Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 58. (Read 20415 times)

     

• fastestFee: 21 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 21 sat/vB
• hourFee: 21 sat/vB
• economyFee: 21 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 11 sat/vB

Probably because he loses attention when fees go down?
Like chartbuddy he needs outrageous price swings to have people paying attention or he will go on rampage.

And I just love the new mempool features (and icons):


Shows a ton of consolidation happening lately, maybe 20sat/vb is for some a sweet spot and they are afraid things might get worse again. but we're just 120vMb from hitting 10sat/vb and if the hashrate keeps the  pace we're going to have extra 90 blocks till next Thursday, combined with an weekend, maybe , maybe!!!

You are right, it is off scale. I need to push the line a few more pixels.
I didn't noticed it. Thanks.

He came back, but angry. The graph line now goes off scale!

Or has it always been like this, and I'm just now noticing? 

Something is wrong with feeBuddy.

I noticed he was down for more than 24h. He was unable to login into the server, I don't know why but the auth tokens were not working.

just as mysteriously as it stopped working, it came back lol. Feebuddy is back

Oh dear.

I think we have left FeeBuddy unattended for too long, and now it's made a mess.


Nowadays, the price of bitcoin makes such ventures too expensive for any practical use.

     

• fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 23 sat/vB
• economyFee: 22 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 11 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 23 sat/vB
• economyFee: 22 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 11 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 21 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 21 sat/vB
• hourFee: 21 sat/vB
• economyFee: 18 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 9 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
• hourFee: 25 sat/vB
• economyFee: 20 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 10 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 24 sat/vB
• economyFee: 24 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 12 sat/vB

But it DID make sense, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63607204

Canchain,and MoBox.

Two more "projects" building on top of Bitcoin that are using their capital, both human and financial capital, very inefficiently by wasting their time and resources in developing those projects that will be hard to boot-strap with users because the network will be too expensive to use.

SatoshiDice and there was an on-chain sports betting service that closed because running everything on-chain, although very ideal, was becoming impractical and too expensive.

     

• fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
• hourFee: 25 sat/vB
• economyFee: 25 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 18 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
• hourFee: 24 sat/vB
• economyFee: 24 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 21 sat/vB

Maybe my language was not precise enough for uie-pooie..

I did not say that they ate through the 20 sats per vbyte territory.. I had meant to say that it has been in the process of eating through.. and so maybe you are getting caught up upon language in order to quibble about meaningless matters.

My subsequent chart had shown that there are ranges of backlog, and I had ONLY provided the last week which shows that largely the widdling away of backlog has been in the 20-25 sats per vbyte range, and prior to that it was in higher ranges such as 25-30 sats per vbyte, 30-40 sats per vbyte, 40-50 sats per vbyte etc etc etc...

So we can even zoom out further on that same chart that I had already provided earlier and see the backlog continuing to get widdled away, including that currently, in the past week or so, we having the 20-25 sats per vbyte backlog widdled away.


I am not presuming that transactions are being processed for lower than the backlog amounts, so right now, if you are trying to be economical as you can, then to be safer, it would likely be better to place your transaction fees in the 25-30 sats per vbyte range rather than in the 20-25 sats per vbyte or any lower than 25-30 sats per vbyte... .so of course, as the backlog gets widdled away then we are able to put our economic transactions lower, but if want to be sure that they go through quickly we have to go a bit higher than the backlog and hope that any spike is not sustainable.. since it does seem to take a bit of time to build up the backlog in the various ranges, and I still am not even claiming to have much clues about the causes, even though as many of us here, I am not suspecting the backlog to be as organic as it might be being presented to be.. but hey I don't know enough.. so I am more than willing to wait to attempt to weigh what others think or what kinds of evidence is presented regarding plausible causes and theories of sustainability of keeping fees up like that and if shenanigans might be going on or just shenanigans that are costing the attackers a lot of money to keep up the ruse..


Maybe there are better charts to show your purge theory?  I admit that I heard about some of these purging ideas but I have not really looked into it.. Also, I am not opposed to the idea that low ball transactions might sometimes get purged or some software might not allow fees to get set below certain amounts, but I just don't see how transactions would be being purged at anywhere within 30% or so of the backlog line (referring to the jochen graph).. and then also if the backlog line is continuing to go down, then there seems to be less and less reason to be engaging in any purging.. except maybe way below 5 sats per vbyte or something like that, and I had also heard that some wallets might not allow transactions to get set when they are at certain low levels..  .. but to me the backlog still seems to be going down... at least for now...and really in the last 30 days, even though the there has been a lot of transaction fee-related suffering in the last 3 months.

In another topic I'm developing, here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2024-difficulty-cycle-analysis-blocks-per-pool-5483213

I'm gathering some information about the blocks mined in each difficulty cycle, and that includes the average rates for each block mined.
And it is really interesting to note that in the last cycle, there was no block with an average rate below 50sat/vb.

observing mempool you will see the fees didnt come down to allow blocks to eat through the 20sat/vb backlog
instead the 20sat/vb got purged. then some 16sat/vb added and got purged , then some 20sat/vb added and got purged because the min went upto 21 before new fresh tx added to mempool from 16sat/vb up.. and then purged again back to 20

you can see that jochen-hoenicke retains tx below 20sat/vb because HIS mempool is set at 550MB instead of standard 300
but by seeing the straight line(unnatural) of the 20-21 colours they are purged by majority which means only jochen-hoenicke is retaining them hence the straight line. where most natural transactions of 300mb mempools are purging cheap fees
(if very cheap tx were being added you would see wiggly lines of tx's coming and going as they get relayed in - confirmed out)

if you zoom right in on the jochen graph you might see the very rare one pixel change meaning maybe a little amount of cheap tx got into some lucky block. but  the overall straight line shows there is no real coming of going of tx of that fee point because they get purged.. not eaten by block

the "min" is more of a purge line.

So even if the current transaction fees are coming down - like I mentioned earlier about getting into the widdling away of the 20 sats per vbyte backlog - as shown in the below image:



https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,1w,weight

the attack is ongoing.. but still way more reasonable in the last couple of weeks as compared to the prior 2.5 months.

Someone is paying so much for transactions
 Makes no sense.

I also see lots of blocks in the mempool  and many blocks 100% filled with transactions like this, 60 inputs (legacy) and 1 output (segwit)

https://mempool.space/pt/tx/30e69caa762c832bafb0b1a95c67a0d1edb5986dfb69c983f5fba0343aa1300e

Someone is creating this transactions to flood the network?

I already said what I was going to say.  There is no need to say more, especially in regards to your further attempts to narrow the questions into attempts to deal with the ought rather than the is.


I am already think for myself.  Don't you think?

hahahahaha

Obviously you don't think so, or at least you are making shit up to proclaim that it is your belief (or conclusion based on everything you know) that I am not sufficiently and/or adequately thinking for myself in the terms of frank1 standards.


Hopefully each of us can figure out our own ways to interact with the chain or to use various 2nd or 3rd party mechanisms in such a way that we become more informed by participating in threads like this one.


I am not promoting anything that goes beyond attempting to be practical for anyone who might want to involve himself in transaction in bitcoin. If there are ways of interacting that I don't know about, then I am more than willing to learn. Furthermore, I cannot even keep up with my own experimentation, since there are ONLY so many hours in a day in order to attempt to try out solutions that I have not yet tried.  Accordingly sometimes it helps to hear about the experiences of others in order to decide which kinds of solutions might be worth trying out.


You are repeating yourself about nonsense, and I even question how helpful any of this back and forth is to anyone.. in the direction of:  "Let's hear frank rant about how others are not bitcoiners enough under franky's definition of what should be a bitcoiner."


You seem to be projecting upon me things that I did not say, even if some of what I said may have some of the consequences that you said.. so yeah, using 2nd, 3rd layer options would not be using the mempool as often, but still may well end up tying into the mempool, depending on which option that we might discuss..


Again, I doubt that I am promoting that...even though if some predictions into the future might be that some people might avoid (minimize or be priced out of) interacting with the mempool if it is not economical for them.

---

Maybe one thing that I might add is that if the transaction fees are currently coming back down and eating through the 20 sats per vbyte backlog, then we might be able to conclude that whatever was being done in the last 3 months or so in order to keep the fees high might not be sustainable (and maybe costing the attackers too much), and it may well be better to not change anything in any kind of substantial ways rather than to be forced (or rushed) into some kind of a change that is largely being artificially justified by the three month backlog in order to cause people to speculate that something in bitcoin is broken or some urgent change is needed (when it is not)... and so yeah, there might not be as much urgency as some complainers (cough, cough franky1) are trying to spout out about.