Topic: Mempool full? Long transaction times + fees x10! - page 6. (Read 1219 times)

This logic is useful only if another pool gets a target hash in the same time, which happens rather rarely.
In most cases that competition for milliseconds between pools doesn't exist. It's not like all pools find the block all the time exactly at 11:23:56.777 and being the quickest really matters.
So normally the pool can easily grab both the block and the fees. Sometimes it may not be able do that, but it doesn't know when is that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but really, if you would be right, all miners would just mine empty blocks.

miners prefer getting more block wins per day. compared to the fees

lets run the numbers in a scenario:
a pool of 20% hashrate
gets ~29blocks = 181.25btc a day roughly
the fee's of that day is usually 0.013 a block = 0.377 a day

now imagine over a whole day
would you prefer the pool manager manually selects transactions, does all the checks and sigops on thousands of tx a block template collation causing a delay in blockhashing start times. meaning that instead of 181.25btc average daily coin... it may get 1 less block= 175btc due to messing around with tx burden/selection just for 0.377. meaning 175.377

which would you care more for
181.25 or 175.377

as you can see. saving time by doing less block collating means better chance of earning an extra block per day which reaps better income then doing the transaction management/selection

And the spammers will do as well. Guess who will win?

No, its not about "using blockchain", its about Bitcoin transactions.

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 not trying to justify anything. Imho any fee bigger than the minimal (for my small sized transactions) is probably not worth it because I'd pay less on LN if I'd bother switching.


I don't deny that. But if there's no huge improvement in the number of blocks mined by the pool, the miners will not be happy about those fees they're losing.
And I can bet that the pool does care about keeping (most of) its miners there.


Again, I think that you're over-simplifying the things. Let's say the pool doesn't care and mines empty blocks. But if the pool constantly mines empty blocks and the miners don't get the income they're expecting, they'll leave. And then the pool will care. (Of course, again, the pool will make sure this doesn't happen, hence will try to find a good balance.)


... But I think that we've started now to get somewhat off topic...

you do know that while you want everyone else to pay more fee's where you are trying to justify that paying over 10sat/byte is a happy number

the ordinal junk pays 0.5sat/byte as their norm
and less. where there are examples of paying nothing at all

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
you crying about "but pools need their 0.013btc extra"... whilst actual pools happily would sacrifice that extra for a few seconds start on their next block to get more chances of 6.25
yep even a 2/600 chance increase is worth more then "normal fees"

oh and as for mining pools
the pools dont do the hard work. they are just data collators(pool stratum owners dont do the hashing). they dont care what the actual asics get in the end. whether its a cut of 6.2 (pool takes 0.05) or a cut of 6.213 (tx fee 0.013, pool takes 0.05)

the pool itself does not care. pools even do empty blocks at times too. they dont care. its the asic miners who are remote users to the pool server.. whom have the main split after pool takes it cut
and asic miners have no say in what junk their hash represents

a pool would love to give miners less coin. becasue that then pushes the cost per coin up meaning it affects the market rate

Come on, Franky, the fact that some can now and then make a deal with the mining pool to mine their tx with small or no (on-chain) fee (who knows if other payment was made and how much that was?) is an exception.
The rule is that in 99.999% of the cases a mining pools will prefer the transactions with the higher fees ( per vByte ).


On the other hand, I do agree that paying more may, on long term only make all the fees gradually increase with no benefit for anybody else than the miners. Plus the users think that the next fee after 1 sat/vByte is 2 sat/vByte, not 1.1 or so, making the rise more abrupt.
I'd like to see this NFT spam gone, but I don't think it'll happen too soon. And I fear we are heading to ... what we had in December 2017 (as fees).

paying more does not cause mining pools to want your transaction more then a spam meme

there are already many spam memes that pay NO FEE AT ALL but allowed to bloat a whole block
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae
 3,938,383 Bytes - fee: ZERO

telling everyone to pay more solves nothing
also $1 seems cheap to you but you forget one thing in your diatribe
WORLD currency. where by $1 tx or $22 tx are more then a few hours of labour,

you do know paying from first world countries costs XX using services like western union.. but third world countries pay far less domestically..
and what your not realising is saying "bitcoin is cheap" is not cheap  

but you need to look outside of your own prospective to see what the real world offers

a $1 tx for america is 50% of a US starbuck coffee
but its way more for a african, indian

so you saying pay more is actually pricing out a 3rd of the world from seeing bitcoin as useful

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.

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

There are so many reasons this happens.  During runs, no matter if bull or bear, you likely already know.  Every body spends and receives so the Mempool goes full.  But when fees are very low, as in around 1 Sat per vByte, it is a perfect opportunity to consolidate outputs.  I do this very often.  Others here do as well.

But now imagine an entity needing to consolidate so many outputs in different transactions or process a ton of transactions internally.  Of course they will profit off the moment and consolidate it when fees are low.  So expect big spikes in Mempool queue every time fees go down to around 1 Sat per vByte.  This is just how it works.  Every body wants to move money at cheap rates.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

It’s certainly bloating the blockchain to a high degree, and whilst a few days ago the number of Digital Artifacts (AKA Ordinals) seemed to revert, leading to lower bloating percentages for a few days, things have picked-up the pace again over the last few days, causing the fees to rise again during certain intervals on and off.

