Is there anything wrong with tranascation?

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 03:34:57 PM

I thought all transactions get added to a mempool and didn't know if a timestamp was a part of being added.

Each node maintains its own mempool. There is no way for you to know which transaction was added to my mempool first. Transactions do not have timestamps, and if they did, there'd be no way to prevent a user from creating a false timestamp on a transaction when they send it.

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 03:34:57 PM

I just see that when a transaction takes this long to confirm its a flaw in the system.

Pay a higher transaction fee, and your transaction will confirm faster.

It isn't a "flaw" in the system. It's a design feature.

(Although I suppose that someone might come out with new mining software that tries to avoid the particular attack that is going on right now.)

rfisher1968

sr. member

Activity: 319

Merit: 250

I thought all transactions get added to a mempool and didn't know if a timestamp was a part of being added. I just see that when a transaction takes this long to confirm its a flaw in the system.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on November 29, 2015, 03:15:03 PM

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 02:36:14 PM

- snip -
Why doesn't bitcoin implement a FIFO algorithm for confirming transactions

Because in a decentralized system there is no way for you to know which transaction someone else received "first". Therefore it is impossible to enforce "First in, First Out".

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 02:36:14 PM

- snip -
Why doesn't bitcoin implement a FIFO algorithm for confirming transactions

Because in a decentralized system there is no way for you to know which transaction someone else received "first". Therefore it is impossible to enforce "First in, First Out".

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 02:09:58 PM

- snip -
why hasn't it confirmed?

There is a DOS attack against the blockchain going on right now. It is causing transactions to take longer than usual to confirm.

In order to pull of the attack the attacker has to pay a higher than average transaction fee. They will eventually run out of money and the attack will stop, but in the meantime you can send your transactions with higher fees to make sure that your transactions get confirmed instead of the attackers (which will force the attacker to spend through their bitcoins even faster to maintain the attack).

Quote from: basil00 on November 29, 2015, 10:40:05 AM

Another attack...last 6 blocks (edit: and counting) have been hit.

Example: #385910 with 19125 fake sigOps. The block is only 200KB despite a 5MB backlog (according to tradeblock). It seems this attack is very effective.

Edit:
#385911 unaffected (enough high-fee legit txs)
#385912 = 18990 fake sigOps, 280KB.
#385913 = 18945 fake sigOps, 281KB.
#385914 = 17325 fake sigOps, 470KB.
...etc.

escrow.ms

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 02:09:58 PM

https://blockchain.info/address/1EecoVTNQqhxkm9RfFgpDyF6aQfrZgNaDT

Hasn't confirmed in 3 hours and bustabit.com says they followed some bitcoin calculation formula for the fee amount. If that's true why hasn't it confirmed?

They have sent enough fees as per transaction size but priority has nothing to do with fees. A high priority transaction without fees will be included first than a low/medium priority transaction with fees.

Ps: Your transaction will be confirmed in 5-10 hours.

Quote

Including in Blocks

This section describes how the reference implementation selects which transactions to put into new blocks, with default settings. All of the settings may be changed if a miner wants to create larger or smaller blocks containing more or fewer free transactions.

50,000 bytes in the block are set aside for the highest-priority transactions, regardless of transaction fee. Transactions are added highest-priority-first to this section of the block.

Then transactions that pay a fee of at least 0.00001 BTC/kb are added to the block, highest-fee-per-kilobyte transactions first, until the block is not more than 750,000 bytes big.

The remaining transactions remain in the miner's "memory pool", and may be included in later blocks if their priority or fee is large enough.

For transaction priority formula you can check this link.
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Transaction_fees#Technical_info

ivanst776

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1003

Quote from: rfisher1968 on November 29, 2015, 02:36:14 PM

I'm now looking for the formula that the bitcoin core uses to a calculate fee.

I want to check that the fee was correct at the time of submitting the transaction to the blockchain.

Why doesn't bitcoin implement a FIFO algorithm for confirming transactions and get rid of zero fee transactions.

I would also like to know if any zero fee transactions confirmed since my transaction was added to the mempool.

The fees for this transaction seems ok to me it is: 0.00029116 (11 cents) , but when you click on map it shows No inventory information available.

rfisher1968

sr. member

Activity: 319

Merit: 250

I'm now looking for the formula that the bitcoin core uses to a calculate fee.

I want to check that the fee was correct at the time of submitting the transaction to the blockchain.

Why doesn't bitcoin implement a FIFO algorithm for confirming transactions and get rid of zero fee transactions.

I would also like to know if any zero fee transactions confirmed since my transaction was added to the mempool.

rfisher1968

sr. member

Activity: 319

Merit: 250

https://blockchain.info/address/1EecoVTNQqhxkm9RfFgpDyF6aQfrZgNaDT

Hasn't confirmed in 3 hours and bustabit.com says they followed some bitcoin calculation formula for the fee amount. If that's true why hasn't it confirmed?

Topic: Is there anything wrong with tranascation? (Read 631 times)