there you go again
your ignorance has again shown up
the 2017 event was not a world vs franky. and i laugh every time you imply that
the 2017 event you keep getting wrong and imply your ignorant and stupid version of events, was not a network wide community node decision to activate segwit.
it was not a majority nodes decided something else, which franky disagreed with
it was a MANDATORY ACTIVATION that did not require the majority of the community to upgrade their node to cause an activation
it was a small group of devs and economic nodes that had code to flag a threatening 'your blocks will be ignored if miners dont flag this' ..and then when one flag was reached its level. triggered the rejection(bias miscount) to then get the 100%(un unnatural level by the way) to then activate segwit
its all there in the blockchain. the data exists to prove this event. its immutable it cant be edited.
heck i even made it easy for you to remember by showing you the actions in a visual form of the flag chart. and colour code the description to make it as easy for you to understand.
YOU fail to use block data of flag events to prove your case all you use is insults and lies.
now take some time to go do some research and go check out the actual version of events. not the ones you are trying to suggest happened due to your wishy washy story you are trying to sales pitch to people..
go on check the blockchain and realise what happened and how. learn what the flags represent read the code that gets triggered dependant on what flags reach which threshold. read it. and learn.
oh and as for your silly "increase the cost of privacy"
you are the one advocating for pruning. so there is no extra cost for you
as for your "extra cost"
we are in an era that 16TB hard drives are a real thing
the difference of a 250gb vs a TB hard drive(10x)
is not an extra cost of 10x the cost
..
people do not keep the same computer for decades
if they did then you would not see the gaming industry evolve. you would not see the graphics design video editing movie industry evolve. you would not see basically technology evolve.. but here is the thing they all do evolve faster than you want to imply.
technology when you first spouted your ignorant version of events outpaced your rhetoric, thus making your assumptions wrong then.. and because it was years of you spouting your ignorance. technology has been evolving more since them making it even more wrong now
in short your rhetoric of ignorance and lack of hard data to back up your rhetoric becomes more wrong the longer you stick with it.
so actually do the research and remind yourself of what actually happened. and stop your crap
Topic: Mempool if full, but what does that actually mean? (Read 457 times)
bitcoin does not require(need) people to use a full node just to use bitcoin.
Never said it did. I also didn't ask for an essay on how much you pay for shit online. I'm saying you want to increase the cost of access to privacy in order to facilitate a reduction in the cost of transacting. I'm also saying nodes are currently in disagreement with you and don't appear to want that at this stage. And since you clearly don't have an answer to either of those points, you'll no doubt go off on another moronic tangent that likely makes no sense whatsoever.
Watch closely, everyone. Evasive nonsense to follow shortly.
//EDIT: Yep, called it. More psychotic technobabble from an unhinged lunatic who clearly needs professional mental health care.
firstly..
for those that dont even have electric or internet.. they would not be interested in crypto. due to no access at all.. (doesnt matter if its lite wallet or full node.. no electric means no access.. thats not a bitcoin problem thats a electric problem)
but for those that do have internet and electric. obviously they can get into bitcoin..(doesnt matter if its litre wallet or full node)
. they would get into crypto and yep IF they WANT they can be a full node.
bitcoin does not require(need) people to use a full node just to use bitcoin. but for those that WANT to. if you have electric and internet. then obviously you can
if you ignore american prices converted to african/asian currency..
and instead look at chinese prices shipped to africa/asia.
you start to see things are not as expensive as you think
yep we as british/american pay high because our currency is high
you soon learn this if you stop buying from american retailers and try to buy from alibaba/ali express that you can save alot of money..
same product. made in same factory your retailer sells a hard drive to you. but at a different price..
those crying that bitcoin should not grow due to price are narrow minded only thinking about their favoured altcoin profits potential if they can convince enough idiots to offramp over to the altnet..
these schemers are pretending it costs $1000 to be a full node.
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive RETAIL for under $70
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive drop shipped for under $40
we are not in the days of the 1990's where hard drives store less than a DVD movie
why is it the same dozen altnet supporters that always chime in trying to get people to offramp to another network
telling people that bitcoin is congested so everyone should stop using bitcoin is not the answer. the answer is to scale bitcoin
NO one is suggesting to leap to huge numbers so dont even friggen try that silly game. but just having some progressive scaling periodically is where we should have been moving towards years ago.
and before you push anouther debunked game. no segwit did not push onchain tx count up progressively.. tx count staled out by the time segwit wallet tx signing became available
and as for doomads delusions of grandeur about his opinions of history..
try to use some blockdata and some actual references that are not just quotes from a buddy of yours that tells you what you want to hear.
many people are peed off with bitcoin congestion and high onchain fee's... telling them to move to an altnet is not the solution
for those that dont even have electric or internet.. they would not be interested in crypto. due to no access at all.. (doesnt matter if its lite wallet or full node.. no electric means no access.. thats not a bitcoin problem thats a electric problem)
but for those that do have internet and electric. obviously they can get into bitcoin..(doesnt matter if its litre wallet or full node)
. they would get into crypto and yep IF they WANT they can be a full node.
bitcoin does not require(need) people to use a full node just to use bitcoin. but for those that WANT to. if you have electric and internet. then obviously you can
if you ignore american prices converted to african/asian currency..
and instead look at chinese prices shipped to africa/asia.
you start to see things are not as expensive as you think
yep we as british/american pay high because our currency is high
you soon learn this if you stop buying from american retailers and try to buy from alibaba/ali express that you can save alot of money..
same product. made in same factory your retailer sells a hard drive to you. but at a different price..
those crying that bitcoin should not grow due to price are narrow minded only thinking about their favoured altcoin profits potential if they can convince enough idiots to offramp over to the altnet..
these schemers are pretending it costs $1000 to be a full node.
