...
88,000 + now. I have not checked to see what fees now have to be to get a confirmation in 1 - 2 blocks.
I read earlier in this thread that rising BTC price correlates with increasing activity and longer confirmation times. Today's unconfirmeds would tend to be more evidence of just that.
I'll just take a break from BTC activity until the number of unconfirmeds comes down.
Topic: Egad. 81,000 + Transactions Unconfirmed. Again. Ugh! - page 4. (Read 8851 times)
is cheaper fee related to security? since when? just related to miners being greedy to me
Highest fees will not make investor style people filthy rich as an automatism. Most if not all of them are totally neglecting that they aren't pool operators.
Users that are operating a just so tiniest amount of negligible hashrate tend to fall for a similar illusion. Dreaming of ROI, even.
But mass adopter's attention will be drawn away from even considering Bitcoin if they get a glance onto horrenduous costs for using it.
And we know Metcalfe's law and the network effects that give value to any digital currency. Most of the coins are lacking on that, never gaining any potential. Bitcoin has it as a first mover, but seems willing to risk it's foundations.
If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.
So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?
is cheaper fee related to security? since when? just related to miners being greedy to me
If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.
So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?
Simple fact: Imagine this person who JUST recently heard about bitcoin where its value is derived from people who buy it (currently $1,100), no banks, no government, no central entity involved. And its transferable ONLINE. Wow! Amazing!
But then it confirms in one to two days because of congestion.. And then he has to pay higher fees to get in front of a queue that will continually try to outbid one another. What do you think he'll do? Back to bank/ATM/creditcards/Paypal...
For those who actually use bitcoin on a regular basis, these will not do. If some central entity promises they will take care of your balance in any online crypto service for a smaller fee, that's a big demand already caused by the backlog. For example, Coinbase and Coinbase-connected businesses and services.
Segwit is just a first aid to this problem, Segwit is not really the solution. They must think of the new way and it must be really fast.
This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.
That is what the people from Bitcoin Unlimited will tell you. The real solution is for Bitcoin to have a scalable network working on top of it. Bitcoin itself will still be useful as a settlement layer. Please also be aware that politics and the quest for control is a key factor on why many do not want to activate Segwit. This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.
Didn't we stumpled upon Bitcoin to get away from intermediate layers? Those additional layers tend to held open their hands for some feeees. That nickle'n'dime concept.
No. I became interested in Bitcoin because it is a decentralized, censorship resistant, value transfer network. I do not know what you mean about intermediate layers but the Lightning Network can be seen as a leverage against the greedy miners.
Quote
A successfull cyber currency could handle bazillions of transfers for nuthin'
Everything below that line isn't exactly a revolution. Bitcoin has to change, to reach these promises.
Everything below that line isn't exactly a revolution. Bitcoin has to change, to reach these promises.
For a Legendary you still have not realized how inefficient and slow consensus is in Bitcoin. Before you say something stupid like "bazillions of transfers for nuthin" you should realize what you need for that is a centralized service.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Fact is, there is almost no argument on scaling between bitcoin developers, path is quite clear.
Lol. Obviously this is false.
Many prominent developers have long advocated for a simple
blocksize increase including Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Satoshi Nakamoto.
Even core claimed "lack of consensus" as their reason why changes haven't been made.
You simply cannot claim there is no controversy with any shred of credibility.
I don't know how the devs team going to solve this problem as they still argue each other.
Yeah, you get this impression from reading this forum
Fact is, there is almost no argument on scaling between bitcoin developers, path is quite clear. The path is however blocked by some businessmen who do not agree with it.They have neither expertise nor a clear understanding, they just have profit in mind and the proposed solution would kill their future profit. So they invent one stumbling block after another - classic/xt/bu - just to not allow bitcoin to progress to infinite scalability. But bitcoin will shake them off, like all the other small obstacles like China and government regulation. Just takes time.
...
As I write there is another huge number of transactions in limbo.
Time to solve this problem, guys (lead developers). Shape-up and fix this.
I grow somewhat disenchanted w/ BTC, even w/ paying higher fee (when I can) or w/ acceleration.
This problem cannot be solved as long as we don't have bigger block size I think, too many transaction in every second and miners can't afford all of them. I don't know how the devs team going to solve this problem as they still argue each other. Now we have 37866 unconfirmed transaction and still increasing. It makes us have to wait longer than before and pay more fee in every transaction. As I write there is another huge number of transactions in limbo.
Time to solve this problem, guys (lead developers). Shape-up and fix this.
I grow somewhat disenchanted w/ BTC, even w/ paying higher fee (when I can) or w/ acceleration.
If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.
So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?
If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.
Broken logic
It's not even an attempt at logic, just an unbacked assertion.
Yes, and $1840 per megabyte, so what was your point exactly?
Bitcoin fees should be pennies not dollars.
There is no need to charge high fees right now (recent spike in fees is due to artificial blocksize scarcity).
I just love the hypocrisy of these small blockers. They claim that since the network
isn't completely congested, there's no problem "right now"... and then claim we need
to address fee based security concerns that won't be an issue for decades.
Fees being pennies vs dollars is such an arbitrary claim
That's like saying:
"Fuck demand and supply, computers need to cost dollars, not hundreds of dollars.
Broken logic
Bitcoin fees should be pennies not dollars.
If the BTC price keeps on increasing, fees must rise with it to keep the fees to pennies (0.001 BTC fee would be $10 at only $10,000 per BTC with 1MB blocksize).
You're going to have to admit, BU "scaling" doesn't scale up at all. Even a $20,000 price, which is a pretty modest medium term expectation, would cause untold problems. No-one seriously thinks that blocksizes big enough to give you your penny fees at those price levels is a sane direction to go in.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Yes, and $1840 per megabyte, so what was your point exactly?
Bitcoin fees should be pennies not dollars.
There is no need to charge high fees right now (recent spike in fees is due to artificial blocksize scarcity).
I just love the hypocrisy of these small blockers. They claim that since the network
isn't completely congested, there's no problem "right now"... and then claim we need
to address fee based security concerns that won't be an issue for decades.
which means they wants to let the people using their services to get their transactions confirmed faster than the rest? or even something similar to selfish mining, not even giving priority for high fees yet not in their service? what the shit are those miners doing, this could have ruined the fairness of competition.
No... no... I am not saying that the miners are already doing something like this. I am just saying that there is a chance of this occurring in the not too distant future. I am just concerned by the way in which some of the miners behave right now. They've got too much power. Eligius pool once did a fair share of zerofee transactions in their blocks. However since flooding the mempool has become a favorite sport this level of altruism is history everywhere.
by minutes I mean minutes. all txs sent with 160 satoshis per byte went out in 1-2 blocks, which is anywhere from 0 to 30 minutes. try it at least once...
bitcoin is perfectly fine, what is not fine is the army of trolls pushing their masters political agenda. this we should definitely get rid of, its a nuisance to actual developers and actual community.
bitcoin is perfectly fine, what is not fine is the army of trolls pushing their masters political agenda. this we should definitely get rid of, its a nuisance to actual developers and actual community.
Yes, and $1840 per megabyte, so what was your point exactly? If you just wanted to demonstrate your complete intellectual disability, there are simpler ways than crafting a meme.
In this situation, I can foresee the risk of certain Bitcoin exchanges colluding with the miners, in order to prioritize the transactions by their users. For example, Coinbase can make a deal with Ghash or Eligius, and whenever these mining pools mine a block they will prioritize transactions by the Coinbase users. A bit far-fetched, but theoretically possible.
which means they wants to let the people using their services to get their transactions confirmed faster than the rest? or even something similar to selfish mining, not even giving priority for high fees yet not in their service? what the shit are those miners doing, this could have ruined the fairness of competition.
No... no... I am not saying that the miners are already doing something like this. I am just saying that there is a chance of this occurring in the not too distant future. I am just concerned by the way in which some of the miners behave right now. They've got too much power.
In this situation, I can foresee the risk of certain Bitcoin exchanges colluding with the miners, in order to prioritize the transactions by their users. For example, Coinbase can make a deal with Ghash or Eligius, and whenever these mining pools mine a block they will prioritize transactions by the Coinbase users. A bit far-fetched, but theoretically possible.
which means they wants to let the people using their services to get their transactions confirmed faster than the rest? or even something similar to selfish mining, not even giving priority for high fees yet not in their service? what the shit are those miners doing, this could have ruined the fairness of competition.
In this situation, I can foresee the risk of certain Bitcoin exchanges colluding with the miners, in order to prioritize the transactions by their users. For example, Coinbase can make a deal with Ghash or Eligius, and whenever these mining pools mine a block they will prioritize transactions by the Coinbase users. A bit far-fetched, but theoretically possible.
Segwit is just a first aid to this problem, Segwit is not really the solution. They must think of the new way and it must be really fast.
This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.
That is what the people from Bitcoin Unlimited will tell you. The real solution is for Bitcoin to have a scalable network working on top of it. Bitcoin itself will still be useful as a settlement layer. Please also be aware that politics and the quest for control is a key factor on why many do not want to activate Segwit. This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.
Didn't we stumpled upon Bitcoin to get away from intermediate layers? Those additional layers tend to held open their hands for some feeees. That nickle'n'dime concept.
A successfull cyber currency could handle bazillions of transfers for nuthin'
Everything below that line isn't exactly a revolution. Bitcoin has to change, to reach these promises.
Jump to: