are solved by paying a higher fee.
Cheap is a relative term. Unless you're too narrow minded to see bitcoin needs to work for many other countries beside USA.
Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.
Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.
Your metaphor is bad. The blocksize limit was put in place in fear of spam. So its like Netflix allowing only X movies or episodes to be watched at a time over all users because they are afraid their servers cant handle the load, which might crash the service and affect all users. Im pretty sure Netflix has these limits put in place, but because its a central service its easy for them to increase the limits (more servers, more bandwith). Bitcoin handled the spam very well, the question is whether there will be enough people running nodes if the blocksize is increased too high and if there are actually bigger blocks despite a higher limite because miners are afraid of orphans. There are possible solutions. Rushing to the first best is not a good idea though.
Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.
Not all of them are full out of the last six blocks.
Height Age Transactions Total Sent Relayed By Size (kB)
386078 21 minutes 284 1,337.94 BTC F2Pool 976.54
386077 22 minutes 1808 36,261.60 BTC BitFury 971.84
386076 30 minutes 1720 31,228.98 BTC BitFury 968.77
386075 49 minutes 1450 49,481.13 BTC AntPool 912.46
386074 1 hour 0 minutes 2232 34,151.33 BTC KnCMiner 912.66
386073 1 hour 12 minutes 2 25.26 BTC BTCC Pool 0.42
The last block by BTCC Pool was 0.42 kB in size compared to over 900 kB for all the other five blocks. BTCC Pool could help alleviate this attack on the network by including its fair share of transactions in its blocks.
...because BTCC found the block 386072 as well within the same minute. They flush their mempool once they found a block AFAIK.
Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.
Not all of them are full out of the last six blocks.
Height Age Transactions Total Sent Relayed By Size (kB)
386078 21 minutes 284 1,337.94 BTC F2Pool 976.54
386077 22 minutes 1808 36,261.60 BTC BitFury 971.84
386076 30 minutes 1720 31,228.98 BTC BitFury 968.77
386075 49 minutes 1450 49,481.13 BTC AntPool 912.46
386074 1 hour 0 minutes 2232 34,151.33 BTC KnCMiner 912.66
386073 1 hour 12 minutes 2 25.26 BTC BTCC Pool 0.42
The last block by BTCC Pool was 0.42 kB in size compared to over 900 kB for all the other five blocks. BTCC Pool could help alleviate this attack on the network by including its fair share of transactions in its blocks.
How about you stop being cheap and start including a higher fee? I've had no problems transacting ever (IIRC). I add a pretty high fee and it ends up usually confirming within the next block. Another factor to consider is the priority of your coins on your addresses (could be e.g. low). If you combine a lower fee with that it could explain your situation in general.
Blockchain.info has nothing to do with the BTC blockchain. There is an ongoing spam attack, so to confirm you need to pay a higher fee right now, thats all.
They should have never chosen that name. People tend to confuse both terms even though they're quite different. How about you got a fucking clue b4 openning your mouth like an idiot?
Cheap is a relative term. Unless you're too narrow minded to see bitcoin needs to work for many other countries beside USA.
Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.
Interesting it seems im not depoisiting my btc anywhere for now 
from yesterday BITCOIN transactions are taking time
are you feeling or just normal
or due to yesterday blockchain.info status ?
are you feeling or just normal
or due to yesterday blockchain.info status ?
Bitcoin does not depend on a website. Blockchain.info is simply a website that shows information about the bitcoin network. Compare to a television guide site does not show have an effect on the television signal.
Usually bitcoin transactions take anywhere from five minutes to an hour.
Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.
How about you stop being cheap and start including a higher fee? I've had no problems transacting ever (IIRC). I add a pretty high fee and it ends up usually confirming within the next block. Another factor to consider is the priority of your coins on your addresses (could be e.g. low). If you combine a lower fee with that it could explain your situation in general.
Blockchain.info has nothing to do with the BTC blockchain. There is an ongoing spam attack, so to confirm you need to pay a higher fee right now, thats all.
They should have never chosen that name. People tend to confuse both terms even though they're quite different. from yesterday BITCOIN transactions are taking time
are you feeling or just normal
or due to yesterday blockchain.info status ?
are you feeling or just normal
or due to yesterday blockchain.info status ?
My transactions have been flowing as usual. What fee are you using? are you using the suggested fee as you should? Im using Bitcoin Core, and it suggest a default fee, I have always used this fee and I have never had any problems of transactions taking too long. What wallet are you using? maybe you are setting a fee that is way too low and it has problems to complete the transaction.
If you are talking about blockchain (the website) then just use another wallet.
my primary wallet is wagecan , but my bitcoins are coming from different investment sites
yes, they have low fees
Jump to: