- fastestFee: 33 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 32 sat/vB
- hourFee: 31 sat/vB
- economyFee: 18 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 9 sat/vB
Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 39. (Read 22947 times)
- fastestFee: 31 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 30 sat/vB
- hourFee: 29 sat/vB
- economyFee: 18 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 9 sat/vB
Is there any explanation about why bitcoin fees soar these past few days? I read about OKX being the culprit but i wonder if no one adds fuel to the fire since why it hasn't go back to its normal range like 15-20sats/vb.
- fastestFee: 34 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 34 sat/vB
- hourFee: 33 sat/vB
- economyFee: 22 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 11 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 35 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 34 sat/vB
- hourFee: 33 sat/vB
- economyFee: 22 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 11 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 36 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 32 sat/vB
- hourFee: 30 sat/vB
- economyFee: 18 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 9 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 83 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 67 sat/vB
- hourFee: 49 sat/vB
- economyFee: 18 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 9 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 35 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 33 sat/vB
- hourFee: 31 sat/vB
- economyFee: 18 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 9 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 36 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 32 sat/vB
- hourFee: 29 sat/vB
- economyFee: 16 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 8 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 25 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 16 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 8 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 27 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 16 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 8 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 27 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 10 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 5 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 29 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 28 sat/vB
- hourFee: 27 sat/vB
- economyFee: 16 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 8 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 31 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 30 sat/vB
- hourFee: 28 sat/vB
- economyFee: 10 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 5 sat/vB
Being programmable is the beauty behind Bitcoin. Without Script, sidechains and Layer 2 solutions would not be possible, and the system wouldn't be able to scale. And not only that. Nearly every change would require a hardfork. Being programmable provides the flexibility to support the creation of solutions that have yet to be conceived.
Or, read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611.
Or, read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611.
satoshis quote is not about other networks nor abandoning bitcoin due to fee increases. nor about saying fee's need to be higher. nor that a transaction should be 4mb large(the stuff your cultish scripts think should be allowed and prioritised)
its actually about different ways people can do things ON BITCOIN to benefit payments on bitcoin.. not arbitrary crap. satoshi actually cared about transaction leanness and transaction count potentials and scaling BITCOIN
you keep talking about getting people to avoid using bitcoin by using other networks which YOU stupidly call "scaling bitcoin"
(much like saying 'lets scale visa by getting people to use mastercard and pretend its just like visa' thus tell people it is visa)
you think increasing transaction counts on the bitcoin network can only happen as a huge leap so should never happen and be told to not even discuss incremental growth strategies..
you are trying to avoid any and all discussion of true bitcoin scaling and its obvious who you got your idea's from. and it was not satoshi
oh and your quote is actually about satoshi allowing transaction format futurisation via newest nodes understanding the new scripts to verify them, yet the core devs abuse that scripting mechanism to throw in new features before/without nodes even coming to a true consensus of readiness to actually verify the data and instead are FOOLED(not full) into pretending it verifies all data when instead is just bypasses it by assuming data is valid
anyways..
back t this topic. mempools data allocation of 300mb-500mb shows nodes can handle many more transactions than the limit you wish to hinder bitcoin to.. just to promote fee raises which are done just to promote your other network preference strategy
My personal subjective opinion is that Bitcoin shouldn't have been made to store arbitrary data in the first place, but clearly Satoshi wanted that (see: bank bailout genesis message).
Satoshi store that message on coinbase transaction though. That feature also useful for certain sidechain and merge mining activity.
Regarding arbitrary data, there should be an optional sidechain where you can host all sorts of stuff.
Several Bitcoin sidechain and L2 exist, but very few people use it.
The last thing we want (it may have happened already, I don't know) is a malicious actor/butthurt no-coiner to store pedo pr0n or even copyrighted material in the immutable BTC blockchain and make it really hard to run a BTC node without breaking the law.
At least it's not easy to extract the arbitrary data without using software or script designed to do that.
Yes, I know it's possible to use 256-bit addresses to store arbitrary data indirectly (kinda like using ASCII art to store/transmit images if JPEG didn't exist), but just like ASCII art, it will never be particularly efficient or attractive for mainstream usage. That's why most people use JPEG these days (we don't live in the 80s anymore).
