Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 31. (Read 20284 times)

The fact that you think the small block size is solely a matter of technical obstacles proves my point. It isn't just a matter of bandwidth, latency and throughput. It's an economic problem. Bitcoin relies on transaction fees, not on subsidies. Therefore, there has to be fee market competition, or else you're risking with the long-term security.

If you rise the block size by a factor of x, then you should expect that the on-chain volume will rise accordingly, otherwise you're off.

Which proposal did you read?

What a funny graph, because of that rate madness that occurred 2 days ago.  

     

• fastestFee: 63 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 55 sat/vB
• hourFee: 46 sat/vB
• economyFee: 10 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 5 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 28 sat/vB
• hourFee: 27 sat/vB
• economyFee: 12 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 6 sat/vB

This whole block size debate will never die... just like the Christian calendar debate which created a schism long time ago!

Bitcoin never promised to fix human nature issues.

where in the insanity of your cultish scripts did you get the assertion of "gigabyte blocks"(plural)

lets say 2.26gigabytes... just for fun
2,260,000,000bytes
a lean tx of 226byte=10million tx/block
=60m tx an hour
=1.44billion tx a day

you are assuming bitcoin to be used for everyone on the planet to do a transaction once every 5 days(everyone(8bill): even the infirm and toddlers)
however
most people do not receive income 6 times a month. they receive income once a month
most people dont pay their bills 6 times a month
most people of the world dont get paid in in the same currency as each other

people around the world do not use nor want a situation of a "one world currency"
so if you think everyone is going to converge and only use one currency for all main payments.. you are wrong

you are using foolish extremities of a fantasy situation that will never happen
the world will not become a "one world currency" and also to note bitcoin wont be it

now can you stop using doomads scripts of rejecting onchain scaling with his "gigabyte block" buzzword scripts of what he foolishly taught you to repeat without thinking or calculating or running scenarios if it would even reach that level in the reality of the real world


in short there has never in the history of civilised humanity been any case of any currency or payment system that does 1.4billion payments a day

also last note.
be aware that if you want to continue with your cult scripts... be aware we do not live in the 19th century.. its now 2024 where internet service providers are currently expanding internet speeds to reach above 1gb/s.. so go play with running realistic scenarios based on real world possibilities.. NOT fantasy scenarios NOT based on real world possibilities

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” -- Mark Twain

I keep saying doge to highlight the irony in this.
When fees are too much the first option is to use...the such wow much coin meme shitcoin!
But, be my guest LTC:
Avg. Transaction Fee   0.000033 LTC ($0.0026) 0.00000019 LTC/byte
Transactions last 24h
(Number of transactions in blockchain per day)   637,738

hmmm...
BTC
Median Transaction Fee   0.000084 BTC ($5.82) 17.2 sats/vB
Transactions last 24h
(Number of transactions in blockchain per day)   413,427

You were a fan of comparing those, right? 


Seriously, stop portraying your assumptions and views of something as FACTS!

I took my time to read the proposal which seems like a good idea but yet to understand it completely. If this soft fork is implemented then TXs that are fraudulent will be processed in the sidechain which reduces the congestion but how exactly this is going to identify which one should be fraudulent or this assume just every TX is fraudulent and processes everything before it reaches the main network?

Sorry, if it's a lame question to ask but this much technical discussion is really not my thing (yet).

Scalability will emerge from sufficient transaction compression. This could mean to have multiple bidirectional channels within just one UTXO. To achieve this, we need to introduce a kind of script program called covenant. It requires a softfork, and softforks usually take a lot of time to activate and get sufficient support. These are the kind of L2 which cannot be implemented currently, i.e. Ark.

I get both of your points, @stompix wants bitcoin to be as fast as possible so that it can compete with thousands of transactions every second where other payments system

But you want this to be highly decentralized even if it compromise anything including paying insane high fees.

So what's the possible solution other than increasing the block size which has be rejected by the community all the time when it's proposed and I am not going to say LN is the way either cause it's just a temporary solution but if we need something permanent then what could end up the fee problem of bitcoin network once and forever.

A centralized network can scale vertically, easily. A decentralized network is very different. In Bitcoin, it's more like "we've taken a different path" rather than "we've stuck" or "we're going backwards".

I can't help but notice that you keep repeating the same argument about Dogecoin. Dogecoin does not have a hard cap. There will always be a subsidy, and therefore, transaction fees do not have to be high. In here it's different.

You're somehow expecting a network with a hard cap to have low transaction fees, and be completely dependent on-chain. That's only possible with gigabytes of block size, and the assumption that the demand for on-chain transactions will skyrocket accordingly, for if it won't, the system's days are numbered. In any other case, you can always argue that the system is not as cheap as custodial solutions.

What happens if it's not just me and you anymore and instead of a forum and a few exchanges those 13 million mentioned above try to buy a ticket each week with Bitcoin? Or are we going to always be a system that can only handle fewer people that eat at McDonalds in NY?


So let's compare it with the most expensive and costliest system on the planet and ignore that its relative just 100 lines of codes different can do it for
Avg. Transaction Fee   0.275 DOGE ($0.04).
As I said, things evolve, and you can't evolve if your target is to beat the slowest guy, this is not like running from a bear!
I'm starting to believe we're going to see international payments instantly and at 5$ sooner than getting rid of this cursed mempool.

     

• fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
• hourFee: 25 sat/vB
• economyFee: 10 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 5 sat/vB

Fees  are just back to normal in less than a day. For 2 usd you can get into the next block

Don't you use bitcoin as a payment system in the forum? Doesn't it work for you?
You received money here at least once a week for the last 7-8 years without any problem. From people you don't know, from other countries, across border and basically for free (less than 1 usd fee most of time, rarely 2 usd).

International transfers in bank costs much more than 1-2 usd and takes longer than 10 minutes. Much longer. Sometimes more than a weekday

13 millions Indians use the railway system each day and I have a feeling their reviews wouldn't be in the 5 stars ratings zone.
The problem is the same, things are evolving around at incredible speed and we're stuck in the same age, banks were crap in 2009, nowadays they are fast as hell even when it comes to interbanking transfers, they were also expensive yet they dropped the fees, while...eh, I feel like we're going backward.


It already is, it's money but money judged in % returns in $.

     

• fastestFee: 74 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 73 sat/vB
• hourFee: 71 sat/vB
• economyFee: 16 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 8 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 291 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 287 sat/vB
• hourFee: 282 sat/vB
• economyFee: 26 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 13 sat/vB

We've been through this before and indeed when the halving happened something like this also happened and the fact that they went back to normal within a few days is proof that it was temporary and I think for now it's still temporary and we just have to wait to see the gas go back to normal.

Today I was hampered in making transactions at first when halving I was quite surprised because I was the first time experiencing halving and fees were very crazy, but for now when I see this condition I am not too surprised anymore and I better wait until it is completely normal and then make transactions again as before because indeed forcing it now is quite risky because it is certain that the transfer fee will be much greater than what I sent

Just to add to NotATether answer, large transactions means transactions with more inputs and/or outputs.

Which means, from many UTXOs or to many addresses.

Each input/output is basically a new transaction in terms of costs/space in the block.


No. This is just temporary. It won't last more than a few days/weeks.

Fees will be back to normal again , as they always do.

If not  , second layer solutions will come. This doesn't mean that bitcoin can't be a good payment system.

We all here use it as a payment system. I use it as payment system for about 7 years.