The https://mempool.space/ has been doing a pretty good job with a simple understandable UI. It has the values in both satoshi and dollar.


There is also https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight which is a very old tool to visualize the mempool and see the total size for each fee level. But it is not the most user friendly.
And of course there are wallets such as Electrum that also do a pretty good job at giving the user a good fee estimation.

Man, you're clueless. You're mixing apples and oranges here. What's happening now with these ordinals is called terrorism. It's not freedom, it's undermining the whole system, whole Bitcoin world. What you're saying is "oh, poor dude, he beat the sh*t out of blockchain with his 25 billions of monkey pics! let him go on, it's freedom!".

And no, it's not a test. It's just abuse and making something work not as it was meant to. 

these memes are being put into blocks by pools that love cheap spam
this one for instance is 122kb of dead weight. but only paying 0.5sat/byte ($13 for 122kb)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/d6537aa2e01e5cb5532ff30ba4401986ba9b7247f5e772f68a23fac5eca2d098

here is one that is 3.9mb of dead weight and paid NO FEE
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae

an average block has about 2000tx. is about 1.3mb in size and pays about 0.1x in fees

however there are some blocks that contain lots of deadweight memes
where the fee is far less but the total size of block is over 3mb
such as block 779272 with only 427 tx and only paying a total block fee of 0.02891196


taproot was suppose to promise "one signature length" witness weight max..
(the idea was to make multisig less bloaty)

here is the thing. as soon as taproot got activated (business sponsored request for taproot) sipa then retired and relinquished his github privileges. the other core devs are now unsure what to do so playing party games of saying nothing can be done..
yep the remaining lead maintainers of core have the coding power but dont/cant use it due to how much cludge they would have to undo now. without the guy that implemented it to consult

however the solution is simple.
simply changing the "upto wight(4mb)" they can say that taproot is upto 64-80byte(one signature length)
and it does not break "backward" nodes. because a taproot if only 80byte witness is still with the upto 4mb status of current acceptance parameters. thus no harm to the network. but does stop future bloat

Wouldn't that make it very costly though? If they were to fill the entire block, to get in, they'd have to pay around of what the average fees-per-block is, currently over $4k (if my quick search was correct).

What does Taproot actually do? Does it only allow to upload images on chain, or does it also reduces the cost of doing that somehow?

its not about how many people are:
interested
making them
selling them
buying them

its about how many crap memes are being bloated into a block by a small idiot group

there have been examples where one person has put in over 10,000 crap memes into the blockchain. and its that bloat in of itself that is causing problems. it doesnt matter if other people then trade it or price it or any other worthless social stuff.. its that 1 person being capable of adding between 3GB (0.3mb meme*10000) to 39gb (3.9mb*10000) all by themself
in less than a couple months

there are people that can take an image. EG a monkey
and have a algo that can change
the background by 10 colours
eyes by 10 colours (100 variations so far)
mouth positions by 10 expressions (1000 variations so far)
ear size/shape or face direction by 10 (10000 variations)

and produce said stockpile of images in minutes
and then put upto 10 of them per block to fill a block
with a stockpile to keep repeating for upto 1000 blocks (a week shortest time)

and then repeat with a new animal each week

All this talk about Ordinals.... is it really making that much of a difference? I mean who is even using that stuff? Are people actually making NFTs and selling them and moving them around on Bitcoin? It seems like such a niche thing its hard to imagine many people would be using them on Bitcoin. I only see it mentioned here, I've never heard of it outside this forum.

Thanks for sharing, that's a really amusing one. The never-ending low fee line looks pretty scary:


But the median fee is $0.82, so things are not so bad I guess.

Could be. I think it was the first, or one of the first, websites of this type, so I got it bookmarked. But I remember always paying lower than that without much delay.

---

Anyone can link me to a reliable site that shows the median, cheapest high priority fee (not just the median fee or sats/vByte), ideally in BTC and in USD? I can't see such option in the links posted above.

Is there any particular reason for this to happen? Usually this happens when exchanges consolidate their wallets but I don't think any such thing is happening now so is this from any individual to lower the transaction speeds of other while they were in the price manipulation process? Maybe my query look stupid but that is what sparked in my mind about this.

So you want to use a free and decentralized coin that is available for all the people and restrict it for those people and use cases you don't like? That's not how Bitcoin works. If it did that, it would be the same shit we grew up around, called traditional finance. I am not happy with the ordinal crap clogging up the mempools either, but Bitcoin doesn't do blacklists.

After we do that, I suggest we implement mandatory KYC in Bitcoin to prevent the Irish and Swedes from using it at all. My God, such horrible people. Our suggestions have equal chances of getting implemented.

---

This is a good test to see if Bitcoin is ready for a full-scale economy. And, how does everyone think it's doing? People are dreaming of bitcoin becoming the currency of the world, but it's currently struggling with bananas. Imagine the horror of sending a transaction if it did gain a huge influx of new users that constantly use it.

I know well, but I'm afraid there is no other option to lower the cost of a byte in a pro-freedom network other than to increase the supply limit.

I heard it's cheaper there. Maybe he should approach the Ethereans. Far more friendly with NFTs.