Memory usage is now at 300mb with 140,000 txs.
And still not increasing the max blocksize is a great idea... cough cough.
Topic: Mempool ATH - 140K unconfirmed transactions (Read 1857 times)
A peak of unconfirmed transactions is not alarming. What worries is that it doesn't go back to 0 after a while. We've had more than 40K unconfirmed transactions for 10 days. Something has to change. SegWit is probably the easiest solution to fix the problem.
Just a normal transaction for a increasing bitcoin industry so basically that is just normal because the bitcoin holders are also increasing when the holders increase no doubt the transaction made also increase but thats a good sign in all bitcoin holders.
I doubt it, it should not be a normal increase, just because of the higher acceptance of bitcoin on the market... In a few days time, we have jumped to 1 year maximum in mempool transactions, waiting for confirmation, see chart on blockchain info https://blockchain.info/en/charts/mempool-size?timespan=60days
The normal increase should not be exponentional but linear or just closer to linear. Japan can't be the only reason, too.
Something should be really going on, just besides the normal growth. We'll see sooner or later, anyway.
Just a normal transaction for a increasing bitcoin industry so basically that is just normal because the bitcoin holders are also increasing when the holders increase no doubt the transaction made also increase but thats a good sign in all bitcoin holders.
I don't find this surprising nor a reason for celebration. This is caused due to several things:
1) Miners not following user/economy consensus by not implementing Segwit.
2) Increased usage demand.
3) Spam attack.
It is very easy to make the mempool go "crazy" if there is no more capacity within the blocks and the demand suddenly increases. Additionally, we shouldn't price fees in USD (as will do in this thread) due to the constant increase in the price.
1) Miners not following user/economy consensus by not implementing Segwit.
2) Increased usage demand.
3) Spam attack.
It is very easy to make the mempool go "crazy" if there is no more capacity within the blocks and the demand suddenly increases. Additionally, we shouldn't price fees in USD (as will do in this thread) due to the constant increase in the price.
Hooray for 220 satoshis per byte fees.
There's nothing wrong with that, and it won't likely change until we see Segwit getting adopted.Theres no such thing as spam, if you can get a transaction included and pay for it its legit.
Spam are tx that are designed not for commerce but malicious intent.
If an address is pushing hundreds of txs to itself, while paying a reasonable
fee for block inclusion, in theory it is spam since it is not in accordance of
commerce exchange, but mempool bloating and meaningless block data.
Because some things are allowable by the protocol does not mean they are legit.
That just means that some malicious actions can not be reasonably constrained
currently. Your comment is equivalent to saying that "If I run red lights with my
car, but can afford paying the tickets/penalties, running red lights is fine/legit.".
I don't find this surprising nor a reason for celebration. This is caused due to several things:
1) Miners not following user/economy consensus by not implementing Segwit.
2) Increased usage demand.
3) Spam attack.
It is very easy to make the mempool go "crazy" if there is no more capacity within the blocks and the demand suddenly increases. Additionally, we shouldn't price fees in USD (as will do in this thread) due to the constant increase in the price.
1) Miners not following user/economy consensus by not implementing Segwit.
2) Increased usage demand.
3) Spam attack.
It is very easy to make the mempool go "crazy" if there is no more capacity within the blocks and the demand suddenly increases. Additionally, we shouldn't price fees in USD (as will do in this thread) due to the constant increase in the price.
Hooray for 220 satoshis per byte fees.
There's nothing wrong with that, and it won't likely change until we see Segwit getting adopted.Theres no such thing as spam, if you can get a transaction included and pay for it its legit.
Current version of BU is unacceptable (Asicboost).
The idea behind BU is trash, and it's proposal is highly dangerous (EC), and its code is trash as well. Ver can't even fund 1 proper group of developers apparently.BU is not a solution of any kind.
Ah don't say that. If you are a Chinaman, holding the exclusive patent for ASICBOOST, and your problem is "How can I leverage that to control Bitcoin" then BU is the perfect solution 
But BU, as is, hands over BTC to Bitmain and will result in blockchains that will grow several TB per year. Even with 1MB blocks we are better off. 
I concur. Bitcoin is working as intended. Serious transfers only.
You don't need 4 Exahashes worth of security for non-serious transfers anyhow.Most of the transactions in the mempool seem to be quite unimportant, considering the low fees in them.
Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
Unfortunately, you can't really block them either which is why spam is effective as long as it pays adequate fees. Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
Most of the transactions in the mempool seem to be quite unimportant, considering the low fees in them.
Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
But these transaction definitely cost the users a higher fee since they have to outbid other users in terms of transaction fee in order to be confirmed first. And probably the one in fault here (transaction fee picking) are the miner since they ignore transaction fee that have lower fee and just cherry picking those that have higher fees. I am not complaining about the cost of transferring BTC but rather seen the fault on the miners that ignores transaction that have decent fees.
Most of the transactions in the mempool seem to be quite unimportant, considering the low fees in them.
Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
Who wants to store all those new UTXOs in his RAM and the transactions on his harddrive permanently?
Thank goodness we have a 1MB anti-spam limit or this spam would really be bloating the chain!
+1
Bitcoin is working as intended. Serious transfers only.
There you have it, digital gold.
If there was no deathly price attached to making it gold and digital cash (by switching to BU) I would say: Why not?