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive RETAIL for under $70
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive drop shipped for under $40
we are not in the days of the 1990's where hard drives store less than a DVD movie
why is it the same dozen altnet supporters that always chime in trying to get people to offramp to another network
telling people that bitcoin is congested so everyone should stop using bitcoin is not the answer. the answer is to scale bitcoin
NO one is suggesting to leap to huge numbers so dont even friggen try that silly game. but just having some progressive scaling periodically is where we should have been moving towards years ago.
and before you push anouther debunked game. no segwit did not push onchain tx count up progressively.. tx count staled out by the time segwit wallet tx signing became available
and as for doomads delusions of grandeur about his opinions of history..
try to use some blockdata and some actual references that are not just quotes from a buddy of yours that tells you what you want to hear.
many people are peed off with bitcoin congestion and high onchain fee's... telling them to move to an altnet is not the solution
There is always the possibility of a group of individuals coming together to pool resources and set up a "community node". Not as perfect as running your own node, but still better to have a node ran by you and a few friends or your local village over having no node at all. There is also the possibility of receiving data for free via blockstream satellite, and you can repurpose old TV satellite dishes or similar to keep costs to a minimum.
I want the unbanked to be able to run a node.
Really? How?
I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.
But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.
Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.
It would almost certainly have to be a pruned node, to keep the costs to a minimum. I just don't believe privacy and security should be a privilege only afforded to the wealthy. There is always going to be some cost, but it's preferable if the entry requirements aren't be too expensive.
Not wasting my time responding to franky1 and his "mandatory" delusions. Literally the only person in the universe who believes it's an actual thing. Only someone who doesn't understand consensus could come to such a flawed conclusion.
I want the unbanked to be able to run a node.
Really? How?
I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.
But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.
Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.
dozens of devs are making whatever they damn well please because other people (not you) have proposed ideas those developers were inspired by.
LOL. That's the most neutral stance there is.
The thing about consensus, though, is that it does not care for, or even acknowledge, your ridiculous opinions about what "true consensus" might be. Consensus is an enforcement of collective will.
you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance
LOL. That's the most neutral stance there is.
yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code gets to activate and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible
The thing about consensus, though, is that it does not care for, or even acknowledge, your ridiculous opinions about what "true consensus" might be. Consensus is an enforcement of collective will.
yet.. you ignore forget pretend you were never around to have seen, avoid researching..
that in 2017 the MANDATORY activity not of the mass consensus of all full nodes. but a small portion caused the activation via rejecting blocks that did not support segwit. to get a false and normally impossibly 100% segwit flag
look at image
(emphasis its a visual representation of ACTUAL immutable block data of flags in those blocks that anyone can double check at any time)
.. and see:
blue line was the flag sponsored by the economic nodes of a only ~60 economic participants of big corp/farms agreeing to the NYA. it was not the mass consensus of full nodes. it was a threaten to flag or else be ignored..
they reached their 80% threat result in one week.. which required 1 month for that 80% to maintain to then.... trigger the flag for segwit(red) to a naturally impossible 100%, due to the block rejecting of non flaggers which due to the unnatural 100% of the segwit flat.. segwit then activated
emphasis of the near perfect diagonal red line rise to naturally impossible 100%
that red line
november 2018-may 2017 didnt react even 50% of a 90% requirement
rise in june-july(due to the NYA flag actions/threats/worrys) where the segwit flag(red) that went straight to 100%
and this block rejecting scheme to get fake 100% happened before activation. to fake 100% to get the activation
emphasis. rejecting blocks before an activation is not consensus
again because for 5 years you are repeatedly blind to research or remember being told
BEFORE segwit activated. to falsely get segwit to activate
lastly..
everything i said in the discussion with you on this subject of the mandatory actions of not all full nodes but a small part of certain corporate aligned devs and businesses
can be backed up but immutible blockdata and also code...
your rhetoric is backed up by your preferences and ideologies and fangirlisms of quoting your buddies that agree with you.. and there is only a dozen of them on this forum
many many many many people are peed off with congestion, high fee's and having to rely on custodians or altnets because bitcoin is being held back from onchain scaling by the antics of people like you and the economic nodes that prefer people to custodianse or offramp
while you pretend me and only me want onchain scaling.. you are ignorant of the hundreds of topics on this forum that talk about onchain scaling
while you pretend everyone wants LN
there are only a dozen topics about LN
yes you and your buddies invade other topics to advertise and promote that LN is a solution to users problems.. but thats false advertising because LN has more problems than bitcoin does
Is the possible reason for transferring funds to Trustwallet as the hype is because of binance?
No, these are all internal consolidation transactions from Binance. And don't use Trust wallet - it is closed source and owned by Binance. A terrible choice.How often does Binance do these consolidations?
Not infrequently, but this is by far the most they've ever done at once. There is no good reason they could have done this gradually over several weeks or months and saved themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees without backing up the mempool for everyone else, but this is obviously in response to the current market climate surrounding FTX and the fact they are scrambling to make sure they are actually solvent.All Binance's transactions have now been included in a block, so the mempool is back down to around 50 vMB of unconfirmed transactions with peak fees of around 7 sats/vbyte. I would expect it to be largely cleared out by Monday.
you dont understand much out side of your small community of chums
Pretty rich coming from you. No "side" is smaller than yours. Lone, isolated wingnut. No one is developing anything you have proposed, which is probably why you are so bitter and resentful. Yet dozens of devs are making whatever they damn well please because other people (not you) have proposed ideas those developers were inspired by. And I'm on their "side". If people want to build "other networks" because they like that idea, more power to them, I say. Plus, I couldn't stand in their way even if I wanted to (a concept that still hasn't occurred to you).
You act like I'm some part of niche conspiracy, yet I can't be because this "side" is where all the actual coding is being done and not on whatever "side" you think you're on.
