Topic: Is the network really congested? (Read 1016 times)

Seriously?
My average waiting time for 2 conf is about 30 mins I'd say!

So can't really complain ^^

If blocksize was the problem then all the blocks would be full when there are more than 2500 transactions,

That isn't the case.

The transactions that are not making it into blocks when the blocks are not full typically have an issue.

My bitcoin-core has the payment slider more than halfway up - and still most transactions are only a penny. People too cheap to pay a penny don't count towards to any alleged backlog.

Am I the only one to remember what happened last July? I had one transaction which didn't go through, and another which took more than 12 hours to get confirmed. This may happen again next week. I agree BTC's running fairly well most of the time, but we shall not hide from the fact that we are very close to the limits. To sum it up, we're walking along the cliff!

You can check if it is really congested or not using Statoshi. Nothing better than touching a sensitive topic with data directly from the network.

I have experienced a few transactions that have taken over a few hours for the 1st confirmation and i always pay a decent fee. Thats not to say that blocksize was the problem, i dont know enough to say what is, i really on trustworthy devs to explain it to me.

Basically there are problems ahead but there have been problems since the beginning. People have always known about this blocksize issue from the start. The community can fix these problems when they become serious enough. Its in everyone's interest to fix them.....

Right now there is a big pump & dump going on. Price is being heavily manipulated by someone, and I would say a Chinese.

This amount of pump & dump manipulation (from 365 to 450) is incredible. It is total manipulation by someone (i would say the China exchanges themselves are responsible).

Maybe it also indicates a bear market since usually this kind of manipulation usually can only happen in bear markets.

Yeah, I've had a few slow ones but nothing too bad. The main thing is though that it should be ready to take higher numbers, not have something glued on or rushed if they suddenly arrive.

With a 150 second block interval it takes 10 minutes, and that includes 75% confirmations.

A lot of 900+kb blocks being generated today.
Had a high priority, zero fee transaction take some time to confirm today.
This was the case earlier when the stress tests were being conducted on the network.
Otherwise, high priority transactions used to get confirmed in a block or two.

the OP's title is misleading to the point he is making.

the point he is making is not about congestion of the network but how much capacity there is in blocks
because if only 2500 transactions can fit into 1mb... but there are 10,000 transactions.
it take 4 blocks to finally get them all in.

but with 2mb.. it take 2 blocks

40minutes vs 20 minutes

anyway the word "congestion" seems to be a crafty chosen word because it makes a debate about blocks(not the network, just blocks) self-fullfilling because trying to talk about blocks vs congestion is the wrong terms. and is a way to veer the end answer to say that bigger blocks wont help with congestion.

the wording of the debate should be blocksize vs backlog. as thats more appropriate to the issues some are seeing.

and the whole title of "network really congested" is to say that the network (relaying) cannot take any more transactions.. which by proving the network is not congested, implies there is more room to expansion.

so if the debate is really about the network(relaying/bandwidth). then no its not congested as there is room for expansion(more relay data).. but if the debate is about blocksize(backlog/confirmation time) then yes there is a problem because 66%-75% of transactions are waiting more than 10 minutes

so a 2mb solves the backlog, and doesnt hurt congestion because 2mb is not much extra data being relayed compared to other online services

I thought the debate was about congestion. I don't see how you can reduce congestion on a busy network when the block creation interval is 10 minutes. This is regardless of the blocksizde issue.

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

well we should only be seeing 2500 transactions waiting if there was not a problem as those transactions would be the ones currently next inline to be hashed and confirmed..

but wait.. theres more than 2500 transactions.. = backlog.

and try not to turn the congestion debate into a political debate about gavin or hearne.  the 2mb limit can and should be implemented even by core aswell. so try making it about the code and logistics of it and not a personality debate

Well I agree with you for a lot of transactions, but we have to realise that we are competing with big banks, and Bitcoin is being sold as a fast method of transferring money. I've got two different bank facilities that offer virtually instant transfers. If I'm buying Bitcoins for cash, then I may not want to hang around for 30 minutes for a confirmation.

Most places will consider the transaction valid once it is seen on the network, even if it isn't confirmed. This mainly applies to the purchasing a coffee arguments, Bitpay will give the all clear as soon as the transaction appears even with 0 confirms.

As far as medium or large transactions, I do not think waiting for 10 minutes, or even an hour is too long. If you are buying a $1,000 - $2,000 TV or appliance, I don't think waiting 10 minutes for 1 confirm is too much to ask. It would probably take that long to have someone get it from stock, get it out to your car and have it loaded up. or if you are having it delivered, the store will have plenty of time to ensure there is 6 or more confirms before heading out with it.

If you buy an average car, say $35,000 or roughly 80 BTC, in the time needed to finish the paperwork would be plenty of time for 6 confirms. So this all pretty much takes care of itself, as the less risky small transactions can be trusted they will clear, with only small $$ at risk if they didn't, whereas medium and large transactions the nature of these require more time.

My view is that there is no problem currently. While it is true it will be come a problem in the future, I believe the core developers are quite aware of this and have an adequate road-map in place. SegWit, while not directly addressing the growth problem still indirectly offers a bit of breathing space, so the immediate concerns are taken care of.

As far as comments about scaling to Visa, wow. I believe Bitcoin still has a lot of growing to do before even beginning to worry about that. I am sure even Visa when it was at Bitcoin's stage, if it was even ever that small, was not ready to scale to its modern day equivalent. The scaling will take care of itself with time and growth.

With one block every 10 minutes, and then a wait for another couple of blocks to make sure it isn't orphaned. It could take around 30 minutes to confirm. Bitcoin is now up against virtually instant fiat payments, and needs faster confirmations. It doesn't need bigger blocks created at the same intervals, it needs populated blocks at shorter intervals. 2Mb blocks won't address this problem, and will probably just make it worse.

And so? 2 to 4 blocks means less than an hour! Where is the problem in that?
Especially when you know that 99% of transactions need 0 confirmations.

I am surprised that you have never faced any confirmation delaying problems with your transactions before !
For me, it happened often that my transaction take more that 2 or 4 blocks before get the first confirmation although I pay the proper fees. So it is not about fees, it is about the big number of transactions at rush hours that the network can not handle fast now

It's not only that it will be congested.
It's that it can't scale. To make it to VISA growth, it would need 800GB blocks xD

First it was Bitcoin XT by Mike Hearn that contained a hard fork, bigger blocks and blacklisting of ip's.

Then it was something short lived that was called Bitcoin unlimited which also failed.

And now Bitcoin Classic, also failed.

It should be clear that the attempts are political and not technical. They just use techno babble to make it sound like there is a problem. Those of us that actually spend Bitcoin and transact it, know very well it has all worked perfect for the past 7 years.

This is obviously not in line with how bankers want the world to perceive Bitcoin, so they start campaigns like this to make it sound like there is a problem. Reality is, Bitcoin has worked perfectly and still keeps working perfectly.

I would suggest people stop listening to all the FUD out there and keep in mind that all these attacks are in place to remove Bitcoin once and for all via a hard fork. People that want Bitcoin to go away will say anything, show any type of graph and go on a constant barrage of misinformation to try to make it happen.

Keep calm and carry on, and do not fall into the FUD of Hard Forks!