Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 60. (Read 20415 times)

You can interpret my words however you like. I doubt that I am saying anything too controversial in terms of working with lightning network and potentially other second and/or third layers, and if there are various solutions that make onchain transactions more affordable, I am not opposed to that either - even though individuals should also be made aware that if they have a bunch of onchain transactions that might vary between a few dollars and maybe even less than $100, then they may well end up getting into situations that it is not very economical to be spending those UTXOs... or they end up getting surprised by fees if they are trying to send $5k, and someone tells them that they just sent $5k and it only cost them $10, but then if the persoin with a bunch of small UTXOs goes to spend $5k, they end up having to spend 100x more (which would be $1k) because they were combining more than 100 UTXOs.. Those are not comfortable situations, and could be quite shocking to some folks who might have had thought that they were building their BTC wealth $5-$10 at a time for many years, and then they find out that they don't have very much wealth at all unless the fees go down or there might be some other way that they are able to consolidate their UTXOs with low fees..
 

I don't need to remember that, because I already realize the trade offs to third party custody, so fuck off with your patronizing way of covering the same topic that I already covered.


More patronizing,  yet I will still point out that I am not advocating custodial solutions, even though sometimes custodial solutions might be the best way to transact using bitcoin, or maybe the least of the worst options.


There could be some variation of these proposals that could work, yet it still seems to need to have code and/or to be adopted.. .


I doubt that very many folks are interested in the increasing the block size arguments, even though sure there could be some circumstances in which some block size increases might become feasible.. maybe?


Sounds like a bad idea.. first there is no strong evidence (facts or logic) to convincingly proclaim that the current system is actually broken and/or that block size increases would resolve the problem without potentially causing more worse problems than it solved, presuming that there is a problem that even needs to be solved..

I am not promoting 3rd party custodians, but there still be some cases in which they are helpful and they are likely not going to completely disappear, so maybe the more important questions would revolve around whether there is enough people to continue to use various self-custodial options and also to have self-custodial continuing to be developed that it will continue to inspire people to strive towards self-custodial when they are able to .. and maybe self-custodial will ONLY be for people who have  a certain level of wealth.. whether that is $500, $5k, $50k or maybe some higher number?. not sure if self-custodial would only be for millionaires as blackhatcoiner suggest to be a potential problem.. yet I will also stand by my previous expectations that bitcoin still brings a lot of improvements in terms of an honest ledger - even though some folks might not be directly using it.. they would still be indirectly benefiting by such more honest money.

50 terra by 2140, go to any forum that involves seeding stuff, be it anime, tv shows or pure xxx and you're going to find users now with dozens of TB seeing all day long.

Now, back to the MEMPOOL OBSERVER....and BOOOOOM! 500SAT/B!
also  F* T* S*!
I saw fast blocks, mempools purging below 20sat/b now and I was ready for tomorrow morning to move a shitload of dust...good luck with that!


Look at the bright size, you tx is still in the mempool 
The ones at exactly 20sat/b got purged from default mode and ViaBTC isn't seeing them anymore.


Good project! When moon? 

That is actually a very good proposition that I can support.

What would also play in the hands of the miners here would be that price will probably rise because of the lower mining supply. So the buying power of the earned lower fees should be the same.


P.S.: If we talk about halvings. Imagine in a few years when block rewards will be basically gone. You think it can be justified that the blocks will basically contain 99% fees? This will only incentive mining that burns energy for no real profit. Because it will increase mining to a point where it does not secure the network but is done for pure profit (like it is now, but that could change in the future).

If I had it my way, I would double the block size with every halving.

Every 2 years processing power (and HDD/SSD storage) is doubled, so 4 years seems pretty moderate for doubling the block size, don't you think?

Currently we would have had a 32MB block size (with SegWit) or an 8MB block size (Legacy). Do the math and find out how much the block size would grow until 2140.

BUT maybe (I'm not 100% sure) Satoshi didn't want to ruin the emerging fee market, since BTC is a deflationary currency (unlike XMR which has a tail emission of 0.6 XMR per block).

I don't think it's possible to have our cake (increased block size) and eat it too (healthy fee market).

We can all agree that 1-4MB blocks are too small for 2024 tech (compared to 2009 tech), but we're stuck with what we have and nobody in their right mind wants a hard fork.

Just like nobody wants to abandon IPv4 in favor of IPv6 or 32-bit in favor of 64-bit... backwards compatibility is a necessary evil in the IT space. IT guys get it. Non-IT guys will never get it.

I truly believe that (billions of Android users don't even know they actually use Linux), but I'm concerned about self-custody.

There is a tricky/delicate balance between freedom and user-friendliness...