It winds you up so much that people respect and admire innovators like Dryja and Poon, where so much has been achieved from just a single whitepaper they published. While no one will give you a millisecond of attention despite the hundreds of pleas you've made for people to take heed of your (largely ill-conceived) ideas. It's only natural you'd feel utter humiliation and have all these amusing little meltdowns over it. I find the schadenfreude most delectable.
you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance
LOL. That's the most neutral stance there is.
"I don't like that, so you aren't allowed to code it" = not neutral, indicative of bias (sounds like something you'd say)
"code whatever the fuck you want because it's your prerogative and I can't stop you" = neutral, unbiased (sounds like something I'd say)
yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code gets to activate and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible
The thing about consensus, though, is that it does not care for, or even acknowledge, your ridiculous opinions about what "true consensus" might be. Consensus is an enforcement of collective will. Action over words. Not the inane, demented blatherings of a clueless, whiny sadcase like you. You've spent the last 7+ years trying to change the narrative and have accomplished absolutely nothing. You'll no doubt spend the next 7 years doing the same in an increasingly obnoxious fashion and you will continue to achieve absolutely nothing. Go you!
the funny part is you also HATE if there was a second team or third team doing a "reference client" for bitcoin. where by it reduces core control (central point of failure) you LOVE core having control of the code and activation decisions of what core roadmaps want in bitcoin
More baseless preconceived notions that simply aren't true. If I say anyone can code what they want, that means anyone can code what they want. It's open-source and anyone can use it as they see fit. You can form a team and code a client. I encourage you to do this all the time (but you won't because all you can do is whine).
And what the hell is your total obsession with this phrase "reference client" anyway? I've literally just checked my post history with the forum's search function and it comes up almost exclusively when you are in the damn thread pissing and whining about reference clients and I'm quoting you. I don't go around proclaiming anything about how many reference clients I think there should or shouldn't be. Largely because I don't give a toss. This is all your obsession, not mine. Stop projecting your bizarre and ludicrous fixations on everyone else, plz.
while you pretend the data arguments against expanding bitcoin tx count is reasons to say no to it by pretending it wil centralise bitcoin.. you are just ignoring the real reasons of what cause bitcoin centralisations. and that is not letting users have space to transact daily to then actually want to run a node daily.
I'm not the one "not letting" anyone do anything. That would be the nodes, like I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. Again, when nodes permit more throughput, you will get more throughput. But the nodes don't want that right now. Remember, enforcement of will. Actions, not words. People are running code that they approve of (and you despise) because that's what they want. This is a "you" problem. We're happy, you aren't. All I'm suggesting is that you find a more productive outlet to funnel your impotent frustrations into.
Doomad
you dont understand much out side of your small community of chums,. but you have very high corporate shill practices of wanting people to get off bitcoin and move into the patents and property of LN and liquid designs
you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance
yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code THEN GETS TO ACTIVATE and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible
yet core done it.. with their corporate partners(DCG economic nodes) that sponsored segwit to get activated
the funny part is you also HATE if there was a second team or third team doing a "reference client" for bitcoin(you know a thing called decentralisation). where by it reduces core control (central point of failure)... you LOVE core having control of the code and activation decisions of what core roadmaps want in bitcoin
.....
while you pretend the data arguments against expanding bitcoin tx count is reasons to say no to it, by pretending it will centralise bitcoin.. you are just ignoring the real reasons of what causes bitcoin centralisations. and that is not letting users have space to transact daily to then actually want to run a node daily. instead you are the one that was happy with the exchanges(economic nodes) having a vested interest and majority voice of a mandatory activation of segwit. that fit your desires of needing segwit to use as the gateway offramp to your favoured altnet
you dont care about bitcoin network utility. you and your chums have been seen talking about using prune as a feature.. which does not help support the backbone security/decentralisation of the blockchain.
(if nodes dont have the blockchain, they cant share the blockchain. thus there is less of a pool of nodes about to help out new people entering the full node backbone)
your narrow mindset thinking $3/coffee is an acceptable fee and an unacceptable spend amount for traders/users to want to move.. is your narrow mind of the elite world of 1st world countries..
i personally am born and raised white british and as far back as the family tree goes has been british.. so i am a 1st world country person. but i atleast can see beyond my personal circumstances to actually want bitcoin to be useful for the 3rd world where $3 is a day/weeks wage. where by they should not be told to not use bitcoin and instead told to go use another network. or simply priced out of using bitconi via fees being higher than their days/weeks salary
bitcoin was a payment system for the unbanked.. not a reserve system for the corporate elite financial services sector!! acknowledge understand and realise that.
....
the points at which i said not everyone needs to be a full node..
is different to those that want.
this statement of me saying not everyone NEEDS to be a full node is in response to your drivel over the years of you previously saying that you thought my mindset was that everyone should be full noder even if they dont want to use bitcoin daily.. and also your opposite drivel about those that want to use bitcoin should not have to be
its actually true if people are only transacting once a month they dont NEED to be online 247 watching for broadcasts
bitcoin is not LN
logic and common sense wins.. if you are not going to cdrive a car for a month. there is no need to keep the car engine running for the entire month your not using it
however people that are true bitcoiners that want to use bitcoin every day should be able to. without being told by altnetters like yourself that they should adopt your altnet instead to avoid fee's which your favoured corporate shill devs have pushed into bitcoin as a premium to advertise other things that lead them on a path towards altnets
bitcoin should have more transaction counts per blocks so that more people can enjoy bitcoin regularly. and i mean bitcoin. where they actually use bitcoin daily.
