Mempool full? Long transaction times + fees x10! - page 5.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: pooya87 on March 03, 2023, 01:20:49 AM

Quote from: NotATether on March 03, 2023, 01:16:35 AM

Vbytes is a more recent estimation that still counts in bytes, but does not count the bytes of certain parts of the transaction such as the witness data (IIRC).

It does.
Virtual size is transaction weight divided by 4 and weight is counting witness by computing "base size" (which is serialized size without witness) multiplied by 3 added to the "total size" (which is serialized size with witness).

FYI: Just now I have incorporated your definition as a revision in the Satoshi per byte wiki page.

People here are saying the protocol is getting harder / softer towards allowing stuff respectively, but my observations show that protocol development has pretty much been almost a deadweight as hardly anything changes inside of it.

That isn't to say that it's becoming harder, because it has really been at "almost impossible" for a long time now, but expect to see 5+ year wait times if you want your feature added into the protocol.

Artemis3

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1561

CLEAN non GPL infringing code made in Rust lang

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 05, 2023, 11:06:33 AM

Quote from: Artemis3 on March 05, 2023, 11:03:26 AM

No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive.

The protocol doesn't agree with your definition of transaction.

That's the loophole that needs to be closed.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 05, 2023, 11:32:32 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2023, 11:15:51 AM

the protocol 2009-2021 never allowed 1 tx to take upto 4mb of crap data bloat

But there have never been any hard forks since then. Only soft forks. This means that only previously valid rules are made invalid. If it was invalid to do the same in 2009, and there have never been any hard forks, how come it be valid now? Also, there were a few transactions like - 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 - in 2013 which did make usage of the blockchain as storage.

1. the protocol got SOFTENED to allow crap in.. this process of softening started mainly in mid 2017 and again in 2022

2. the 2013 tx you used is not where 1 tx has 1 signature area of crap.
nor where one input or output could spam hundreds of kb
its instead a tx of hundreds of outputs
where each output had a byte limit.. (unlike now)

do you even read or do research? do you even know bitcoin history. or are you just pushing out propaganda to say bitcoin should continue to be softened until there are no good rules left and then promote your favoured subnetwork

you really are shameful in your methods.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6231

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: franky1 on March 04, 2023, 03:29:45 PM

...
pools dont care. to them only having to collate 1 transactions with 1 sigop is quick computation for collating data. thus they can push out blocktemplate hashs faster. thus win rewards sooner then competition
...

Except now they are pushing out a larger block that takes longer to propagate then an empty block. Sooner or later that is going to backfire on them when their large full block looses to an empty block. Probably not today or tomorrow or next week or next month, but sooner or later a pool that does not accept spam is going to put out a block that is empty since the mempool is just filled with spam at that moment. And someone is going to see it and solve the next block on top of it instead of the spam filled one.

The problem with a pool taking the 0 fee is that it's short term thinking.
OR as others have suggested they got BTC on the back end that they may or may not have shared with their miners.

Kind of like the VIAPool TX accelerator. They keep the money paid for that, the miners just get the lower fee that was in the TX itself.

-Dave

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2023, 11:15:51 AM

the protocol 2009-2021 never allowed 1 tx to take upto 4mb of crap data bloat

But there have never been any hard forks since then. Only soft forks. This means that only previously valid rules are made invalid. If it was invalid to do the same in 2009, and there have never been any hard forks, how come it be valid now? Also, there were a few transactions like - 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 - in 2013 which did make usage of the blockchain as storage.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 05, 2023, 11:06:33 AM

Quote from: Artemis3 on March 05, 2023, 11:03:26 AM

No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive.

The protocol doesn't agree with your definition of transaction.

the protocol has been softened.
the protocol has been weakened to allow crap data.

blackhatcoiner you sound more like doomad every day

if you enjoy that the protocol now allows crap data then you are not interested in the security of bitcoin and instead you are more interested in breaking bitcoin

the protocol 2009-2021 never allowed 1 tx to take upto 4mb of crap data bloat

if you like this new protocol change that is less than one year old. then you are very shameful and need to think about what matters most. you sucking up to personalities that want to break bitcoin. or .. start for once to care about bitcoin

because right now you dont seem to care about bitcoin

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Artemis3 on March 05, 2023, 11:03:26 AM

No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive.

The protocol doesn't agree with your definition of transaction.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 6279

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: franky1 on March 04, 2023, 09:02:17 PM

another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx

that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions

What is more inspiring than money as far as miners are concerned? Nothing is, mining pools want nothing more than to include as many transactions as possible, when they mine an empty block or one with just a few transactions it happens for a reason, also many people seem to think that there is a centralized mempool the all miners share, there isn't, I can just claim that "my" mempool is empty and mine only empty blocks.

This is a free market, subject to spam and biding, exactly how a decentralized system should be, there is nothing you can do to make it better.

Artemis3

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1561

CLEAN non GPL infringing code made in Rust lang

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 05, 2023, 10:20:55 AM

It's funny how some somewhat established members of the Bitcoin community suddenly switched from "censorship-resistant transactions" to "we need to stop this spam / bloating" and "there has to be a valid reason to make transactions". Roll Eyes

When the mempool is full, and you're forced to pay more, the last group of people you have to blame are those who make the transactions.

Well said, censorship-resistant transactions, not censorship-resistant spam.

No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive.

Not transactions, not Bitcoin.

5 days and counting...

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

It's funny how some somewhat established members of the Bitcoin community suddenly switched from "censorship-resistant transactions" to "we need to stop this spam / bloating" and "there has to be a valid reason to make transactions". Roll Eyes

When the mempool is full, and you're forced to pay more, the last group of people you have to blame are those who make the transactions.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 2982

Merit: 7986

Quote from: serveria.com on March 05, 2023, 04:33:44 AM

I don't object paying more if there's valid reason for that.

The "valid reason" is to make sure your tx is included in the next block. This privilege costs about 50 cents at the moment. Does that really constitute a problem?

What's funny to me is that people believe their opinions have any effect on the situation.

serveria.com

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1172

Privacy Servers. Since 2009.

Quote from: nutildah on March 04, 2023, 02:08:12 PM

Don't be a cheapass. Just pay a higher fee.

If you think these fees are too high to transact on the world's most secure computational network, you're a newb, that's the only explanation.

Thanks for your opinion, but did you even read this thread? Or is this irony?

I don't object paying more if there's valid reason for that. I'd be happy to help miners, help improve Bitcoin infrastructure, help maintain LN nodes etc but why should we all pay for some d*ckhead uploading billions of monkey pics believing "it's the next big thing" and hoping he can get rich by selling you that crap some day? You seriously think Bitcoin was built for that purpose? Grin

Quote from: nutildah

Be happy people are using Bitcoin for things and not other blockchains.

I'm not even going to comment on this, it's just laughable! Muahahaha... Grin

Cuenta Alternativa

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 66

Don Pedro Dinero alt account

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2023, 02:52:52 AM

and the answer in the form of a rhetorical question. should block get solved in milliseconds or in an average 2016block/fortnight(~10min)

whereby less blocks in milliseconds stops affecting the difficulty negatively(raising diff to make it harder(shooting self in foot))

Well, an average is just that, an average. It takes 10 minutes or milliseconds or an hour or more. I'm not a miner, I was trying to point out that you would not only penalise spam but also miners who have no bad intentions when mining empty blocks, but I recognise that potentially in the future they could come to an agreement on this.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: Cuenta Alternativa on March 05, 2023, 02:38:58 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 04, 2023, 09:02:17 PM

another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx

that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions

The problem I see with that is that not only would you get rid of spam, you would also invalidate the mining of empty blocks whose hash is discovered a few milliseconds after the previous one.

and the answer in the form of a rhetorical question. should blocks get solved in milliseconds or in an average 2016block/fortnight(~10min)

whereby less blocks in milliseconds stops affecting the difficulty negatively(raising diff to make it harder(shooting self in foot))

yep empty blocking means mempool size increases by delaying transaction inclusion into blocks and causes a difficulty rise by making blocks too fast

Cuenta Alternativa

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 66

Don Pedro Dinero alt account

Quote from: franky1 on March 04, 2023, 09:02:17 PM

another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx

that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions

The problem I see with that is that not only would you get rid of spam, you would also invalidate the mining of empty blocks whose hash is discovered a few milliseconds after the previous one. Although I suppose if the spam problem becomes serious, the miners could potentially come to an agreement. At the moment AFAIK there is only one that has never mined an empty block:

Quote from: mikeywith on February 18, 2023, 07:36:14 AM

When I made my analysis on the subject, I found that all pools mined empty blocks except for Kano.is, kano publicly stated that his pool code won't send an empty block template to miners unless his mempool is empty which is more like 'never'

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 2982

Merit: 7986

Quote from: Artemis3 on March 04, 2023, 03:58:21 PM

Quote from: nutildah on March 04, 2023, 02:08:12 PM

Don't be a cheapass. Just pay a higher fee.

