Topic: Mempool fees and Solutions - page 4. (Read 1219 times)

It is not about being beneficial, it is about using Bitcoin how it is supposed to be used.
It is trivial to recognize transactions that aren't. Any transaction that is injecting an arbitrary data into the chain by exploiting the protocol is abusive.

As I told you elsewhere, abuse is not 100% preventive but it is and should be made difficult. In this example of yours if the abusers are limited to only 20 to 30 bytes, we've already succeeded in preventing abuse to a great deal.

I'm not suggesting disabling of anything, least of all OP codes. I'm saying the size restrictions that existed in Bitcoin before SegWit and before specifically witness version 1, in form of both consensus and standard rules have to be applied again.

Not transactions, but arbitrary data that is injected by exploiting the protocol.

Correction: The equal treatment of all transactions that are transferring bitcoin not transactions that are exploiting the protocol and treating bitcoin as cloud storage which is against the principle of Bitcoin.

In which criteria do we evaluate whether a transaction is beneficial, and to whom?

Bitcoin should not be a cloud storage, not because it is somewhat disturbing to the nodes of the network, but because it is extremely inefficient and expensive. But, the protocol is designed in such a way that fundamentally allows storage of information beyond financial. Even if you completely disable everything that can be exploited, and therefore negate every future potential softfork, information can still be stored as chunks of 160 or 256 bits.

Consider the implications of your argument. You suggest disabling op codes or introducing similar limits that permit the "exploit" of Bitcoin as cloud storage but advocate for allowing information storage through other means. This contradicts your initial statement, where the goal is to prevent Ordinals from being used to store arbitrary data.

This is a sad interpretation of the Bitcoin network. If you think that we are all "forcing" our gigabytes of transactions down your throat, then you should not be running a node. For a network of that kind to work harmoniously, we need to make compromises. The initial compromise to acknowledge is the equal treatment of all transactions.

My bad, Grammarly corrected vbyte into byte.

I tried a couple of times to accelerate transactions and you are right they mine 13 blocks per 24 hours on an average

https://mempool.space/mining/pool/viabtc

But it doesn't mean that the transaction that is submitted for acceleration doesn't necessarily mean they will be included in the next block they mine, in those two times the TX was accelerated after 7-8 hrs after submission mean while they at least got 3-4 blocks mined already.

The minimum fee rate for being eligible to use their free accelerator is 10 sat/byte. That would be around 16-19 sat/vbyte depending on number of native segwit inputs and outputs.

ViaBTC has around 11% of the total hash rate and it's estimated that they mine block 1 block in every ∼110 minutes on average.

Viabtc free transaction is not worth, to be honest,

Imagine we should pay 19sat/byte and TX size should be less than 500bytes then we need to rush to submit txid before 100 queue gets filled which usually takes 90 secs in a situation like these and have to wait 6-12 hrs.

I would just pay the fee even if it's 40sat/vb and get my tx included in the next block.

If it goes crazy high then just halt it for a while.

Lower transaction fee will be a side product not the reason.
The reason why I want the Ordinals Attack be stopped is because it is exploiting the protocol and is abusing the system.

From the day Bitcoin was created. And why do people insist on making this about "benefit" and "usefulness" of the garbage? It is abuse. Bitcoin is not cloud storage. From day one it was created to be a payment system with a blockchain that acts as the ledger for those payments. When people use it to store arbitrary data (regardless of what that data is) it is considered abuse and should be prevented.

It has a lot of value and they are storing the "cure for cancer" on bitcoin blockchain. Is that good?
Now it should still be stopped because bitcoin is not cloud storage

Did Warhol come to your home and force his "art" down your throat or nail them to your walls by force?
No they made a special place to showcase that "art" and you could choose to go there if you wanted to. That's the same with Bitcoin. We already have special cryptocurrencies that act as cloud storage (like filecoin) we also already have special cryptocurrencies made for token creation (like ethereum) and we have bitcoin that is a payment system.

... and yet people insist on forcing us to change the utility of bitcoin, one of its fundamental characteristics which is to be a payment system and change Bitcoin to be a cloud storage!!!
Honestly, that has to be stopped.

quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.

who the fuck are you to do that?

I say this in the spirit of friendship not meanness.

I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.

Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.

Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.

So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.

Back to the real issue. Scrypt makes 12 blocks every 10 minutes sha256 makes 1

so LTC/Doge are 12x better to move small moves.

ordinals may be how they are doing this now. They will find other ways to do it later.

the 12x to 1 volume advantage is not being addressed which is why ordinals are doing a job at the moment.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it is for the good. I'm pretty confident we can fight this Ordinal wave of transactions by just setting these as non-standard (without even invalidating them on a protocol level with softfork). I doubt there will still be demand, but what if there is? We frequently notice people who are obsessed with the idea of injecting their data in the blockchain.

I'm generally opposed with ideas that delay the problems instead of solving them. That's probably why I'm in favor of developing second layer solutions instead of just messing with the block size limit. Same applies for Ordinals, more or less. If you impose a tapscript size limit, or any other such, for the sole reason of delaying Ordinals, then I'll oppose it.

I agree that certain limitations are necessary.

Now we start getting somewhere.
I don't know the internals as good as you, but at a first look, a "common sense" size for the script could be for the good.
And I think that you're exaggerating a little. After all, some could say that 1MB blocks are also censorship. Yes, now I am exaggerating, but in order to try to prove a point: limitations can help in preserving sanity. You can call it censorship and you'll be right, still... in some cases it can be useful (the limitation and its benefits, not the censorship per se).

Depends on which feature. Tapscript? Yeah, it is useful. 

There is a limitation which can be imposed, such as "Tapscripts above X size are invalid", but we're just starting to bury ourselves there. Why? Well, it might put an end in Ordinals, sure. But, it might as well not. The system is designed in such a way that Ordinal transactions can be made indistinguishable from regular transactions. Meanwhile, we will have enabled censorship, or at the very least moved one step forwards to that direction. Let's avoid that, please.

You do have a valid point here.


... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes?

When did the Bitcoin community start evaluating whether a transaction is "beneficial" before deeming it valid or invalid? Beneficial to whom? I do not recall agreeing to any Terms of Use that restrict me from conducting a transaction deemed morally unacceptable by certain individuals or requiring it to be "beneficial" for a specific group. Quite the contrary, I joined this space due to that big "Censorship Resistance in here" sign.

To treat all transactions equally, that's what's beneficial.

I really can't argue that.


This can be somewhat debatable (not everybody is mature, and I don't talk about the 18 years limit). However, let's not go too much off topic, in most cases you're correct.


Well, this is (sadly?) my point too. At least to a certain extent.
I mean, dumb or not, is this ordinals business beneficial to Bitcoin and its network? I tend to believe it's not. And if so, why allow it with so much benevolence?
If it is beneficial, then, yeah, I am wrong and this logic too.

And many of the gamblers don't know they are wasting time and money either, but fortunately, we live in a world where you have the freedom to do that. I mean, why couldn't you? People do all sorts of nonsense with their money all the time. They throw coins in fountains, gamble, buy designer brands, shitcoins, cigarettes, accumulate excessive debts, the list is endless. And again, people should not be treated as sheep. Just because someone is under the impression they can make money by selling jpeg rocks, who am I to stop them? Everyone is responsible for their actions and pays for their mistakes. Greed is human.

The reason pooya wants this thing banned isn't to protect them from their foolishness, but to lower the transaction fees.

That's true, however I agree with @pooya87 in this: it's all about greed. Many of those people don't comprehend they are burning their money, they think they invest it into something others will buy very expensive someday soon.

You have to understand that people are voluntarily doing this. They know what they're putting themselves into; meaningless, digital trash. And they do it, because they think they are smart to resell it in a higher price. Everyone involved in this scheme is equally guilty. I can't blame a small group of Ordinal fans, because that'd be unfair. The buyers are conscious of their decisions, they should not be treated as sheep.

I say everyone has the freedom to burn their money.

Paid transaction accelerators are expensive and isn't really recommended, if you use a paid service you may end up spending more than you would have spent if you had attached an appropriate fee before broadcasting your transaction or if you use rbf to replace your transaction with another one paying a more appropriate fee for fast confirmation.

Well it is simple use viabtc free service correctly .

which means under 500kb size
which means 2 inputs or 1 input

Pay 11 sats per byte not per v/byte--- at the moment this would never ever ever clear. other than using viabtc service and wait for via btc to hit a block look for your tx in it.

it works. all others are bullshit.

I have pushed hundred of them free on viabtc since 2016.

Prediction when the traffic will be low might not be possible but the price has started decreasing gradually. If the transaction you want to carry out is not urgent, you can wait for a few days because the end of this ordinal bullshit might be in sight. Observing the mempool could be another to see if the transaction fee is low at a given time.   

Using the free accelerating service by ViaBTC is limited. One can only accelerate transactions with at least 0.0001BTC/KB transaction fees and it will only handle transactions with a volume ≤0.5 KB. Using this free service can also be slow since only a hundred transactions are carried out in an hour. A paid accelerator is better if you can afford the cost because it has more benefits and options. 

To begin with, using a paid tx accelerator doesn't even make much sense to me, it is expensive and you can use the money to either pay an appropriate fee or bump your tx with rbf, so i can recommend that people should not really use paid accelerators.

Now as for free accelerators, ViaBTC is the only one that is working, if you can successfully submit your tx to be accelerated by them amidst the current congestion, with too many people also waiting to use the free service, you can be sure they accelerated your tx because it would be in the next block that they mine. It may be worth mentioning that if someone wants to use a paid accelerating service for any reason, then ViaBTC offers one, and you can be sure it works.