your idea is for people to lock up sats and for months not need to run a full node where by they instead give sats to a hub and a hub gives them inbound balance on some other network to play with for months
when you say you want the fair balance of fees of bitcoin.. you are not talking about bitcoin network fee;s.. you are and you keep doing it. talking about fee's associated with moving value you call "bitcoin" but on a network that is not the bitcoin network even though you try to assume the LN network is "bitcoin"
when i talk about bitcoin fee's i actually mean the bitcoin network fees
as for your rhetoric about the privilege of a limited blockspace which comes at a premium where people should pay that premium.. again that limit is not one based on science or physics limitation. that implied limit is put there and kept low for the politics(not neutral)
whilst you dream about a situation where block miners need $100k($16k*6.25=$100k) a block to cover electric~hardware costs of mining and a block only has 2000 tx average you love the idea that people should be paying $50 per tx
however.. basic economics is that if bitcoin miners need $100k a block.. then having
10k tx = people pay $10
20k tx = people pay $5
thus having more tx onchain actually helps decrease the fee each person pays without having to get everyone to pay $50 in your "limited blockspace so pay the premium" scenario
...
now ake your altnet appreciation corporate middlemen service mindset shilling back to your altnet because all your chants about why you dont want bitcoin to scale is not about BITCOIN utility. its about convoluted ways to limit and premiumize bitcoin out of common folks reach just so you can con and scam them out of pegged value on another network
oh an as for privacy.. bitcoin does not ask for your name. nor does it ask for you home location nor does it ask for the list of products you want to buy.. bitcoin is good. you are confusing bitcoin with the middle men services which you are so engrained and used to using so much you cant tell the difference between the corporate shilling and services you are involved in. vs the actually utility and protocol of the bitcoin network
yes you are one of the idiots that wants to break blockchains to not be immutable accounting system that proves the creation of coins and also shows that all payments use coins that can prove their creation origin.. you instead your your business/service "surveilance2 exchanges as a thing to wreck bitcoin.
sorry but how about stop using services that share your shopping list and delivery address.. then you can have your privacy
you dont understand much out side of your small community of chums,. but you have very high corporate shill practices of wanting people to get off bitcoin and move into the patents and property of LN and liquid designs
you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance
yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code THEN GETS TO ACTIVATE and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible
yet core done it.. with their corporate partners(DCG economic nodes) that sponsored segwit to get activated
the funny part is you also HATE if there was a second team or third team doing a "reference client" for bitcoin(you know a thing called decentralisation). where by it reduces core control (central point of failure)... you LOVE core having control of the code and activation decisions of what core roadmaps want in bitcoin
.....
while you pretend the data arguments against expanding bitcoin tx count is reasons to say no to it, by pretending it will centralise bitcoin.. you are just ignoring the real reasons of what causes bitcoin centralisations. and that is not letting users have space to transact daily to then actually want to run a node daily. instead you are the one that was happy with the exchanges(economic nodes) having a vested interest and majority voice of a mandatory activation of segwit. that fit your desires of needing segwit to use as the gateway offramp to your favoured altnet
you dont care about bitcoin network utility. you and your chums have been seen talking about using prune as a feature.. which does not help support the backbone security/decentralisation of the blockchain.
(if nodes dont have the blockchain, they cant share the blockchain. thus there is less of a pool of nodes about to help out new people entering the full node backbone)
your narrow mindset thinking $3/coffee is an acceptable fee and an unacceptable spend amount for traders/users to want to move.. is your narrow mind of the elite world of 1st world countries..
i personally am born and raised white british and as far back as the family tree goes has been british.. so i am a 1st world country person. but i atleast can see beyond my personal circumstances to actually want bitcoin to be useful for the 3rd world where $3 is a day/weeks wage. where by they should not be told to not use bitcoin and instead told to go use another network. or simply priced out of using bitconi via fees being higher than their days/weeks salary
bitcoin was a payment system for the unbanked.. not a reserve system for the corporate elite financial services sector!! acknowledge understand and realise that.
....
the points at which i said not everyone needs to be a full node..
is different to those that want.
this statement of me saying not everyone NEEDS to be a full node is in response to your drivel over the years of you previously saying that you thought my mindset was that everyone should be full noder even if they dont want to use bitcoin daily.. and also your opposite drivel about those that want to use bitcoin should not have to be
its actually true if people are only transacting once a month they dont NEED to be online 247 watching for broadcasts
bitcoin is not LN
logic and common sense wins.. if you are not going to cdrive a car for a month. there is no need to keep the car engine running for the entire month your not using it
however people that are true bitcoiners that want to use bitcoin every day should be able to. without being told by altnetters like yourself that they should adopt your altnet instead to avoid fee's which your favoured corporate shill devs have pushed into bitcoin as a premium to advertise other things that lead them on a path towards altnets
bitcoin should have more transaction counts per blocks so that more people can enjoy bitcoin regularly. and i mean bitcoin. where they actually use bitcoin daily.
your idea is for people to lock up sats and for months not need to run a full node where by they instead give sats to a hub and a hub gives them inbound balance on some other network to play with for months
when you say you want the fair balance of fees of bitcoin.. you are not talking about bitcoin network fee;s.. you are and you keep doing it. talking about fee's associated with moving value you call "bitcoin" but on a network that is not the bitcoin network even though you try to assume the LN network is "bitcoin"
when i talk about bitcoin fee's i actually mean the bitcoin network fees
as for your rhetoric about the privilege of a limited blockspace which comes at a premium where people should pay that premium.. again that limit is not one based on science or physics limitation. that implied limit is put there and kept low for the politics(not neutral)
whilst you dream about a situation where block miners need $100k($16k*6.25=$100k) a block to cover electric~hardware costs of mining and a block only has 2000 tx average you love the idea that people should be paying $50 per tx
however.. basic economics is that if bitcoin miners need $100k a block.. then having
10k tx = people pay $10
20k tx = people pay $5
thus having more tx onchain actually helps decrease the fee each person pays without having to get everyone to pay $50 in your "limited blockspace so pay the premium" scenario
...
now ake your altnet appreciation corporate middlemen service mindset shilling back to your altnet because all your chants about why you dont want bitcoin to scale is not about BITCOIN utility. its about convoluted ways to limit and premiumize bitcoin out of common folks reach just so you can con and scam them out of pegged value on another network
oh an as for privacy.. bitcoin does not ask for your name. nor does it ask for you home location nor does it ask for the list of products you want to buy.. bitcoin is good. you are confusing bitcoin with the middle men services which you are so engrained and used to using so much you cant tell the difference between the corporate shilling and services you are involved in. vs the actually utility and protocol of the bitcoin network
yes you are one of the idiots that wants to break blockchains to not be immutable accounting system that proves the creation of coins and also shows that all payments use coins that can prove their creation origin.. you instead your your business/service "surveilance2 exchanges as a thing to wreck bitcoin.
sorry but how about stop using services that share your shopping list and delivery address.. then you can have your privacy
you do not want the masses of say unbanked people using bitcoin
I want the unbanked to be able to run a node. That still qualifies as part of "using Bitcoin" in case you had forgotten.
