Topic: Mempool issue and suggestion: Better if Mempool was planned differently - page 2. (Read 302 times)

I don't think so. There would always be transactions with higher fees and only a percentage of smaller fee transactions! It would be a way of miners to also include those transactions without completely ruining their business!

bitcoin is code.
code creates rules

summary: create rules

for instance those that spam transactions every block take away space for normal folk. whilst pushing up the fees for normal folk

there actually can be a rule where transactions which have a utxo of under 6(~an hour) have to be the ones that pay a premium or be given a score rating where it multiplies a priority score needed to be in a block

there used to be one

put it this way imagine you had a score requirement of priority of 1440
where each confirmation your utxo has earns 10 points meaning if you only spend your value once a day you get priority defacto. meaning you can pay low amount such as 1sat/byte
where as if you are only holding a utxo if 1 confirm you only have 10 points and the only way to earn the other 1430 points is to pay a higher fee. where by each sat per byte = 10 points. meaning if you want to spam every block you have to pay 143sat per byte

that way not everyone is punished. just the spammers

things like this dont affect normal folk. because usually exchanges only sweep deposit addresses once a day or week anyway. and put it into cold wallet and only split cold wallets once a month. and then the can assign that down to 30 splits for each day of the month. meaning when people withdraw they are using yesterdays-upto a month ago's utxo, so pay the lowest fee to get funds out of an exchange.
same goes for normal folk who just do p2p. normal people are not buying products/goods/services every 10 minutes. they only buy one thing a day,month, year so they wont be paying premium under this idea

and to enforce it. if a block contains transactions not meting the priority score one way or another. the block is rejected. meaning pools are made to obide by the rule or not get their block accepted.. as is the way of consensus

and before the corporate sponsored shills of dev idolation, cry that it cant be done or that it goes against cores corporate roadmap of brutalising bitcoin to promote other networks.. well who cares about populating other networks. thats the game for scumbags
plus there is already a BAD fee mechanism in play that makes legacy tx 4x. meaning that while they want to pretend it cant/shouldnt be done. its proven that it has and is being done that a fee mechanism can be in play. .. but this time a better one that actually helps bitcoiners. not the corporate plan of offboarding users to other networks

People will start to use 1sat fee if they will 100% know that this is enough. Sounds like a huge problem for miners

Take it past there to do not use a wallet that does not support RBF *by default* IMO that check box should be checked by default.
And give a warning if it's not.
Not the other way around.

I screwed up the other day, and did not notice that for whatever reason RBF was not checked and set a lower fee non RBF transaction. Not a big deal since I just did a CPFP with the change. But, I tend to make BTC transactions a few times a week and would like to think that I know what I am doing.

If I can screw that up, then anyone can.

-Dave

People should use a better wallet. I made a transaction on Bluewallet recently, a transaction of 12 sat/vbyte, it takes around 2 weeks and I was able to see the coin back on my wallet and I rebroadcast it again with higher fee and it was confirmed. I have noticed this on Electrum too before I tried it on Bluewallet.

There are some wallets that might be rebroadcasting the transaction, or maybe set their nodes not to drop unconfirmed transactions that are over 14 days. But it is 14 days by default on Bitcoin Core and some other full node. Although a node runner can edit it and increase the days that unconfirmed transaction should stay in its mempool.

But most importantly, I will advice you to read this topic too: Bitcoin open source wallets that support replace-by-fee (RBF)

Do not use a wallet that do not support RBF.

It brings inconvenience, uncomfortable experience for users but what is your criteria for an acceptable good system?

For me, it must be a system that won't have technical ability to revert transactions, charge backs. It won't censor transactions which are broadcasted by users. You have all these with bitcoin blockchain and you have freedom to use low fee rate and wait longer or higher fee rate and enjoy faster confirmation.

If they use centralized exchanges, their withdrawals will be proceeded with high transaction fee rate enough to be confirmed by miners. They won't have to wait too long if I am correct.

If they use non custodial wallets and broadcast transactions by themselves, they must use opt-in Replace-by-Fee. They can bump their transaction fee rate any time when they lose their patience or have more urgent need.

**If this is not the right place, kindly help me move it to the right section**

Nothing is perfect in life, and Bitcoin is not an exception, I believe there is more to be done. As much as I appreciate and advocate for Bitcoin since I adopted it, I won't still turn a blind eye to the issues that need to be resolved, if possible. The pressing one is the issue related to the high fee/congestion period in which transactions could be unconfirmed for only God knows when.

For over 2 weeks, I've not seen the unconfirmed transactions in the mempool lower than 250,000, which is not acceptable with a good system. There should be a modality/plan/rule (as you might call it) that even miners must obey in which transactions must not be abandoned for more than a certain period of time irrespective of the fee used. It could be within 24 hours, a week, or a month at max (I don't recommend this long), it doesn't matter. Not that people's money would be held in the system without a stamped date it would ever be confirmed.

Many people are victims of this, they transferred their money for a purpose and the system holds as much as over 250,000 of such for so long. I will not blame them (the senders) because it's not everybody that knows the right wallets to use or have much understanding of Bitcoin like BTT members and many others. Even some that understand might just be caught in this unplanned.

Miners have taken this mostly as business, and will always go for the highest fee disregarding the health and sanity of the network. Yet, developers could make it difficult for miners who have significant transactions with lower fees unattended to, particularly those that are due for their maximum dates. Meaning that the system could be designed in such a way that miners MUST take a certain percentage of low-fee transactions along with the high fees they want so that no transactions would be delayed for too long.

Satoshi has left everything in the hands of everybody, so this is a challenge to the Bitcoin community and developers if they are reading this. There should be a way they could make miners accountable and more ethical instead of turning the system solely into a pure business for themselves. Some would rather make you pay an outrageous fee to accelerate your stuck transaction even if the money sent is little. This is now business-orientated for them rather than the respect for the network.