But BU, as is, hands over BTC to Bitmain and will result in blockchains that will grow several TB per year. Even with 1MB blocks we are better off.
There you have it, digital gold.
BU is not a solution of any kind.
Ah don't say that. If you are a Chinaman, holding the exclusive patent for ASICBOOST, and your problem is "How can I leverage that to control Bitcoin" then BU is the perfect solution
do not listen to retared BU propaganda 
those who complain about making a transaction worth 5$ complaining about 1$ fee are eihter retarded or BU shills
even the Romans did not use gold coins to pay for food...do you use $1000 bills at a starbucks? No? A $1000 bill is divisible into 100 000 units but yet nobody would do that. Or write a cheque. Or do a wire transfer.
And today, there are wallets like Jaxx that have Shapeshift built-in; I think there are others too
So just swap a Bitcoin for 100 LTC and use that for your chump change. BTC block size needs to be increased, but not to the point that all micropayments fit into the blockchain. I must admit that LTC (or others) acceptance is not very good yet but I guess this will not be an issue much longer with Shapeshift & Co. API's being marketed as we speak.
Current version of BU is unacceptable (Asicboost).
Those who write that the purpose of BTC is gone now because the fees are on Painpal level, are so retarded, that I will not even to argue that point to preserve my brain cells.
those who complain about making a transaction worth 5$ complaining about 1$ fee are eihter retarded or BU shills
even the Romans did not use gold coins to pay for food...do you use $1000 bills at a starbucks? No? A $1000 bill is divisible into 100 000 units but yet nobody would do that. Or write a cheque. Or do a wire transfer.
And today, there are wallets like Jaxx that have Shapeshift built-in; I think there are others too
So just swap a Bitcoin for 100 LTC and use that for your chump change. BTC block size needs to be increased, but not to the point that all micropayments fit into the blockchain. I must admit that LTC (or others) acceptance is not very good yet but I guess this will not be an issue much longer with Shapeshift & Co. API's being marketed as we speak.
Current version of BU is unacceptable (Asicboost).
Those who write that the purpose of BTC is gone now because the fees are on Painpal level, are so retarded, that I will not even to argue that point to preserve my brain cells.
...
Core developers - Ostriches - have had their head in the sand for over 2 years now.
Core developers - Ostriches - have had their head in the sand for over 2 years now.
It is not about putting their heads in the sand and more about not having a
conclusive solution that doesn't cause long term damage. We have not
reached a point of understanding where we can devise a near perfect answer.
As an example, imagine you had a car that can not exceed 32 kph (20 mph)
in speed, but you wish to reach a destination within a certain amount of time.
The blocksize hardfork solution is like adding a boosting agent into the fuel,
that will speed up the travel time, but will cause damage to the engine and
prematurely age it which causes failure. The SegWit softfork solution is like
a simple tune up of the engine itself so that it runs more efficiently with a
speed increase, without the damage done to the engine's structure itself.
That is the basic difference. One is short term and the other is long.
Core Developers do not wish to shorten Bitcoin's life for short term convenience.
Thank goodness we have a 1MB anti-spam limit or this spam would really be bloating the chain!
I'm am seeing a record breaking 168mb in my mempool.
Core developers - Ostriches - have had their head in the sand for over 2 years now.
Core developers - Ostriches - have had their head in the sand for over 2 years now.
And now we don't care about you and your view so everybody is happy complaining wherever the fuck we want. 
That's right. The uneducated shouldn't listen to what their experts preach. You might as well join the flat Earth & anti-vaccination camps. People have been saying that bitcoin needs to change, BU, segwit, ... there are a lot of suggestions out there, however, I think they are not really necessary. That is why people always refuse. I hope your remedy can solve the problem.
BU is not a solution of any kind.Because it's not really. That line was sarcastic.
I wasn't commenting on your line. You also do realize that written sarcasm without ('/s') rarely makes any sense? Time for a lesson: Poe's Law.Yes, yes there is. The fees are now on PayPal levels. The incentive of using Bitcoin for lower fees (at sane, consumer-level amounts) is gone. Businesses also care about profit, and if Bitcoin is more expensive they won't use it.
Anyone who thinks that low fees are Bitcoin's main or only appeal is short-sighted though.And on that note, SegWit is very far from getting miner consensus. No amount of complaining will change that.
No Segwit == no solution. The alternatives are much worse.ShitWit will not solve anything, many of you claim spam is the problem,
Spam will continue.
Funny how the fees are important to everyone but you, are you getting a cut from being in the BTC Core Troll Army?
By the way since you LIED on me , I might as well block as many of your lies as possible now, since you tainted my screen name.
And now we don't care about you and your view so everybody is happy complaining wherever the fuck we want.
Complaining makes sense if it is directly pointed at entities (i.e. all pools that signal BU instead of SW) responsible for Bitcoin not allowing to grow further.Complaining is pointless also for the reason that if you want to enjoy faster confirmations, that you have to include higher than average fees. It's that simple.
If you're not willing to include a higher than average fee, then you have to accept the extra hours of waiting before your transaction finally gets its first confirmation. It's all up to the people.
Lauda is being petty and Gave me a false negative trust rating, how can it be removed?
We have had no business dealings or trades, and I would like Lauda Lies removed from my screen name.
Thanks.
We have had no business dealings or trades, and I would like Lauda Lies removed from my screen name.
Thanks.
Bad Form Lauda
Jump to: