Ok, no fiat, if it is too hard but it would really help.
We avoid fiat in programs not because its hard but we must at all costs avoid the confusion of users that they're using fiat when they're not.
Topic: Mempool is now up to 25.5 MB with 22,200 transactions waiting. (Read 7846 times)
We avoid fiat in programs not because its hard but we must at all costs avoid the confusion of users that they're using fiat when they're not.
I have experienced many difficulties with sending btc and receiving them in the past few days.
Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
How large your transaction will be mostly depends on your inputs. If you typically receive transfers which are much smaller than the one you send, your transaction is going to be very large and expensive, because it has to spend many inputs. Don't use faucets, because the coins you receive will cost more than their value to spend! Some wallets, e.g. Bitcoin Core, indicate how much fee you should use to get your transaction confirmed within n blocks. Bitcoin Core will try to select inputs in a way that your transaction size/fee will be as small as possible. Many mobile wallets are quite bad in that regard, and some use the same fee regardless of transaction size. Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
I have experienced many difficulties with sending btc and receiving them in the past few days.
Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
The typical user transaction is often under 300 bytes. Much larger transaction appear in situations like payments to pool members, etc.Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ is one place to check for fees.
I dont really see how a predicted number of blocks waiting time is a problem and how implementing FIAT(
) display in core is going to change this. The majority of people that had problems (or at least that I encountered) did not use core, but a wallet that either does no suggestion to the fee at all or uses a fixed 10000 satoshi per started kbyte (which is no good suggestion either).
Ok, no fiat, if it is too hard but it would really help.) display in core is going to change this. The majority of people that had problems (or at least that I encountered) did not use core, but a wallet that either does no suggestion to the fee at all or uses a fixed 10000 satoshi per started kbyte (which is no good suggestion either).Any wallet that leaves this unrevealed is hurting the Bitcoin brand.
I have experienced many difficulties with sending btc and receiving them in the past few days.
Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
Can someone tell me a site where I can see how much fee I need to put onto my transaction?
Also how do u know how many bytes my transaction will be?
Specifically, the right end should indicate if the transaction is in the next block - which is not guaranteed at any fee amount - then although on average it should take 5 minutes (½ of the target average of 10 minutes), it might take as much as two hours or even more to confirm. If the transaction isn't in the next block or other things happen, e.g. orphan, etc., then it could take 4 hours or even more.
That is part of the wallet...
... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
OK. Let,s say I am stupid. I allways just click NEXT. But if there were "7 DAYS" instead "normal" and "10 MIN" instead "fast" - you believe me - I would move slider even if I were in a hurry... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
I dont really see how a predicted number of blocks waiting time is a problem and how implementing FIAT(
) display in core is going to change this. The majority of people that had problems (or at least that I encountered) did not use core, but a wallet that either does no suggestion to the fee at all or uses a fixed 10000 satoshi per started kbyte (which is no good suggestion either). That is part of the wallet...
... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
OK. Let,s say I am stupid. I allways just click NEXT. But if there were "7 DAYS" instead "normal" and "10 MIN" instead "fast" - you believe me - I would move slider even if I were in a hurry... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
Is there a possibility to include line with " with xxxxxx fee waiting will approximately be yyyyyy ? Wallet to check network before sending ?
you mean estimatefee x where x is the number of blocks?
Code:
Time: 21:05:41,41
1 -1
2 0.00048819
3 0.00044305
4 0.00044305
5 0.00039000
6 0.00035681
7 0.00032552
8 0.00029714
9 0.00029714
10 0.00029714
11 0.00026805
12 0.00026805
13 0.00026805
14 0.00026805
15 0.00024538
16 0.00024538
17 0.00024538
18 0.00022314
19 0.00022314
20 0.00020052
21 0.00020052
22 0.00020052
23 0.00020052
24 0.00020052
25 0.00020052
That is part of the wallet...
... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
Is there a possibility to include line with " with xxxxxx fee waiting will approximately be yyyyyy ? Wallet to check network before sending ?
you mean estimatefee x where x is the number of blocks?
Code:
Time: 21:05:41,41
1 -1
2 0.00048819
3 0.00044305
4 0.00044305
5 0.00039000
6 0.00035681
7 0.00032552
8 0.00029714
9 0.00029714
10 0.00029714
11 0.00026805
12 0.00026805
13 0.00026805
14 0.00026805
15 0.00024538
16 0.00024538
17 0.00024538
18 0.00022314
19 0.00022314
20 0.00020052
21 0.00020052
22 0.00020052
23 0.00020052
24 0.00020052
25 0.00020052
That is part of the wallet...
... as long as "wallet" means bitcoin core (classic et al. might have not removed this as well).
Is there a possibility to include line with " with xxxxxx fee waiting will approximately be yyyyyy ? Wallet to check network before sending ?
you mean estimatefee x where x is the number of blocks?