I want a balance between affordability to transact and affordability to have privacy (which is something SPV cannot offer to the same extent as running a node).
You clearly have no interest in privacy and it's not like I'd expect you to understand or respect the feelings of others. That's not one of your strong suits. Probably never will be. So you'll just keep pretending that no one else cares about privacy and that everyone thinks along the same decidedly narrow lines as you. And that's why you'll continue to be "wrong because franky".
YOU have said YOU dont want to se people using bitcoin for coffee amounts
your ignorance does not realise those ~$3 coffee amounts are weekly wages for the unbanked
your ignorance does not realise those ~$3 coffee amounts are weekly wages for the unbanked
I'm happy for people to send "coffee amounts" if that's what they want to do. However, if you want access to the most secure blockchain on Earth, that level of security has to be paid for. That's just supply and demand. You want something cheaper, you make that compromise by having less security.
I get that you're a lefty socialist type (and I have no problem with that, because I'm one too in the realm of fiat). I understand all too well the ease with which you could apply that same socialist mindset to Bitcoin, but I assure you it won't work. Bitcoin is fundamentally neutral. It will resist gravitating to either hard left or hard right economic theories. Bitcoin won't give discounted tx fees to those who might face low incomes, poverty or financial difficulty. I'm sorry if it doesn't work that way. Either come up with something better or accept it for what it is.
Every Bitcoin node on the face of the planet has now been in a position where at any point in the last 7+ years, it could have shifted to running code that would permit greater on-chain throughput. The vast majority have declined that opportunity. Until that changes, you aren't getting what you want. Shoot the messenger again if you like. Make out like I'm the villain. I'm only telling you how it is. If you want the situation to change, the onus is on you to come up with a better proposal. Nothing you've said in the last 7+ years has resulted in you getting the level of throughput you desire, so I don't know why you keep expecting to get a different outcome by repeating the same things over and over. It's beyond absurd at this point.
as for the hardware requirements of being a node runner
i have never said get bitcoin into a position that only big businesses can run on large servers..
i have never said get bitcoin into a position that only big businesses can run on large servers..
Don't mince words. You've made your views clear. I'll leave these following quotes without comment for others to make their own conclusions on how important you feel it is for the financially vulnerable to be able to have access to the benefits of security and privacy which running a full node confers:
b. not everyone NEEDS to be a full node
c. it would mainly be businesses and enthusiasts that NEED to run full nodes
c. it would mainly be businesses and enthusiasts that NEED to run full nodes
the way i see it is that not everyone NEEDS to be a full node. so yea people can use lite wallets.
the way i see it if you only have balance to only b spending occassionally (once a week) you dont need to monitor every transaction there is all day every day, all you really care about is that your transaction exists. so being a full node is not an essential need.
where as businesses that NEED to monitor hundreds/thousands of transactions they are personally involved in have personal reasons to NEED to be a full node.
also those few people that have slow internet because they are home users actually bottleneck the propogation. and thus they are not helping the network. so just being a full node for the sake of thinking they are helping, is actually doing the opposite.
the way i see it if you only have balance to only b spending occassionally (once a week) you dont need to monitor every transaction there is all day every day, all you really care about is that your transaction exists. so being a full node is not an essential need.
where as businesses that NEED to monitor hundreds/thousands of transactions they are personally involved in have personal reasons to NEED to be a full node.
also those few people that have slow internet because they are home users actually bottleneck the propogation. and thus they are not helping the network. so just being a full node for the sake of thinking they are helping, is actually doing the opposite.
those only getting paid once a month and only wanting to use bitcoin just to buy groceries to be delivered next day, can just use spv wallets. not everyone needs to be a full node and monitor ~2000 tx every 10 minutes if they are only personally involved in 1 tx a day/week
if you are a business NEEDING to be monitoring more than just a couple addresses. then you probably for other business purposes have your computers on a 4 year tax deductibles set-up where you replace equipment. and you probably hav a business internet plan. rather than a home user plan
if you are a business NEEDING to be monitoring more than just a couple addresses. then you probably for other business purposes have your computers on a 4 year tax deductibles set-up where you replace equipment. and you probably hav a business internet plan. rather than a home user plan
not everyone needs to get fully set up with bitcoin. just the ones with large amounts invested.. for instance if you have under 1btc, i see no point going full bitcoin-core..
doomad
YOU are the most vocal cry baby that has been saying you do not want the masses of say unbanked people using bitcoin
YOU have said YOU dont want to se people using bitcoin for coffee amounts
your ignorance does not realise those ~$3 coffee amounts are weekly wages for the unbanked
YOU and your altnet chums are the one that does not want people using bitcoin because YOU want people to use another network instead,
as for the hardware requirements of being a node runner
i have never said get bitcoin into a position that only big businesses can run on large servers..
YOU and your altnet chums are the ones now saying that your prefered altnet(LN) requires non techy people to load up on msat balance by using hub serves
YOU are very vocal about not wanting certain people/individuals using bitcoin
..
also a true non cludge utility of 4mb space does not harm the decentralisation of the network. even core devs have deemed 4mb as network safe.
however in segwit. using its cludge miscount of bytes(vbytes) users are not getting full true utility of 4mb
also if you look at the transaction count segwit has not even expanded the transaction count even though they have changed the weight"(miscounted blocksize) from 1 to 4
so how about stop trying to assert your network preferences of limiting bitcoin utility to congest it up because you want people to offramp to your prefered other network.. and understand true bitcoiners want BITCOIN scaling
now go take your altnet promotion campaign cries back to your prefered network.
YOU are the most vocal cry baby that has been saying you do not want the masses of say unbanked people using bitcoin
YOU have said YOU dont want to se people using bitcoin for coffee amounts
your ignorance does not realise those ~$3 coffee amounts are weekly wages for the unbanked
YOU and your altnet chums are the one that does not want people using bitcoin because YOU want people to use another network instead,
as for the hardware requirements of being a node runner
i have never said get bitcoin into a position that only big businesses can run on large servers..
YOU and your altnet chums are the ones now saying that your prefered altnet(LN) requires non techy people to load up on msat balance by using hub serves
YOU are very vocal about not wanting certain people/individuals using bitcoin
..
also a true non cludge utility of 4mb space does not harm the decentralisation of the network. even core devs have deemed 4mb as network safe.
however in segwit. using its cludge miscount of bytes(vbytes) users are not getting full true utility of 4mb
also if you look at the transaction count segwit has not even expanded the transaction count even though they have changed the weight"(miscounted blocksize) from 1 to 4
so how about stop trying to assert your network preferences of limiting bitcoin utility to congest it up because you want people to offramp to your prefered other network.. and understand true bitcoiners want BITCOIN scaling
now go take your altnet promotion campaign cries back to your prefered network.
Oh joy, here we go again.
Yes, the purpose is that people can easily run a node, verify transactions for themselves and be their own bank without relying on third parties. That's the whole point. But that notion doesn't match up with your so-called "solution". You and your overly simplistic "double faster" mentality still can't comprehend what real scaling actually looks like. You would, quite literally, cheapen it. In the worst possible way. And you can't see why that's bad. Words cannot describe how utterly oblivious you are to reality.
"Let's just get big businesses to run full nodes and everyone else can settle for SPV whether they like it or not". That's what you want. You've admitted it enough times over the years.
All you care about is how cheap it is to send transactions and you don't pause to consider how costly it might be to rely on trust.
It's astonishing you still don't see the point after all these years. And also (dare I say it, because you'll just start off on another whine-fest about it) it's astonishing that you still can't concede we've already had some on-chain increases to throughput.
When REAL USERS (not just big companies) are prepared to carry the cost of greater on-chain throughput, there will be greater on-chain throughput. It's as simple as that. You constantly bitching and sniping will not expedite matters, so put your toys back in the pram and change the goddamn record plz.
bitcoin and blockchains solved an actual purpose.
Yes, the purpose is that people can easily run a node, verify transactions for themselves and be their own bank without relying on third parties. That's the whole point. But that notion doesn't match up with your so-called "solution". You and your overly simplistic "double faster" mentality still can't comprehend what real scaling actually looks like. You would, quite literally, cheapen it. In the worst possible way. And you can't see why that's bad. Words cannot describe how utterly oblivious you are to reality.
"Let's just get big businesses to run full nodes and everyone else can settle for SPV whether they like it or not". That's what you want. You've admitted it enough times over the years.
All you care about is how cheap it is to send transactions and you don't pause to consider how costly it might be to rely on trust.
It's astonishing you still don't see the point after all these years. And also (dare I say it, because you'll just start off on another whine-fest about it) it's astonishing that you still can't concede we've already had some on-chain increases to throughput.
When REAL USERS (not just big companies) are prepared to carry the cost of greater on-chain throughput, there will be greater on-chain throughput. It's as simple as that. You constantly bitching and sniping will not expedite matters, so put your toys back in the pram and change the goddamn record plz.
you can spot its time to discuss SCALING BITCOIN (no this is not an opportunity for certain people to advertise side/subnets)
what i am about to say is about bitcoin tx congestion.. and what it actually means
i have been watching a certain group of social queens over the last couple years.. always chime into discussions saying idiotic things like
"just pay more"
"wait until the week end"
"wait a week"
"just do CPFP" (yet another tx in mempool, with higher fee)
"we dont want independant people using bitcoin for whatever, like coffee or their 3rd world weekly salary"
"we dont want to see exchanges always sweeping customer deposits to cold store"
"if you only have pizza amounts. dont use it/move it/withdraw it"
"stack sats, dont spend them"
i do laugh to wonder what exactly they want the blockspace for (rhetorical as i know they want it to service their favoured altnet/mixer only)
but here is the thing.
we are not in the 1990's where loading 1.44mb every 10mins (like floppy disk storage) and the concept of bigger storage is inconceivable
we do not live in the 1990's where internet is 56kbps
we are in fibre/5g era. we are in the era of 4tb hard drives
only doing ~2000tx a block needs to expand to allow more per block.. to actually confirm and settle onchain.. not the silly offchain situations that have inherent risk
(this weeks custodian and subnet/token systems have proven bad)
bitcoin and blockchains solved an actual purpose. pretending that payments off chain is the future is acting as if its the 1990's again because yes believe it or not smart contracts and custodians are not new tech.. its old outdated tech
finance guys and cypherpunks were years before bitcoin, doing custodian and smart contracts and they kept running into problems
emphasis
bitcoin was the solution to those problems.. .. those problems are not the solution to bitcoin!!
