Topic: Mempool issue and suggestion: Better if Mempool was planned differently (Read 302 times)

Use open-source self custody wallets and true decentralized exchanges like Bisq, AgoraDesk.

Miners can not earn money, they will have to shutdown their ASICs if mining is no longer beneficial for them.

Usually, to get highest income from mining (not actually profit), miners will prioritize transactions from tip of mempools. However it does not mean they always confirm transactions in tip of mempools, they are able to proceed their own transactions and any transaction they want with low transaction fee in the block they find. Majority of transactions in found blocks will be highest fee from tip of mempool.

Different mining pools, miners will have their own settings for transaction drop from mempools. They can drop low fee transactions from their mempool or just keep them intact. There are many mempools and being dropped of one mempool is not the end for one low fee transaction. Even it is dropped of from all mempools, the person can resend it and you see the point, that experience will force the lazy person to learn.

Or avoid them altogether, and go with Bisq.

I'll skip the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the part I'm quoted.

Miners don't behave as you imagine, because transactions don't work like that. If by "maximum time of abandonment" you mean "expiration", then transactions don't have that. The moment a valid transaction is broadcasted, it can be included in a block, as long as its outputs remain unspent. It's just the overwhelming majority of full nodes that drop transactions which are unconfirmed for more than 2 weeks. But miners can configure their node to keep transactions for an indefinite time.

There are two options you could use to decide which transaction has been waiting longer, and both are easily fooled/abused.

The first is that you say each node must keep a list of the order in which it saw individual transactions. Miners can them simply include any transactions they like (i.e. the high fee paying ones) and claim they either saw the low fee paying ones at a later date or even not at all. There would be no way for anyone to prove otherwise.

The second is that you use the nLockTime field in each transaction has a surrogate marker for when that transaction was first broadcast. I could sign a transaction today but back date the nLockTime field to a month ago, and again there would be no way for anyone to prove my transaction hadn't really been waiting for a month already.

In a decentralized network such as bitcoin, there is no concept of which unconfirmed transaction was broadcast "first" which would allow this to work. The whole point of a blockchain, which each block building on top of the previous block, is because you cannot rely on a timestamp or the first block you see actually being the first block which was broadcast. The time a transaction was first seen will vary between every node on the network, and at times like these when the mempool is full (which is the exact times you would want your suggestion to be used), transactions can be dropped and rebroadcast multiple times from different nodes at different times, making it impossible to keep track.

The problem here is spam of NFT and BRC20 tokens and this should be addressed as it impacts BTC users where ordinary users can transfer Bitcoins efficiently and for free at reasonable fees. Indeed, seeing Mempool clogging up is not a bad thing as it can give miners another incentive to increase capacity and make their Bitcoin network more secure. I think the Direction will be as the OP said, Mempool should be planned differently.

You simply do not get the gist, it's not about accepting low fees alone, the low fees could be abandoned for a maximum while as miners continue to accept the high fees for fast transactions. But a percentage of low fees must be included in their confirmation when the maximum time of abandonment lapses. This does not stop miners from earning their high pay for transactions, but will only compel them not to always abandon low-fee transactions.

Sorry about that. Can you imagine? This is an example of what I referred to that even the people who knew what to do might still be caught in the trap unplanned. No one is perfect.

You are still out of line again, maybe you should learn from those that replied after your first post. It's not about shifting blame or proving superiority or knowing better, it's about seeing the subject as a good or bad idea, which I believe should be backed with some points. Even in the near-perfect scenario, there will still be a vulnerability, and my plight is about how to make the system better not proving points on whether someone is at fault or not as you make it looks.

A good system would have added the unwise to its mechanism, not because it doesn't know it might not be at fault but because it wants to better and help the vulnerability of the unwise. Mind you, everybody can't know what you know, so don't think of yourself alone.

I completely understand your point and agree with most of what you said, but the problem is more complex than that, the miners are in control at the moment and there is nothing to force them to change their position.

They are simply working to make a profit and if they are not making enough profit they will stop, so any upgrade on the system must take into account the position of the miners or it will fail.

So the matter is rather complicated, the network can be developed so that miners are forced to take transactions with small fees but if it is not profitable for them they will stop and no one can force them to continue working with loss.

Depends on his criteria, definition of a good system as I asked him.

Bitcoin blockchain is not perfectly suited for everyone and if a person needs something that is not found in Bitcoin blockchain but can be found in other alternative blockchains, bank system or others, he should pick alternatives to use.

If the need is a high number for Transaction per seconds TPS, altcoins can meet that need but with altcoin blockchain, security is a big problem.
Transaction per second

If the need is security-wise, Bitcoin blockchain is the best. You can use this blockchain to move coins with very high transaction value, with same transaction fee of small transaction, and with less risk of network attack.

Not all people on Earth know about Bitcoin and not all people who are using Bitcoin blockchain know basics about Bitcoin blockchain, wallets, transactions.

The bottom line is: It's not responsibility of Bitcoin or Satoshi Nakamoto.

People need to learn basics to use anything. It's their responsibilities. They need education for themselves and who can help them if they don't want to learn with many free resources on Internet. If they are lazy, they have to spend expensive fee not only for transactions but also for risk to be scammed by centralized exchanges.

If they have time and can use Internet to complain, they can stop such activities and use their time, Internet to learn basics.

That's unfortunate. Does this mean you never publish RBF transactions before? I suggest moving to another wallet that supports RBF by default (or those that offer more coin control in general).

---

One of the easier solutions is to use other networks if you need a fast transaction. RBF is also mandatory if you still want to force to use Bitcoin when the network is busy and being spammed by others. I believe you should view the "long time to confirm" as the security required to make sure your transaction is irreversible. We've seen many rollbacks on some altcoin networks before, I don't think that's a good thing to aim for. CMIIW.

I wasn't that lucky, I made a low fee transaction from Mycelium wallet which does not support RBF, and since I spent entire available balance, I can't use CPFP bump.
So now I had to wait for it to either be forgotten by the network or for the fees to come down. But as anyone can potentially rebroadcast any transaction and there's no guarantee the fees will come down any time soon - it could be stuck for a very long time.

Depends on how you look at it. If you want a sustainable, deflationary, decentralized currency, then you should want hundreds of thousands, if not millions, transactions in the mempool, because that's where the mining income will come from. If you want a crappy, get-rich-quick shitcoin, that provides no tangible benefit to the world, then yeah, no need to pay high fees. There's fiat.

Binance recently suspended withdrawals due to high fees, even if you tolerated it financially. Just another reason to avoid such exchanges.

With a decent wallet like Electrum you know when they drop (don't accept) your transaction, nothing is lost but time. Hopefully we will see more and more nodes dropping the spam instead...

Also bitcoin was specifically not designed that way for many reasons. The main reason is, that it is harder to spam the network if you need to pay higher and higher fees for it. Since there is no central authority that can block specific users, this is the only way to ensure that an attacker will think twice if it is worth it to spam the network.
The other thing however is the block size. If it would be my decision the block size would be doubled tomorrow. We are not in 2011 any more, yet still the network has the same capacity (with millions of users instead of just a few hundred).

I find enforcing specific rules for miners to include low-fee transactions challenging due to Bitcoin's decentralized nature. Where miners are autonomous entities and there is no centralized authority that can dictate their behavior. Trying to force miners to include specific transactions could risk undermining the principles of decentralization on which Bitcoin is built. So what needs to be done is to continue to explore and develop technology solutions, such as layer two scaling solutions, to improve scalability, reduce fees, and enhance the overall user experience. body.

This will backfire and will simply make things worse.

If you have 1 million transactions in the mempool there is no way for them to be confirmed in a shorter time, what this "solution" would do is simply reduce the space available by allowing spammers to occupy parts of the block space with low 1 sat/b fee, with just a few hundred dollars you can fill a block and normal users would have to compete again between themselves on a smaller part of the block cause a spammer is taking advantage of it.
Besides, let's assume somebody will want to attack the network like this, as I posted in another topic, it will take a guy less than 10 BTC to fill one week of tx, how will this solution that will confirm the cheapest spam attack solve anything?


Nobody stops anyone to buy hardware, power them up and pointing them to a community mining pool that only builds blocks with fees under 5 sat/b.
Oh wait, there is something, called $.The same $ you don't want to pay in the first place! See the problem?


That's not how mining works, you can have everyone on this planet hosting a 1GW mining farm in his basement, and you will still have 144 blocks a day.

I think the mempool is simple and effective.  I think it is perfect and is one of the few things about Bitcoin I can't see needing any type of change.  What you're proposing would require more blockspace, as simple as that.  Otherwise, you'd be creating a system where delayed transactions have an advantage over quick transactions, which I don't think is the type of thing you want to be incentivizing.  The only incentive that Bitcoin needs is the block reward.  Incentives like blockspace advantages for Lightning is what leads to issues like we are currently experiencing with Ordinals.  Should have never been done.

In every problem, there's always a solution, though it may take a little while before this solution arrives but there will always be a rescue means, for the sake of those that are used to bitcoin transactions and network, they can always pump the fee if the transaction is not coming faster as expected and provided they aren't using a centralized exchange in making the transaction, those inexperienced in this can always choose a high priority for their transaction but the cost for that is at their expense which is fair.


I believe i everything there's always a peak period for it performance, maybe this is one of their own, though we are all being affected while they enjoys such, maybe we should be getting used to this already becau after the whole blocks have been completely mined, the miners will have to depend on the transaction fee for thier reward.


Or maybe the developers should take the ordinals completely away the blockspace on the blockchain to layer 2 where transactions are less busy there, this may be a solution that can last for now.



It can't work that way since it's already programmed by transaction fee rate and not by randomly selection or order of time each transaction was made, put yourself in their shoe, you will also consider the option of higher transaction fees as priority first before others.

The first bitcoin addresses are uncompressed legacy addresses, the have higher fee than compressed legacy addresses. From compressed legacy to nested segwit with further fee reduction. From nested segwit to native segwit with more fee reduction. Comparing compressed legacy to native segwit, there is 42% to 50% or more in fee reduction, depending on the transaction inputs and outputs. Developers have not been relaxing too. We should respect that.

There was a time, a fork that led to Bitcoin Cash, to increase block size. Another thing is that develoers will also may still be trying to avoid what can lead to such hard fork. Know that miners also have say. Example is Segwit and Taproot activation, mines are the ones that are flagging the block mined to be in support or not. Miners are the ones that earn from fee and they have upper say about it too.

If you want to make your suggestions to be heard, you have to be one of the bitcoin developers and you will have to make an official proposal that will show your aim, how you want to achieve it. Other developers may accept it or not. If accepted, but regarding fee reduction proposal, miners (mining pools) are the ones that will signal support, or not signal anything.

That's truly a big concern for everyone and there should be some rules for the miners to include the low fee transactions in their blocks. But, the question arises that who would set those rules because miners are the real bosses till this date and  who could force them to add the low-fee transactions in the blocks? The answer is no one.

There can't be a solution for the problem because if the miners are forced to do anything that's against their will, they will leave away such systems where they can't earn a lot. The miners are basically doing the mining thing as a business and any businessmen would prefer to earn as much from a business as possible. If the miners were doing it for humanity purpose or for love of technology then that would be another thing.

The best option for anyone is to understand the basics of Bitcoin transactions so that they can choose the preferable wallet software according to their needs. The knowledge regarding such things should be a compulsory thing, and everyone should prefer the wallet software that supports features like RBF, and CPFP, because these features are very helpful for stuck transactions.

I don't know why you asked what I just explained in my post. There are a lot to be done but the subject matter remains what I wrote. Yours might be different from this, but it still does not matter, that's mine at present.

It's in the post as well. That's for those who are aware and also use the right wallets. Do you think everybody knows this? The post is not about me and what I know alone, it's for everybody that could be benefited. And it's possible this happens in the future, after all, the network is being upgraded frequently.

I quite understand all this, but my post is not about those who are well experienced in Bitcoin but for all. I can't use my understanding and know-how to judge others, and that doesn't still mean I can't capture their interest in my wish. For unconfirmed transactions to be as high as that means that many people didn't know. My wish is for a system that will be friendly to all irrespective of the wallet used.

While some might be victims simply because they were lectured about Bitcoin and wallets by someone who knows little or nothing about it. This explains why some people are still using custodial wallets. Can we totally blame them? No, it's just the unfortunate way they adopted it and the exposure at their disposal.

That's why I called for a system that will make sure transactions are confirmed at a maximum time regardless of your experience.

Not when you want your transaction confirmed fast. My plight is that transactions should not be unconfirmed for too long and without even knowing when they would ever be confirmed. Nothing could be more painful in some circumstances like that.

Not a bad idea, but developers can’t hold miners to account because this isn’t like a centralized entity that a company or person would be charge to do something or receive sanction. This is an open field where everyone can be a miner and take any transactions they feel like into there blocks. We can’t just charge the miners to take lower transaction fees without also pointing fingers at the amount they spend on mining equipments. After spending that amount on those equipments and sometimes on electricity, it will not be logical to accuse them of prioritizing high fees moreover who isn’t on this for the profit purposes.

The first thing solution now is to educate bitcoiners about the knowledge of wallet to be used so as to bump fees when needed. Secondly to find a way to filter this ordinal or BRC20 tokens off the blockchain. Thirdly with more adoption probably the cost of mining would reduce and will have more miners which will increase the decentralization of it