Code:
Time: 21:05:41,41
1 -1
2 0.00048819
3 0.00044305
4 0.00044305
5 0.00039000
6 0.00035681
7 0.00032552
8 0.00029714
9 0.00029714
10 0.00029714
11 0.00026805
12 0.00026805
13 0.00026805
14 0.00026805
15 0.00024538
16 0.00024538
17 0.00024538
18 0.00022314
19 0.00022314
20 0.00020052
21 0.00020052
22 0.00020052
23 0.00020052
24 0.00020052
25 0.00020052
Is there a possibility to include line with " with xxxxxx fee waiting will approximately be yyyyyy ? Wallet to check network before sending ?
you mean estimatefee x where x is the number of blocks?
Code:
Time: 21:05:41,41
1 -1
2 0.00048819
3 0.00044305
4 0.00044305
5 0.00039000
6 0.00035681
7 0.00032552
8 0.00029714
9 0.00029714
10 0.00029714
11 0.00026805
12 0.00026805
13 0.00026805
14 0.00026805
15 0.00024538
16 0.00024538
17 0.00024538
18 0.00022314
19 0.00022314
20 0.00020052
21 0.00020052
22 0.00020052
23 0.00020052
24 0.00020052
25 0.00020052
I ckecked my mempool right now, btw. This mempool is limited to 1.5 GB, i.e. much larger than default.
Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
OK, denial of service attack. Where are all the junk transactions coming from or going to?Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
The most cost effective DoS transaction fee is about 11 satoshi/byte. It will block all 910-1000 byte transactions from stupid wallets paying 0.0001 BTC fee per chunk of 1000 bytes (I think blockchain.info is that stupid), which is just enough to get noticed. The theoretical maximum cost of this attack is only 0.11 BTC per block, if there are no other transactions.
Is there a possibility to include line with " with xxxxxx fee waiting will approximately be yyyyyy ? Wallet to check network before sending ?
I ckecked my mempool right now, btw. This mempool is limited to 1.5 GB, i.e. much larger than default.
Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
The rest will fit in a block. Actually some of the less than 2 satoshi/byte transactions will fit as well.
Conclusion: Mempool size is irrelevant. Anyone can fill up all mempools with free or almost free transactions.
Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
The rest will fit in a block. Actually some of the less than 2 satoshi/byte transactions will fit as well.
Conclusion: Mempool size is irrelevant. Anyone can fill up all mempools with free or almost free transactions.
~850 MB here.
Code:
getmempoolinfo
{
"size": 36501,
"bytes": 392382705,
"usage": 846145904,
"maxmempool": 1000000000,
"mempoolminfee": 0.00000000
}
I ckecked my mempool right now, btw. This mempool is limited to 1.5 GB, i.e. much larger than default.
Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
OK, denial of service attack. Where are all the junk transactions coming from or going to? Total size: 38057 transactions
Transactions paying less than 2 satoshi/byte in fees: 35152 (92.3%, 457 MB)
Isn't it the duty of miners to include maximum txs in blocks?
If blocks aren't full and txs are blocked, Btc seems as less attractive and reliable.
Hence investors will be less numerous and people will tend to use other altcoins.
Hence price will not rise as much.
I feel like I'm missing a really important point cause my reasoning is really too simple xD
If blocks aren't full and txs are blocked, Btc seems as less attractive and reliable.
Hence investors will be less numerous and people will tend to use other altcoins.
Hence price will not rise as much.
I feel like I'm missing a really important point cause my reasoning is really too simple xD
Most blocks are full. The empty blocks are created when found right after previous block (0-2 minutes) which is normal an inevitable. Somewhere between are probably just solo miners.
But still, miners should decide what minimum fee / kb they require, so when there are only low fee transactions they may not choose to produce full blocks even when there are ten thousands of unconfirmed transactions with low fees.
Others may really see if they increase utility of Bitcoin by adding the low fee transactions as well, the price of Bitcoin is more likely to be higher which is most important in Bitcoin mining business.
The only problem is miners can decide to create blocks only up to certain size, if there is spike of good fee transactions, they miss many of the fees and people have to wait longer - doesnt make sence because these transactions will be added later anyway... it is example why regulation is not most effective, free market is always more effective
It is important that we do scale Bitcoin directly as much as the technology will allow at the time by increasing the blocksize. If we do not do this Bitcoin will not be able to compete with alternative cryptocurrencies. My hope is that technological growth will be faster then adoption, especially considering that people will be free to use off chain solutions which will also take pressure off the main chain. If adoption does outstrip technological growth then people will simply move more traffic to off chain solutions and alternative cryptocurrencies. This is different to arbitrarily restricting the transaction volume now by not increasing the blocksize, that is a form of economic planning which is what Core calls a "fee market". There should be a free market for blockspace instead which would best reflect the technological limitations at any one time.
Jump to: