Thank you for all your precisions!
I think you answered all my question so thank you again.
My transaction is still stocked but from the sites you gave me I understand it's not really something abnormal as there is again a huge congestion of transaction. I though Electrum adapted the fee depending on the current use of the network but it seems like it doesn't adapt well enough...
Topic: I don't understand the Mempool data (Read 598 times)
Oh, well I guess it would make sense. Thank you for yours answer.
But do you guys have a site to follow unconfirmed transactions? Because I use this one:
https://www.bitcoinqueue.com/
Firstly each site will be different because there is no such things "the mempool". Rather there are the mempools of every node on the network, and each one will probably be different as there are different node policies and transaction propagations.But do you guys have a site to follow unconfirmed transactions? Because I use this one:
https://www.bitcoinqueue.com/
That said, there are multiple sites to see what the status of their mempool is. This may be indicative of the actual network status, it may not. You can check out Statoshi, Shorena's full node stats, and Tradeblock. There are definitely more sites than just those though, but these are the ones that I use the most for network stats in addition to my own full node.
And it seems broken, it's like the number of transactions haven't diminished a bit even with the blocks that were mined, that's not normal is it?
Not really normal. If you look at the three sites I listed above, you will see that there are sharp drops right when a block is mined. If you zoom out on bitcoinqueue.com, you can see this behavior in the past. I assume that their site is having issues which is why it is not moving.
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
No. The size of a transaction has nothing to do with the rest of the transactions in the network. It does affect the amount paid for the transaction fee though.Basically this graph says that the vast majority of transactions are small but pay a high fee rate whilst the few largest transactions pay low fee rates. I would say that those large transactions paying low fee rates are probably from faucets and gambling as it is known that faucet and gambling sites tend to send out large transactions with batches of payments while also paying a low (probably fixed) fee rate or fixed fee.
Oh, well I guess it would make sense. Thank you for yours answer.
But do you guys have a site to follow unconfirmed transactions? Because I use this one:
https://www.bitcoinqueue.com/
And it seems broken, it's like the number of transactions haven't diminished a bit even with the blocks that were mined, that's not normal is it?
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
No. The size of a transaction has nothing to do with the rest of the transactions in the network. It does affect the amount paid for the transaction fee though.Basically this graph says that the vast majority of transactions are small but pay a high fee rate whilst the few largest transactions pay low fee rates. I would say that those large transactions paying low fee rates are probably from faucets and gambling as it is known that faucet and gambling sites tend to send out large transactions with batches of payments while also paying a low (probably fixed) fee rate or fixed fee.
Arf sorry, it seems like the hosting site I use is a bit broken...
Here is the link to the pic:
http://hpics.li/cfbd02c
There is also something that I don't understand, lots of blocks were mined in the last hour but the mempool doesn't take it into account.
Here is the link to the pic:
http://hpics.li/cfbd02c
There is also something that I don't understand, lots of blocks were mined in the last hour but the mempool doesn't take it into account.
Your pic link leads me to a completely different pic when I clicked it. Some kinda tech tree of a game.
No, they are not. The 980 transactions with less than 10s/b fee could be much larger than the all of the transactions with more than 10s/b combined.
Hello people.
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
No, they are not. The 980 transactions with less than 10s/b fee could be much larger than the all of the transactions with more than 10s/b combined.
Hello people.
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
Actually I cant, the preview is too small and the link leads to some strange side that wants javascript and is full of ads. Can you upload that somewhere else maybe?
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
Not lineary no.
Hello people.
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
Here is a picture of the mempool data.
As you can see, the size of transactions with fees < 10s/B in kB is 20 times more than the others while concerning only 980 transactions.
It doesn't make any sense to me, isn't the size of the transactions must be linked to the number of transactions normally?
Jump to: