Topic: Mempool fees and Solutions - page 2. (Read 1128 times)

It's a spam attack by the supporters of bigger blocks. In that group, you can put anyone from the people connected to Bitcoin Cash to all the other knock-offs that came after it. It's their way of 'punishing' Bitcoin. It's also an attempt to show the world that Bitcoin is no longer a useful P2P electronic money because it has become too expensive. I never cared to check, but do we have these inscriptions on Bitcoin Cash and the newer forks and derivations from it? My guess is no. 

It may be a spam attack encouraged by the mining-pools-plotters the aim being to make profit from increased fee.  With that single, those plotters raised the ante as to what a block-acceptable-transaction-fee should be, thus,  forcing "regular people to participate in that attack".

Why not consider the possibility of such conspiracy?

I don't see a contradiction here. Money by definition is a store of value and Bitcoin has the potential to become Money. If some people see Bitcoin as a store of value today, that is not contradicting what Bitcoin was meant to be.

There is a difference between traditional spam attacks and this latest one called Ordinals.

In traditional spam attacks like the one we endured during 2017 the fee market eventually puts an stop to the attack as it keeps increasing the cost of the attack and the attacker has to cover that cost out of their own pockets.
Also in traditional attacks, the attacker can not get regular people to participate in their attacks.

However, in case of Ordinals this is not a traditional spam attack. It is a spam attack where attackers are going to have the possibility of making a profit if they participate in the attack! You see Ordinals is arbitrary data and is NOT a token, however they've made a fake market selling basically the transaction calling them "tokens" and they pump these things in their scam market.
This means unlike traditional spam attacks, the attackers could successfully get regular people to participate in that attack because the scam market gives them an incentive. That "incentive" also means this attack is not going to be a temporary phase that fades away.

@BlackHatCoiner
From what I was told when I asked something similar is that the goal was not to censor Samourai Whirlpool transactions but to stop non-standard transactions and something above 80 bytes, I think. Unfortunately, Samourai transactions fell victim to those restrictions.

I must have missed that. Did Luke's pool really censor Samourai whirlpool transactions? I checked their tweets, and to me it rather seems as the Knots nodes always have been rejecting them, but now they own a pool which runs on Knots. Still harmless, because they have mined like what? Three blocks? Their ethos is questionable, though, I get it.

Actually, Satoshi did consider the development of second layer solutions.

I agree with what you are saying, I know that Bitcoin originally was meant to be a payment system. But, what about those who do not think in the same manner within the community? They believe that Bitcoin is an asset and has a store value, and I do agree with them. They do say to counter any question on the high transaction fee as it is just a phase and it will fade away in some time. They said the same thing last time when Ordinals came into existence.

Now, again they are quoting the same dialogue and when questioned they are becoming bullies. I have faced it and I know others who want this spamming of the network to stop have quite questioning them as they might get bullied by someone here in the forum. A concrete solution needs to be in place to stop the network from getting congested in the future. This is not something Sathoshi had originally thought of as Bitcoin was never meant to have an ecosystem of its own. I am not against it but I do not support it when a small-time user comes up here in the forum asking for a solution to the high transaction fees.

I do hate seeing fees at unreasonable levels which makes it very hard for majority of bitcoin users to use Bitcoin but the reason why I have been against the Ordinals Attack was never because of fees. It was always because this is an abuse since they've turned the payment system called Bitcoin into a cloud storage!

Actually their problem with Samourai transactions was related to a limit on OP_RETURN outputs that only Knots enforces and it was not even new. Basically Knots nodes have always been rejecting their transactions.

And like I sad previously, he ended up classifying Samourai Whirlpool transactions as non-standard and also censored them. That's for from a good solution. 

But that, again, begs the question, is it going to affect other transactions that shouldn't be restricted just because of their similarity? If the answer is yes, possible, or we don't know, then it's not good enough.

Their storage of your personal information and sharing with who knows who isn't worth the $250 you will be saving, especially if the data leaked and ended up in the wrong hands one day.

your solution is join the exchange kraken do kyc and keep your small change deals with btc on it.

do kyc
deposit cash
buy btc
use their LN

do not keep a lot on the exchange


I also think

you can join nicehash
do kyc
deposit btc from the kraken
use their LN


If you do 10 moves a month it would be $250 or more on the main chain

If you Join Kraken and kyc then join nicehash and kyc

send cash to kraken

buy btc at kraken

send some btc to nicehash


you have 2 LN account to use.



"Of course the companies control your btc not you  and you did kyc"

so do not do a lot of coin

10% of your secure wallet should be enough.  maybe less if you have a lot of coins

It is not censorship to fix an exploit in the protocol, but the way I view this is, you hate being forced to pay high fees and Ordinals is the main cause of this rise in fees.

I'm in favor of fixing this on a standardness level, but please don't hope that this will disappear. There are millions of dollars paid in fees alone, in the last few days. Making them non-standard is not going to censor them. There's already enough demand to bypass this on a standardness level.

The only way to stop it is with a softfork.

Luke Dashjr  made an appeal to other developers to put an end to this garbage.

The simplest solution, proposed by Ali Sherief and not even requiring a soft fork, is to install a filter at the node level that would discard all non-standard transactions that have the signs of ordinals and similar junk.

I have heard people call it an exploit and a mistake they are taking advantage of before. I don't have the technical background knowledge to understand it, so I can't comment on it. But if it's a mistake (hopefully an easily fixable one), is there any serious work being done on fixing it? Work that would have the support of the majority and doesn't introduce other problems like the Ocean mining pool "fix" did? 

There are a couple of contradicting views on Ordinals but the only thing that I've seen everyone agree on is that Ordinals is only possible because of an exploit they found in the protocol. This means despite they not breaking the consensus rules, preventing these transactions is fixing that exploit and it is not censorship.

Besides, we've been doing this for as long as bitcoin existed. We've been rejecting transactions that push arbitrary data to the chain (except using the standard OP_RETURN outputs). For example even before SegWit you could use an exploit in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG transactions to push a huge arbitrary data into the chain using the dummy item bug in this OP code. Why wasn't it exploited? Because we've been rejecting any tx that used this vulnerability in the protocol as non-standard.
Just like that was never called censorship, rejecting the Ordinals exploit is not either.

If the lightning network is not the second layer solution to Bitcoin, then what is the 2nd layer solution that exists at the moment?
Nothing I guess 

Though the miners may be liking the situation as they get a higher reward on every blocked mine but for the end user (most of us ) would be waiting for the mempool fee to normalize to transact using Bitcoin or some may switch to other coins (for the time being) for cheaper transactions? Unless it is necessary to send Bitcoin, or those rich bodies to whom high fees do not matter,  no one would be using the Bitcoin network at the moment.

For me as a primary miner

LN-Nicehash
LN-Kraken
LN-Electrum

should fix my issues as long as the three companies above do not fuck with their "free" services.

The risk of feeding $1000-$2000 into my Nicehash wallet  for mining Kawpow was already being taken. So I have 1000-2000 a month I can use kawpow.
the risk of using kraken was already there.

I just need to learn LN on electrum.

People absolutely need to use it, I'm myself using it for commercial transactions, but it isn't the solution to the problem either. Even currently, it takes a lot of money to open and close just one channel, and a lot of space if we are to dedicate a channel to each person.

Let's do some math. Regular opening and closing channel transactions are roughly 150 vB and 180 vB respectively. With block size being limited to 4 MvB, you can fit up to about 12 thousand channels in a block (the entire channel, with the closing transaction included). If 10 million people would want to join lightning, it'd take roughly 10M / 12k = 833 blocks. That's about 6 days of blocks filled to the top exclusively with lightning channels. For a billion people? 600 days. And that's under the hypothesis that:

- there will be no other on-chain transactions.
- no person will ever open more than a channel.
- opening and closing transactions will just have an input and two outputs respectively. (which is the minimum)

As hosseinimr93 mentioned, the block size in MBs is no longer the statistic you should focus on. Keep an eye on the weight in MWU. If you take a look at the last 3 blocks, which were all below 2 MB/block (1.69 MB, 1.75 MB, and 1.78 MB), all three were full. Two had a weight of 4 MWU and one 3.99 MWU.

Blocks: 822245, 822246, 822247

Well you can find an exchange that offers LN services. Deposit cash in the exchange and buy some btc.

I did a thread that shows how to use Kraken and or nicehash..  

The two catches are KYC and you do not have the KEYS

but lets pretend you have 1000usd in btc keep 900 in a wallet and 100 on the exchange problem is solved so to speak.

here is a how to thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63346745

---

---

@ BlackHatCoiner  you posted as I was typing above.

I agree with you and I think people need to look into LN. The thread I did will show more ways to use LN  over the next months.









All things point to high fees on the main chain. So learn a way to use LN

But, maybe that's the only cure. You cannot fit everyone on-chain. If history of cryptocurrencies has taught us something, it's this. I agree that a regulated block size increase might mitigate the problem, but only temporarily. The real solution has to come from a second layer, and sadly, I don't see lightning being that one.

Introducing censorship to lower the fees is definitely not an option. I prefer having terabytes of Ordinals blockchain than that.

We had 5 blocks larger than 2 MB in the past 24 hours.

• 822136
  
• 822200
  
• 822202
  
• 822207
  
• 822208
  

Segwit upgrade increased the maximum block size to 1 vMB or 4 million weight units. The block size in bytes depends on types of the transactions included in the block and can be up to 4 MB.