Mempool Observer Topic - page 51. | Bitcointalksearch.org

joker_josue

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 4711

**In BTC since 2013**

Quote from: bitmover on February 01, 2024, 01:55:22 PM

I discovered Liquid recently, and it looks interesting. This was predicted by Hal Finney

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 09:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

Very interesting. By chance, I had already seen this Liquid, but I had never paid much attention to it.

How does it work specifically? Is it different to LN or the same?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

Quote from: bitmover on February 01, 2024, 01:55:22 PM

The problem is that people are storing jpegs in transactions. Before that, we could get 1 sat vB transactions confirmed with no problem in less than a day.

If blockcsize gets bigger, people will add videos to transactions.
...
Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

if we close the "softened" cludgy tricks core done 2017+ which allowed the bloat. it would prevent "videos" and also dampen down the current jpeg bloat..
having bigger blocks is not the sole thing.. you are reading idiot narratives from dumb people that shout silly extremes to prevent any progress

however
by closing the exploits that allow the bloat, blocks can have more leaner transactions and then scaling the blocksize can also allow even more of those leaner transactions

as for you pretending satoshi never talked about increasing the blocksize.. your wrong, as here is a post by him giving one example of increasing the blocksize. so he did talk about it

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 03:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 01:23:56 PM

Quote from: stompix on February 01, 2024, 12:13:11 PM

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

Well if this is really the only reason then I think the problem is the mining community.

Because I think those are the only ones that will cry if block size will go up and fees will go down. Nobody else does really talk about this subject I think. Because I think you and me could also be called die hard bitcoiners with a forum membership of more then 10 years. The problem is really only that it is not really worth fighting for it. (Except you are a greedy miner Tongue

)

I don't think this is solution.

The problem is that people are storing jpegs in transactions. Before that, we could get 1 sat vB transactions confirmed with no problem in less than a day.

If blockcsize gets bigger, people will add videos to transactions.

I think if adoption of bitcoin really grows, 2nd layer will be the solution. LN is good but not enough.

I discovered Liquid recently, and it looks interesting. This was predicted by Hal Finney

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 09:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Neither satoshi or Finney said that block size should increase. Bitcoin cannot scale this way. This will be only a temporary solution until you need to increase again.

Include all transactions in the blockchain is not necessary

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 642

Magic

Quote from: stompix on February 01, 2024, 12:13:11 PM

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

Well if this is really the only reason then I think the problem is the mining community.

Because I think those are the only ones that will cry if block size will go up and fees will go down. Nobody else does really talk about this subject I think. Because I think you and me could also be called die hard bitcoiners with a forum membership of more then 10 years. The problem is really only that it is not really worth fighting for it. (Except you are a greedy miner Tongue

)

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 58 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 52 sat/vB
hourFee: 46 sat/vB
economyFee: 46 sat/vB
minimumFee: 25 sat/vB

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: bitmover on February 01, 2024, 11:41:36 AM

There is no post of him that explicitly says so
Many scammers tried to push on this narrative, which is false, as far as I know.

You're falling in the same trap when you will deny any change just because it was previously supported by an individual you don't like.
The math is pretty clear, the outcome is also, you will never be able to have adoption and cheap transfers this way, and for LN to actually be used en masse, well you will still need bigger blocks unless you want fake decentralization with custodial wallets.
Oh, and last day fees were 8123 4TB ssd, that means users spent that much on fees a day while nodes (which are also run by users) won't be able to spend that ..in two years...cause cost! Wink

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 09:59:00 AM

But is there any technical limitation that would prevent an upgrade to 8 mb? I think there is none but i honestly dont know

Yeah, it's called periaqueductal gray synapse meltdown, or in layman terms, die hard bitcoiners letting go of their ego.
Won't happen!

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 642

Magic

Read this thread and you will see that it is not the invention of some "faketoshi" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347

I dont support any bitcoin sidechain movement, but the discussion for bigger blocksizes should be there. I mean it is quiete obvius where bitcoin is heading and the 4 mb will definatly be enough forever.

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: bitmover on February 01, 2024, 08:14:10 AM

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.

There is no post of him that explicitly says so
Many scammers tried to push on this narrative, which is false, as far as I know.

They even created bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv, and made billions . But those coins are scam.

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 642

Magic

Quote from: bitmover on February 01, 2024, 08:14:10 AM

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.

Quote from: nutildah on February 01, 2024, 08:26:20 AM

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

There have been a couple of block size increases: first from 500 kb to 1 mb, and with Segwit it is now at a maximum of 4 mb.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_is_the_short_history_of_the_block_size_limit.3F

That is a good observation. But is there any technical limitation that would prevent an upgrade to 8 mb? I think there is none but i honestly dont know

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

There have been a couple of block size increases: first from 500 kb to 1 mb, and with Segwit it is now at a maximum of 4 mb.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_is_the_short_history_of_the_block_size_limit.3F

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

Oh and before I foget it, yes bitcoin is a store of wealth how can I forget it. Nobody ever said that transactions should be cheap Roll Eyes

Its a relative term, but I consider anything under $3 for a tx fee to be "cheap."

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: hZti on February 01, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.

That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 642

Magic

If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.

Oh and before I foget it, yes bitcoin is a store of wealth how can I forget it. Nobody ever said that transactions should be cheap Roll Eyes

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
hourFee: 24 sat/vB
economyFee: 24 sat/vB
minimumFee: 24 sat/vB

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: NotATether on February 01, 2024, 03:22:59 AM

I have been spending about 2 utxos at a time, and I think that helps.

I always try to fully spend 2-4 UTXO at a time. As I have so many utxo (much more than 70) it is easy to find the exactly amount that I need. Fully spending makes the transaction a little smaller (and cheaper) too.

However, I should have consolidate more at 1 sat vB. I will try to do so when the times comes again. I will watch LoyceV topic too

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: bitmover on January 28, 2024, 06:14:47 PM

Most people here have too many utxo because we received recorring small payments for a long time...

Adoption also means that.

My UTXO set is bloated, I think I have about 60 to 70 of them so if I ever have to sweep my funds to another wallet, it's going to be quite expensive to do so, even at 30 sats/vbyte. But so is not securing your wallet properly, 'eh?

Fees are not important when your money is on the line, for whatever reason.

I have been spending about 2 utxos at a time, and I think that helps.

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 39 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 34 sat/vB
hourFee: 29 sat/vB
economyFee: 29 sat/vB
minimumFee: 22 sat/vB

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 35 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 33 sat/vB
hourFee: 31 sat/vB
economyFee: 31 sat/vB
minimumFee: 24 sat/vB

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 43 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 37 sat/vB
hourFee: 33 sat/vB
economyFee: 33 sat/vB
minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 39 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 38 sat/vB
hourFee: 36 sat/vB
economyFee: 36 sat/vB
minimumFee: 24 sat/vB

FeeBuddy

copper member

Activity: 238

Merit: 20

bc1qvq66kccea2fdqft6kss2zyn8y32z8xyy9rzhp0

fastestFee: 31 sat/vB
halfHourFee: 29 sat/vB
hourFee: 27 sat/vB
economyFee: 27 sat/vB
minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 51. (Read 16543 times)