This has simply become the reality of bitcoin and it will become more and more normal the bigger the blockchain grows. And we will see no matter what a point where the blockchain will not fit on a normal device anymore.
Also if you need a different service to send small transactions then you are really trusting a 3rd party with a lot more then I am willing to trust.

says the guy that idolises his forum-wife that loves fee wars and fee increments/bumps and loves legacy being treated as 4x segwit

says the guy that loves transactions geting purged(censored) for not paying enough
says the guy that thinks unbanked people of 3rd world countries shouldnt transact on bitcoin to use their daily wage(he calls coffee amounts)
says the guy that thinks "but I'd say that about $50 to $100" payments dont belong on the bitcoin network




says the prune node promoter
says the subnetwork promoter that loves the middlemen he has to trust as partners

..
how about just skip to the end of your scripted story where you admit you dont want spam and bloat to be punished and you want everyone equally punished because it promotes your favoured subnetwork you want people to use

oh and before you cry "censorship"
how about one day... just try.. to read bitcoin cores github.. for keywords like
"evict", "abandon", "reject", "purge", "disgard", "orphan"

and realise bitcoin has never been a system to let everything in. code creates rules and rules kept the network clean and lean as best it could, until it was modified to be more annoying

If you do not download the blockchain, you will need to trust third parties. Allow me to say that trusting third parties goes against the concept.

The whole thing comes down to if you want to keep the blockchain small or not. But I think that it does not really matter how big the blockchain gets, there is really nobody downloading the whole blockchain anymore anyways. It was a pain to download 300 GB of blockchain and the same it would be a pain to download 3 TB of blockchain. If you want to do it to run a node then you will also download 30 TB. If you are a end user you will not download 500 GB, 1 TB or 100 TB.
In my opinion it does really not matter.

Nope. I want equal treatment.

Nope. I want equal treatment.

You very much love telling other people what they allowed to do, don't you?

Anyone making 1000 separate transactions at the same time is already being punished by paying more than 1 transaction that spends 1000 UTXO. However, your model punishes both ways.

But, I forgot. Our sole arbitrator of rightness disapproves the activity of these people, so they must be censored, if not publicly prosecuted. Amen.

     

• fastestFee: 434 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 406 sat/vB
• hourFee: 361 sat/vB
• economyFee: 46 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

so you want commercial services to pay less then users.. ok i get you(i understand your preference)
so you want users to now need to have a taint chain of multiple transactions just to push 1 transaction through

its very obvious who you care about more

but here is the thing..
when a user buys a product once a day the user pays into a merchants address once a day..
when the merchant wants to convert to fiat. he can use an exchange API to call incremental deposit addresses(one address per user) that deposits straight into merchants exchange without merchant needing to send funds again from his own wallet to the exchange.

also a merchant can choose to avoid paying more by batching his received payments
EG if a merchant receives 1000 payments from 1000 people an hour to one address. he does not need to send 1000 transactions from his address to an exchange the same hour
he can instead send 1tx an hour of 1000utxo inputs+1output(exchange) saving a 6x on a spam punishment and only pay for the bytes of utxo's of ONE tx, which is cheaper than sending 1000tx individually, instantly
...
it is funny how you care so much about commercial services not being penalised but think everyone else should pay more so that a merchant can spam by resending payments out as soon as received 1 for 1

Until some morons arrived when the fees were at 30 sats/vByte for confirmation in the next block and dumped about 8-10 transactions paying an average of 500 sats/vByte. How can someone be such a moron?

So I sent a transaction at about 30 sats which was what mempool.space gave for confirmation in the next block, and between that it has taken about 30 minutes to confirm and the next one has also taken a while, I look at mempool.space again and now if you want a quick confirmation you have to spend 553 sat/vB. That is if we don't have more morons overpaying fees. I bet miners are happy because 10k transactions at about 500 sats/vB is about $300K in fees.


Even if they are those assholes you have to be a real asshole to overpay fees like that, although I guess they think they are going to become millionaires and they don't care, but even if they believe that, why such a hurry to have their transaction confirmed and pay so much?

Except of the merchants that want to convert their bitcoin to fiat immediately, or to the general populace that does Child-Pays-For-Parent. But who cares, franky1 policies FTW!

Nope. I just want equal treatment across the userbase. BTW, this "1-conf penalty" is probably one of the worst solutions, because it can be easily bypassed. Spammers can create UTXOs in different blocks beforehand, so that they can avoid the penalty.

Example:
- Create UTXO A in block 800001
- Create UTXO B in block 800002
[...]
- Create UTXO Z in block 800026

The spammer now wants to create UTXO A', so they spend UTXO A without penalty. While they do their regular "spam", they create new UTXOs simultaneously that are planned for future use, while they can spend B, C, D etc. on their next transactions.

That started from a mere 90 minutes ago. The suspected projects responsible are,

- Canchain, https://twitter.com/chainainexus/status/1753524081537036392

- MoBox, https://twitter.com/mobox_official/status/1753795795143565795

Those projects are just running on a Bitcoin narrative, and it will not be sustainable because it's expensive and inefficient to build and use them on top of Bitcoin. Any developer telling you otherwise, has something to sell you.

using a 1-in 256-out tx to withdraw from exchange to directly fund someones subnetwork channel linked address
in segwit its 8099bytes meaning 123tx a block for 31,365people (112x255 users+change return) a block
800m people = 25,506blocks... so 6 months for an exchange to fund 800m peoples offchain channel address

very simple math.. heck even easier then your (i+d)ⁱ-(o/t) math

also the business model of subnetworks is people lock-in for a year or (their prefered goal) user spend out their offchain balance until zero and their institutional channel partner closes out
which because not everyone needs to fund crap subnetworks all at the same time and not everyone buys exchange balance to request a withdrawal at same time.. it can be assumed half filled blocks of withdrawals to funding channels each year

my preference is that people just request exchanges to fund users own UTXO for onchain utility
and soon devs get their ass into gear to care about bitcoin scaling. where they implement leaner tx, decludge and de-exploit the current block model. and then increment the blocksize as THREE actions. to allow ALOT more transactions per block

Yeah it's pretty simply
You have 10 percent of the worlds population a fixed number
You have one output to get them their coins to their wallet, let's batch those tx in 1 inputs 100 output for convenience, fixed numbers.
Then you have each of this guy from the 10% of the world population opening a channel.
You calculate the size of that you divide by 144 blocks a day and simple as this>  (p*u/s)s+y/f+r-(e^e) you have the answer! 

It's not complicated at all, a few years more or less years ! Now if you would want them in this decade to close and again open one channel and do like 2-3 not micro transactions things go blurry, as in we'll be all dead by then. 

Or, or....we could use doge which has no problem with this numbers:

Bitcoin Transactions last 24h         472,460  Avg. Transaction Fee   0.00015 BTC ($6.59)
Doge   Transactions last 24h   1,745,736  Avg. Transaction Fee   0.069 DOGE ($0.0055)

I really wonder what magic they use for this
But anyhow, I doubt it's something simple as having a larger capacity that could be achieved with 8Mb blocks or something!


Now to the good news:
We had 30 extra blocks in the last 24 hours.
The previous difficulty adjustment was 7.35%, again an insane increase in the number of transactions confirmed in 24 hours than normal.

everyone is already punished due to a few spammers/bloaters who claim cheap fee's where everyone else has to pay more.. my "model" as you call it punishes the few spammers/bloaters whilst everyone gets rewarded for not bloating/spamming

you quoting yourself saying you debunked me, which quotes yourself asking a question.. is not a debunk
its you not understanding anything

normal people do not spend every 10 minutes in their real life use of bitcoin
so not everyone will be punished for spending too often!!

its not my opinion.. its common sense
tell me how often you use your debit card. even you cant say you use your debit card every 10minutes of the day.. and thats with common real world currency. let alone a investment currency that doesnt operate with all retailers
normal people do not transact every 10 minutes..

you just dont want the junk to stop and you dont want spammers punished and you dont want everyone else getting cheaper fee's because it harms your desires that everyone should move over to your preferred subnetwork.
sorry but your preferred subnetwork is more buggy than a one-star hotel bed

i know you are upset that you can no longer stack sats sigspamming mixer adverts, but to now get upset that people are seeking ways to make bitcoin nice and easy to use again, which harm your subnetwork router commission fee income prospects, is more revealing about your intentions

its funny how you say you dont want spammers to be punished.. but then say you want everyone to continue to be punished due to few spammers

Eh, you can call me a bit of a pessimist. 

That's not what I meant. My point was that if it takes $1k to make just one (~150 vb) transaction, then you wouldn't pay that fee, unless you owned 1000x that amount. We surely can't expect from the middle class to open lightning channels in that case.

Well... If block size limit remains at 4 MW, then to retain at least half of the current reward, transactions should be paying about 100 sat/vb each on average. This would ensure roughly 4 BTC block reward. Both an opening and closing transaction weight about 330 vb in total. That comes at 33,000 sat per lightning channel on average. That amount might seem low in terms of the current exchange rate (~13$), but it can be pretty horrifying if we ever exceed 5 or even 6 digits.

Judging by the previous discussions of ours, you must have comprehended my spirit on that topic already. My opinion on what is a micro-transaction is irrelevant. But, if you really care about my opinion, here's how I see it: A micro-transaction is any transaction which can happen on a second layer and come less expensive than on-chain.

- A transaction that transfers 1000 sat is cheaper in the lightning network.
- A transaction that transfers 1 BTC is cheaper on-chain.

Lots of things can influence the final fee (many inputs on-chain, high charges off-chain etc), but I'd say that about $50 to $100 is what draws the line between off and on-chain currently.

Whereas in your model everyone will be punished for spending too often! Great!

This changes the entire model, and as already said requires a softfork at least. Needless to say that we shouldn't punish people who spend money at times disapproved by franky1, the sole arbitrator of rightness.

     

• fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 27 sat/vB
• hourFee: 26 sat/vB
• economyFee: 26 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 23 sat/vB

I think we've definitely made progress in lowering fees on Bitcoin. If you go to the bitcoininfocharts service, we will see that the average commission at the moment is ($6.59) 46.7 sats/vB. Most recently, in December 2023, the commission reached $40 per transaction. I think the success in lowering fees is due to some waning interest in Bitcoin following the approval of spot ETFs. In addition, the media constantly discusses the issue of the onset of the altseason. We know that Grayscale is draining its bitcoins. And the overall focus is shifting from Bitcoin to Ethereum and the expected approval of a spot Ethereum ETF in the first quarter of 2024. I believe this is where progress has been made in lowering fees.
***