If you think these fees are too high to transact on the world's most secure computational network, you're a newb, that's the only explanation.

...

The irony is that its the "newb" that would pay the high transactions, since the wallets will by default estimate the fee and use high one so it doesn't take "too long", which is where most "newb" complains comes from about Bitcoin being both expensive and slow.

Get the spam out of Bitcoin, and boycott anyone involved in producing and pushing this spam.

The "minimum wage" in Venezuela is currently the equivalent of $5 (five USD) a month, most private companies pay at least about $40. Many fled the country and are sending money back from abroad for their families, those who don't know Bitcoin would pay the likes of Western Union 15~30 dollars per 100 sent... This is THE reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin.

Oh yes, i forgot to mention blackouts are frequent in most parts of the country. Guess how well that plays for running a lightning node?

I'm referencing the fact that, for much of Bitcoin's history, average fees have been much higher than they currently are now. Fees aren't particularly higher now than they have been in the last year:

Will the median fee ever go below 50 cents again? Yes, most likely when the ordinals craze dies down.

Crypto remittances to El Salvador have actually fallen over the last year:

https://cryptonews.com/news/crypto-accounts-for-less-than-2-of-all-el-salvadors-remittances-btc-adoption-plan-failed.htm

Quote

In total, crypto worth $126.7 million was sent to crypto wallets in El Salvador in January.

This figure is a slight decline from last year. The BCR has previously revealed that between September 2021 and June 2022, 1.8% of the $6.4 billion total remittances sent to the nation were made in crypto.

I think Bitcoin (and some other cryptocurrencies) are great for this type of cross-border transfer, but I also think Bukele was taken advantage of by clout addicts like Jack Mallers for the purpose of creating superhero levels of hopium for their fan base. As of Nov., El Salvador's average buy price was $43,357. 🤦

And if you have blackouts and the internet is out, you can't use regular BTC, either.. doesn't just affect lightning nodes.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3444

Merit: 10558

The fee market only works for normal spam attack types but not with a incentivized spam attack. Ordinals is the later and the bigger it gets and the bigger market that it gains the bigger the spam is going to get because people who are gambling with these shittokens don't care about paying a higher fee.
Exactly like what the exchanges do, a gambler trading shittokens on CEX doesn't care much about paying a high withdrawal fee.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: btc_angela on March 04, 2023, 08:58:07 PM

Ok just to break the ice, I try and tested it out again,

Mempool says that I overpaid, Lol, but in previous days, just like 2-3 days ago, mempool is congested that I have to pay double that price to 6-7 sat/vB. So I guess everyone needs to check the mempool and not to used wallet suggestion as it might be too much, just saying.

another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx

that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions

btc_angela

hero member

Activity: 2632

Merit: 544

Ok just to break the ice, I try and tested it out again,

Mempool says that I overpaid, Lol, but in previous days, just like 2-3 days ago, mempool is congested that I have to pay double that price to 6-7 sat/vB. So I guess everyone needs to check the mempool and not to used wallet suggestion as it might be too much, just saying.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

read the stats
pools accept dead weight memes for less than genuine tx sat/byte.. all way way to 0 fee
=shows pools dont care about demanding spam bloat "pays more"

secondly look at the stats of dates pre-spam bloat
empty block: 779013, 778,663, 775,654 (just some of many randomly seen)

i can show you lot more of "thin blocks" where there is a low threshold of transactions

i could also tell you about how mining pools do things

for instance most pools now start their block template empty of transactions.
and as asics run through their rounds of nonce/extra nonce.
pools then send out the next round with extra tx added. where by blocks solved in a couple minutes from previous are usually alot more empty then a block that took ~5 ~10 minutes

take some time to find every empty block. and you will see its previous block is under 2 minutes prior

Topic: Mempool full? Long transaction times + fees x10! - page 5. (Read 1219 times)