bitcoin does actually need to scale onchain. because bitcoin does actually serve a purpose and has utility onchain.. its not meant to be regressed into the clutches of large 'hub'/businesses to have privilege of while the little guy has to wait/avoid making utility or pay a premium just to get a chance of utility of bitcoin
if just 1 exchange can cause congestion, its time that bitcoin scales ONCHAIN
what i am about to say is about bitcoin tx congestion.. and what it actually means
i have been watching a certain group of social queens over the last couple years.. always chime into discussions saying idiotic things like
"just pay more"
"wait until the week end"
"wait a week"
"just do CPFP" (yet another tx in mempool, with higher fee)
"we dont want independant people using bitcoin for whatever, like coffee or their 3rd world weekly salary"
"we dont want to see exchanges always sweeping customer deposits to cold store"
"if you only have pizza amounts. dont use it/move it/withdraw it"
"stack sats, dont spend them"
i do laugh to wonder what exactly they want the blockspace for (rhetorical as i know they want it to service their favoured altnet/mixer only)
but here is the thing.
we are not in the 1990's where loading 1.44mb every 10mins (like floppy disk storage) and the concept of bigger storage is inconceivable
we do not live in the 1990's where internet is 56kbps
we are in fibre/5g era. we are in the era of 4tb hard drives
only doing ~2000tx a block needs to expand to allow more per block.. to actually confirm and settle onchain.. not the silly offchain situations that have inherent risk
(this weeks custodian and subnet/token systems have proven bad)
bitcoin and blockchains solved an actual purpose. pretending that payments off chain is the future is acting as if its the 1990's again because yes believe it or not smart contracts and custodians are not new tech.. its old outdated tech
finance guys and cypherpunks were years before bitcoin, doing custodian and smart contracts and they kept running into problems
emphasis
bitcoin was the solution to those problems.. .. those problems are not the solution to bitcoin!!
bitcoin does actually need to scale onchain. because bitcoin does actually serve a purpose and has utility onchain.. its not meant to be regressed into the clutches of large 'hub'/businesses to have privilege of while the little guy has to wait/avoid making utility or pay a premium just to get a chance of utility of bitcoin
if just 1 exchange can cause congestion, its time that bitcoin scales ONCHAIN
What does it mean for the mempool to be "full"?
If Mempool would full then if would be
Then the nodes start prioritizing transactions by setting up a minimal transaction fees. It cancel lower/Zero fees transaction and allows higher fees transaction according to the sequence.
Actually it acts with a systematic way RBF (Replace By Fee) . If one transaction failed then it would automatically chose a transaction with higher fees than it.
Or any related to the FTX issues.
Mempool space becomes congested when there are a lot of transactions and this is perhaps the result of cex exchange awareness of people not to store a big amount --they become panicked and transfer their fund.
Its actually due to the Binance consolidation of their hot wallets and its also a speculation about the CZ is trying to manipulate the mempool while also reap profits with the withdrawal fee in the Binance trading platform.
Also people are withdrawing their funds from exchange, which might adds up the a little bit traffic not this much congested.
How often does Binance do these consolidations?
I know of one instance from 2019, but I'm pretty sure it happened at least one more time after that (not including this time). If nothing else, maybe someone will learn how to properly set the fee so that their transaction doesn't get stuck for days, or maybe they will discover that there is something called RBF.
Here is how the mempool looked in the past 3 years - > https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#3y
Here is a good site to visualize this: https://statoshi.info/d/000000020/memory-pool?orgId=1&from=now-2d&to=now
The green line in the top graph shows the total transaction size, while the white line in the middle graph shows the memory usage of those transactions.
Thank you so much for the explanation and the website which is bookmarked by me today.The green line in the top graph shows the total transaction size, while the white line in the middle graph shows the memory usage of those transactions.
Fortunately, there will be no real race here like in other times of congestion.
The actual capacity of the blockchain right now is over the daily transactions input, unlike the last event where we had more transactions each day and older ones despite paying higher than the averge at that time would be pushed at the bottom.
It is different than past congestion especially times when fee races are crazy with fee rate from 80 to 100 satoshi/ vbyte in 2020 or 400 satoshis/ vbyte in 2018.The actual capacity of the blockchain right now is over the daily transactions input, unlike the last event where we had more transactions each day and older ones despite paying higher than the averge at that time would be pushed at the bottom.
Quote
Right now you just have to outbid Binance 13.5/sat and you will get a confirmation just as you would with 1 sat last week, some will panic and pay more but there are not enough of them to outbid you and leave you outside the blocks for more than a few hours.
You just have to pay 14sat instead of 1sat/b, 50 cents is not the end of the world if you're in a hurry.
I know but it is still more expensive than usual. It is still bad for people who don't know about bumping fee with Replace-by-Fee or Child-Pay-For-Parents.You just have to pay 14sat instead of 1sat/b, 50 cents is not the end of the world if you're in a hurry.
After two days, it has been reduced a little bit in mempool but will Binance spam it again after increase their withdrawal fee on users.
In addition, people can wait for weekends to enjoy cheaper fee rates.
Right now you just have to outbid Binance 13.5/sat and you will get a confirmation just as you would with 1 sat last week, some will panic and pay more but there are not enough of them to outbid you and leave you outside the blocks for more than a few hours.
You just have to pay 14sat instead of 1sat/b, 50 cents is not the end of the world if you're in a hurry.
How often does Binance do these consolidations?
Can't say I religiously follow the size of the mempool..
What does it mean for the mempool to be "full"?
If Mempool would full then if would be
Then the nodes start prioritizing transactions by setting up a minimal transaction fees. It cancel lower/Zero fees transaction and allows higher fees transaction according to the sequence.
Actually it acts with a systematic way RBF (Replace By Fee) . If one transaction failed then it would automatically chose a transaction with higher fees than it.
Or any related to the FTX issues.
Mempool space becomes congested when there are a lot of transactions and this is perhaps the result of cex exchange awareness of people not to store a big amount --they become panicked and transfer their fund.
It will take a lot of time for miners to congest all these waiting transactions and additional ones in future. It will force others have to join the fee race if they can not wait.
Fortunately, there will be no real race here like in other times of congestion.
The actual capacity of the blockchain right now is over the daily transactions input, unlike the last event where we had more transactions each day and older ones despite paying higher than the averge at that time would be pushed at the bottom.