Storing arbitrary data is not attractive in general, be it in 256-bit chunks or otherwise. It's expensive and inefficient. People who permanently want to store their garbage will find the way to do it. So ideally I believe the BTC blockchain should just host financial transactions and nothing more than that. No scripting ability either. As lightweight as possible (too bad MimbleWimble didn't exist back in 2008).
Being programmable is the beauty behind Bitcoin. Without Script, sidechains and Layer 2 solutions would not be possible, and the system wouldn't be able to scale. And not only that. Nearly every change would require a hardfork. Being programmable provides the flexibility to support the creation of solutions that have yet to be conceived. Or, read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611.
- fastestFee: 33 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 31 sat/vB
- hourFee: 29 sat/vB
- economyFee: 14 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 7 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 29 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 29 sat/vB
- hourFee: 28 sat/vB
- economyFee: 16 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 8 sat/vB
Imagine if Satoshi tried to have a democratic poll back in 2008 about how Bitcoin should be... how many coins, issuance schedule, algo etc.
Bitcoin still wouldn't exist to this very day due to constant & multiple disagreements!
So if you expect various people to agree on the "ideal" block size, then this debate won't even end in 1000 years from now.
Bitcoin was set in stone long time ago. It is what it is.
My personal subjective opinion is that Bitcoin shouldn't have been made to store arbitrary data in the first place, but clearly Satoshi wanted that (see: bank bailout genesis message).
Yes, I know it's possible to use 256-bit addresses to store arbitrary data indirectly (kinda like using ASCII art to store/transmit images if JPEG didn't exist), but just like ASCII art, it will never be particularly efficient or attractive for mainstream usage. That's why most people use JPEG these days (we don't live in the 80s anymore).
So ideally I believe the BTC blockchain should just host financial transactions and nothing more than that. No scripting ability either. As lightweight as possible (too bad MimbleWimble didn't exist back in 2008).
If that was the case, then perhaps scalability would be a lot better today.
Regarding arbitrary data, there should be an optional sidechain where you can host all sorts of stuff.
The last thing we want (it may have happened already, I don't know) is a malicious actor/butthurt no-coiner to store pedo pr0n or even copyrighted material in the immutable BTC blockchain and make it really hard to run a BTC node without breaking the law.
Also, another thing that hurts adoption these days is that you have to spend money to get BTC.
Back in 2009-2010 not only mining was easy-peasy, but also there were multiple faucets where you could get 1-2 BTC with minimal effort.
Fiat/CBDC money on the other hand can be provided for free under certain circumstances (i.e. COVID stimmy checks back in 2020-2021 and UBI in the future).
How do you expect Bitcoin to compete against CBDC? Most no-coiners are not willing to spend a single dime on it and most Bitcoiners are not willing to hand out satoshis to anyone.
Bitcoin still wouldn't exist to this very day due to constant & multiple disagreements!
So if you expect various people to agree on the "ideal" block size, then this debate won't even end in 1000 years from now.
Bitcoin was set in stone long time ago. It is what it is.
My personal subjective opinion is that Bitcoin shouldn't have been made to store arbitrary data in the first place, but clearly Satoshi wanted that (see: bank bailout genesis message).
Yes, I know it's possible to use 256-bit addresses to store arbitrary data indirectly (kinda like using ASCII art to store/transmit images if JPEG didn't exist), but just like ASCII art, it will never be particularly efficient or attractive for mainstream usage. That's why most people use JPEG these days (we don't live in the 80s anymore).
So ideally I believe the BTC blockchain should just host financial transactions and nothing more than that. No scripting ability either. As lightweight as possible (too bad MimbleWimble didn't exist back in 2008).
If that was the case, then perhaps scalability would be a lot better today.
Regarding arbitrary data, there should be an optional sidechain where you can host all sorts of stuff.
The last thing we want (it may have happened already, I don't know) is a malicious actor/butthurt no-coiner to store pedo pr0n or even copyrighted material in the immutable BTC blockchain and make it really hard to run a BTC node without breaking the law.
Also, another thing that hurts adoption these days is that you have to spend money to get BTC.
Back in 2009-2010 not only mining was easy-peasy, but also there were multiple faucets where you could get 1-2 BTC with minimal effort.
Fiat/CBDC money on the other hand can be provided for free under certain circumstances (i.e. COVID stimmy checks back in 2020-2021 and UBI in the future).
How do you expect Bitcoin to compete against CBDC? Most no-coiners are not willing to spend a single dime on it and most Bitcoiners are not willing to hand out satoshis to anyone.
Jump to: