Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 65. (Read 21852 times)

seems rather then reading what i actually talk about you prefer to grab the scripted narrative of the joke that is "bigblocker"
the stupid narrative that tries to quash any progress by going to insane extremes and pretending the extremes are whats being proposed
yet actual progressive proposals are not extremes.. but instead SCALINGs
not just or intently growth of blocksize, but mainly making transactions lean, strengthening the ruleset again where every byte of a tx counts and has purpose and formatting requirements that rules know of and examine. and uncludging the code to allow better utility of the full blocksize rather then the 25% 75% separate functionality.. oh and by the way segwit and taproot addresses can still operate inside such a united block, with their sigscripts at the end of the transaction. but as a united transaction thats fully validated..
other things like punishing spammer/bloaters can cut down on how many spammer/bloaters use up the space allowing for more normal people to use bitcoin. .. but your not interested in solutions to onchain stuff

the only reason i brought up the stash is because i can see passed my own wealth status to see points of view of those with less coin that have problems using bitcoin. where those people should not be made to use third parties because certain people just want to be complacent and keep the status quo of the elitism core roadmap path.. it was more about getting even a poorer person to realise that he himself is digging himself into a ditch of requiring himself to need third party services shooting himself in the foot by promoting that those without wealth should use third party services and leave bitcoin alone and not want to change bitcoin.. they need to realise they are talking about themselves being pushed off network..

reasons for this i can only fathom is while ostracising themselves off the network they are kissing the institutional asses that have taught them to favour bitcoin becoming a network just for the elites,

it is truly funny to see those with less value sing scripts of let bitcoin be just for the wealthy. going against their own financial security.. who is that benefitting? it certainly isnt benefitting those with less stash

i am not the one shouting people should stop using bitcoin, quite the opposite. im the one saying get the core devs to be devs of the decentralised open bitcoin network again for the benefit of bitcoiners. and not simply be institutionally sponsored playboys of elitist desires

---

point being there is code that causes these extreme mempool congestion events to occur more often, more easily and ways to exploit bitcoin to purge peoples cheap fees out of mempool before mining pools even get to transaction select for block candidate. all done to make bitcoin annoying. and yet people are too afraid to call out on the cludge and prefer to let it ride.

Well, the bright side is at this hour that my transaction has been confirmed, so it is doubly confirmed that those who paid 500 sats/vByte are fools with a lot of money.

You are really annoying sometimes, yet maybe that is part of your charm?

You do realize that the concept of problems and solutions can be used in differing kinds of ways and different kinds of levels?

Maybe one of the problems that we might be suggesting is whether fees are high for some people and they might not have options, and so maybe some of the problem for some of these folks might be that they engaged in a bunch of small transactions historically and then a decent number of their UTXOs have become uneconomical to spend.

If some folks are suggesting that the solution to such problem is to either hardfork in such a way that increases the blocksize or that some of the historical software changes, such as segwit or taproot should be removed or reversed, then those kinds of solutions are not without their own controversies including that reversing some things that had already achieved consensus seems quite unlikely.

Another dynamic, in bitcoin, in case that you had not noticed franky, is that it is more difficult to make a change than it is to maintain the status quo, and that's part of the reason that I am suggesting that anyone proposing to have changes made to the base code and the base layer practices, then they have the burden of production (facts) and the burden of persuasion (logic) to both show the problem and to show how their proposed solution(s) is going to fix the problem without causing more problems that might even be worse than the cure.  I don't claim to know the answer, so frequently I am attempting to deal with the "is" rather than fantasizing about the "ought," yet sure, there is no problem to describe perceived problems and to propose solutions and to attempt to influence others to agree with your points of view.

I doubt that I am saying anything as controversial as you are working at making it out to be. Yes many of us already know that the empowerment of bitcoin comes through self-custody and the various peer to peer transactions, and even if there are all kinds financial products (including the newly issued ETFs), the reason that those ETFs have value is because of the power of the underlying BTC and not because of various ways that the financial institutions might be holding them for their clients....so yeah there are products that are inferior to bitcoin, but they still allow price exposure, especially with the spot bitcoin ETFs require the various third party ETF providers to hold the underlying BTC in at least the amounts of the shares that they had issued/sold. 

There are likely a lot of ways that third parties can carry out practices in which they interfere with direct ownership, but at the same time, there have always been various ways that individuals had engaged third party services, and surely many of us bitcoin HODLers likely considered that a lot of them should have had learned their lessons in 2022 when so many folks lost their coins largely  because they were utilizing third party services.. but at the same time, there is a trade off currently, when we have some people who are very poor, and if they are buying $10 of bitcoin at a time, I hardly know how they can do that onchain without causing problems for themselves in the future, and if you are proposing BIG blocks to resolve it, that does not seem to be a tradeoff that is going to fly with a lot ofbitcoiners in order to achieve consensus, for reasons that I largely already discussed.


You are the one proposing the change.  NOT me.  I personally consider that there are ongoing developments, including that some poor people might need to learn to protect themselves by not moving every $10 transaction/purchase that they make to a private wallet, and sure sometimes we might have $100 to $500 transactions, but if the transactions are voluntary, then I consider it a fair trade off to let the amount in the third party custodial wallet to get between $500 and $1k prior to transferring to a private wallet.


You are not doing a good job of paraphrasing me.  Why not just let my comments speak for themselves rather than you repeating them but then summarizing them badly?


I have ONLY claimed to have more than 0.63 bitcoin, so good for you that you happen to have more than me.


I did not say that they shouldn't but instead that under current conditions and also potential future conditions, it may well end up being the case that even fairly large UTXOs of $100s of dollars might become uneconomical during certain periods of time, absent some changes or ways to maybe make them economical.  I am not saying that is my wish, but instead I had been suggesting that as individual bitcoin users, we should be attemping to prepare for those kinds of possibilities and hopefully protecting ourselves.

Currently, I don't have too many UTXOs that are less than $500.. but I also sometimes feel uncomfortable sending small transactions to people on chain if there might be concerns that the transactions might not be as spendable in the future, but if any of members of the forum should be experienced enough to be able to manage a $100 or $200 transaction on chain, even though we also may need to be careful when we consider when we might spend those size of UTXOs in the future... I don't know.  Maybe it won't be as BIG of a problem as I had been thinking, because another thing that we can do is coin control.


I doubt that I am promoting institutions or third party custodial solutions, even though that could be the better choice in some cases, and I likely don't have enough experience with some other possible solutions, and it is not ONLY me that had some problems with lighting channels getting closed on me.. which I find frustrating.


I know that you use the term IOU in regards to LN, and that is misleading.


Franky seems to be just guessing, even though he admits himself as a whale (or at least a whale wannabe - in his fantasy little world)

But we could go by his forum registration date, and so surely it would be possible, just by his forum registration date to have had gotten coins 10x cheaper than my lowest purchase, and even thoughI have a forum registration date that is February 2014, I frequently admit (or claim) that i started buying BTC at or near the top of the 2013 price run.. so surely Frank might have done a decent amount of BTC accumulation prior to that price peak...

but in the end, stash sizes is hardly even very relevant at all to our kind of discussion (as BabyBandit mentioned), except surely I had been suggesting that if a person has a certain number of BTC already accumulated that are being held in private wallets (and maybe even decently-sized UTXOs that are not smaller than $500, even if he might have transferred them when they were way smaller), then those people are going to be more advantaged over those who were making a lot of small UTXOs... but still even my comment is somewhat speculative in terms of just projecting how current fees had gotten and even expecting that transaction fees might get worse without the main chain bitcoin software sufficiently changing...and we cannot presume the mere increase in fees would end up motivating and/or even justifying some kinds of changes that Franky might want such as reversing Segwit/Taproot (that's not likely to happen), or some other BIG blocker kinds of suggestions that also would not be likely absent even longer periods of high fees. 

I am happy about any of this either.. including the high fees, and I think the more likely ways that poor people are able to transact in bitcoin is using second/third layers and even custodians.. but that still would not invalidate bitcoin because even some of the various second and third party solutions are still somewhat pegged to bitcoin.. more than what Franky seems to be ongoingly wanting to argue..

Who cares what others have or not? We should focus more on ourselves and reach our own top.



Yes I saw it to and now back to "normal" 24 sat/vB. Q quick turn around? 

Source?

Do you know his BTC stash? Or does he know yours?

JJG first admits there is utility annoyance problem with bitcoin.. because he uses the words "solution" (so he identifies there is a problem that needs solutions..)
but notice how he downplays or doesnt use the word solution in regards to onchain upgrade stuff.. but does use the word solution in regards to custodial/ offchain stuff

even when the custodial/offchain stuff is the worse choice. he still downplays the onchain upgrade stuff as not solutions and then says people may not want to discuss, have, need to see onchain upgrades..

then he goes onto say that the only people that self custody onchain for onchain use should be those that have wealth
(i personally have more bitcoin wealth than JJG but its funny how he wants to shoot himself in the foot by saying people of less wealth shouldnt be using bitcoin onchain..)

i do find it funny how those that are not institutions are speaking as if institutional ownership of coin is best option/least worse option, seems they are not caring about their own bitcoin utility and instead are just spouting some promotion that only benefits institutions and not themselves(unless they are kissing ass hoping for a pay day from such institutions for siding with institutions)

last comment
those with offchain balance on third party database..
those with offchain balance as inbound balance from offchain partner.. is not honest money.. its IOU with no guarantee

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.