Right now you just have to outbid Binance 13.5/sat and you will get a confirmation just as you would with 1 sat last week, some will panic and pay more but there are not enough of them to outbid you and leave you outside the blocks for more than a few hours.
You just have to pay 14sat instead of 1sat/b, 50 cents is not the end of the world if you're in a hurry.
It explains how we got there, but doesn't elaborate on what that means for Bitcoin.
I think that a better term would be "congested".
What it means for bitcoin, nothing.
What it means for miners, a bit more income.
What it means for bitcoiners, a bit higher transaction fees if they're in a hurry. If nothing special happens, all this will be gone in less than 5 days.
I wonder where you got the 354 MB from. That's wrong.
Currently, there are around 150 MB of transactions waiting for confirmation in the mempool and even a transaction paying only 1 sat/vbyte should be able to enter the mempool of any node.
Currently, there are around 150 MB of transactions waiting for confirmation in the mempool and even a transaction paying only 1 sat/vbyte should be able to enter the mempool of any node.
I checked https://mempool.observer and I saw 10294 unconfirmed transactions (138.35 MB) which should be correct.
Double check, it is a little bit less than 135 vMb in mempool according to Johoe's site
You are all mixing up your numbers here.The 300MB limit is the RAM usage of the deserialized data for all the transactions in the mempool. This is not the same as the space that these transaction will take up in a block (either in terms of virtual bytes or raw bytes). Of course every node has its own mempool, but even identical mempools would result in different RAM usage between nodes due to different hardware, node software, OS, and so on.
Although we currently have around 120 vMB of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool, when deserialized these transactions are using around 300 MB of memory.
Here is a good site to visualize this: https://statoshi.info/d/000000020/memory-pool?orgId=1&from=now-2d&to=now
The green line in the top graph shows the total transaction size, while the white line in the middle graph shows the memory usage of those transactions.
Also, it sounds like it's being used because it's the size you want to make for the best discoverability by the network for a transaction to not be forgotten by most nodes that use default values (which might make it less likely to confirm).
A lot of transactions fall out of the mempool after 2 weeks too but this might mean a transaction at 280mb could have a chance to confirm at a point in the week when there are fewer transactions (such as the weekend).
A lot of transactions fall out of the mempool after 2 weeks too but this might mean a transaction at 280mb could have a chance to confirm at a point in the week when there are fewer transactions (such as the weekend).
Double check, it is a little bit less than 135 vMb in mempool according to Johoe's site
It will take a lot of time for miners to congest all these waiting transactions and additional ones in future. It will force others have to join the fee race if they can not wait.
Important to use Replace-by-Fee if you don't want to join the fee race at the moment but still want to have an option to bump fee for your transaction later and get a higher priority to be confirmed by miners.
Child-Pay-For-Parents is more complicated than Replace-by-Fee so I strongly recommend to use opt-in RBF at start.
It will take a lot of time for miners to congest all these waiting transactions and additional ones in future. It will force others have to join the fee race if they can not wait.
Important to use Replace-by-Fee if you don't want to join the fee race at the moment but still want to have an option to bump fee for your transaction later and get a higher priority to be confirmed by miners.
- How Replace-By-Fee (RBF) an Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP) can speed up confirmation
- [TUTORIAL]getting a low-fee transaction unstuck by creating a CPFP with electrum
- All about "stuck" transactions and what you can do to fix them
Child-Pay-For-Parents is more complicated than Replace-by-Fee so I strongly recommend to use opt-in RBF at start.
Right now we are at 354 MB / 300 MB,
I wonder where you got the 354 MB from. That's wrong. Currently, there are around 150 MB of transactions waiting for confirmation in the mempool and even a transaction paying only 1 sat/vbyte should be able to enter the mempool of any node.
I checked https://mempool.observer and I saw 10294 unconfirmed transactions (138.35 MB) which should be correct.
Right now we are at 354 MB / 300 MB,
I wonder where you got the 354 MB from. That's wrong. Currently, there are around 150 MB of transactions waiting for confirmation in the mempool and even a transaction paying only 1 sat/vbyte should be able to enter the mempool of any node.
It explains how we got there, but doesn't elaborate on what that means for Bitcoin.
Right now we are at 354 MB / 300 MB, but if that doesn't have any effect why are we even talking about a limit in the first place?
Mempool size is a node configuration. Some nodes may set higher limit.
The main reason to have a mempool size limit is to protect the network against a denial of service attack.
It doesn't mean much for bitcoin when it is full. You might need to rebroadcast your transaction if it is out of the 300mb mempool, but not necessarily.
If you are making a new transaction now and mempool is full, just send a higher fee and you will get ahead other transactions.
According to https://mempool.space/docs/faq:
What does it mean for the mempool to be "full"?
When a Bitcoin transaction is made, it is stored in a Bitcoin node's mempool before it is confirmed into a block. When the rate of incoming transactions exceeds the rate transactions are confirmed, the mempool grows in size.
The default maximum size of a Bitcoin node's mempool is 300MB, so when there are 300MB of transactions in the mempool, we say it's "full".
It explains how we got there, but doesn't elaborate on what that means for Bitcoin.
Right now we are at 354 MB / 300 MB, but if that doesn't have any effect why are we even talking about a limit in the first place?
What does it mean for the mempool to be "full"?
When a Bitcoin transaction is made, it is stored in a Bitcoin node's mempool before it is confirmed into a block. When the rate of incoming transactions exceeds the rate transactions are confirmed, the mempool grows in size.
The default maximum size of a Bitcoin node's mempool is 300MB, so when there are 300MB of transactions in the mempool, we say it's "full".
It explains how we got there, but doesn't elaborate on what that means for Bitcoin.
Right now we are at 354 MB / 300 MB, but if that doesn't have any effect why are we even talking about a limit in the first place?
Jump to: