Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 66. (Read 16543 times)

Bitcoiners in 2009:
- Central and commercial banks are a state monopoly, we must also kill Microsoft and Nestle's monopolies and split their power
Bitcoiners in 2023:
- Are you insane, you want competition between two coins and to allow people to chose what they like?

Bitcoiners in 2009:
- Those old geezers in power are so afraid of change, they should just go and drop dead in a ditch and let us change the world
Bitcoiners in 2023:
- You want to change something, are you insane, it has worked perfectly for years, how dare you!!!!

To be added on the first page of Stompix's new feature book completely written and plagiarized by AI.
I plan to name it Satoshi, the tanuki and the golden goose! 

@stompix

Most people would be OK with a 12MB block size increase.

The thing is, can you provide a written guarantee that the chain won't be split into 2 competing forks?

How can you be so sure that we won't have yet another BCH/BSV fiasco?

Anyway, it would have been so much better if Satoshi implemented 2x block size increase every 4 years, along with subsidy halvings.

We all know (Satoshi did too) that due to Moore's law computing power (and HDD/SSD density!) doubles every 2 years, so I have no idea why he skipped that.

We'll never know and now it's probably too late to risk a hard fork...

Already the mempool congestion caused me to miss two invoices so far because normal people like me don't want to pay $20 to make a $25 bill confirm.

I am dealing with support right now, but I must say, this is not very pleasant at all.

I think I'll be paying on Lightning Network for the foreseeable future, unless its a really big transaction where $20-40 fee does not matter at all.

And isn't this the difference between dictatorships and a free decentralized ecosystem?
If people don't want to follow they stick to the old one, just as people didn't follow BSV they might stick with the 1MB block rather than the 4x blocks.
Why are you afraid of letting people hose?


See how simple it was!
The only difference between you and me is that I think the value is threatened by the loss of utility!


By utility I mean something that has an use other than speculation, you know that I'm more of a pessimistic guy and here is the simple line of thought for this
- first it was the novelty, the promise of a an unsored network, cheap and easy transactions that made bitcoin gain fame
- then it was the money, you could get stinky rich by holding coins, which made more pour money and made also a lot trapped in it, so you start having floors on which you know you won't fall though so here comes the so called safe heaven assets

But we both know that the days of 10x a year are gone, it will go for a few more halving's, a few more years of fomo but inevitable the mirage of getting rich quick will fade and as those money are pulled out with what is Bitcoin left? It needs to go back to the thing that made it a hit on the world scene but regaining it won't be that easy!
2011, sending money with two computers across the world without a 3rd party ...woooooww how is that possible!!!!!
2027...meh, grandpa stop talking about ww1

Bitcoin needs to adapt, and the ironic thing is that even the devs know that, that's why segwit was born, but you can't do half ass measures that would require we wait till 2035 for everyone to be able to open a LN channel, when even the bank of Zimbabwe can outperform this! I'm just saying you need something else besides it, gold is not precious just because some decided this, it was a precious metals since the first humans started loving jewelry, and art, jewelry, electronics it's not really Bitcoin's thing, that if we ignore ordinals memes!

I'm not saying to compete with Visa, that would never happen, but at least compete with DOGE!!! , doge for god's sake!!!! Doge!!!!!! Fudge! 


All issues? Of course no!
But it solves part of the problem of migration to a second layer!
You won't have people migrating to LN with a $20 fee in order to pay less fees, and you won't have a critical mass of a few millions doing so when there isn't even enough room the blocks to do so. That 2035 number if for the whole population to open and close a channel once , 12MB and you're down to 2025.
Plus, it makes a spam attack 12 times more expensive, yeah people pay 6BTC in fees per block, will they pay 72 BTC ? Lol, no!

Even if in 4 years from now adoption spikes though the roof and fees climb again despite the 12MB blocks in the meantime you have had enough time to move millions to the LN for cheap, you have the userbase, you have the merchants you have the second layer full, not an ecosystem that barely thrives on exchanges moving money between them at this point.

/rant over

Meanwhile:


Although the top is lower the wall till 10sat/vb is still growing , 224 worth of blocks by now.

I can only see Mempool Khum today, Mempool has seen massive growth since the Bitcoin price spike. And due to Christmas Day, many investors traded and transacted due to which the transaction fees increased due to the rush of transactions. Transaction fees should come down further so that we can do Bitcoin transactions with less transaction fees.

If you live in a country of a population of 7 people with 2 running for president, your voice has a strength of 1/5, if there were 5 miners each running their node, your voice/code would have the same voting power, so where do things differ?

-In government elections, you can't legally and honestly buy more votes whereas in BTC you can buy them with $
-In government elections, you only have limited options, usually two jerks whom you know are going to fuck you over, you chose the one who is less likely to **** on your face  , whereby in BTC, you may just run a node that says you own 99% of the supply.
-In government elections, if your guy loses, you can try again in 4 years, nothing major, whereas in BTC if enough people oppose the current "rules" you break the community into two (ya elections do break community in some cases in some countries)

So ya, not sure what you guys are trying to get to with this government stuff, but you can find many similarities as well as many differences, to me, the main difference between the two is that the winners in BTC election are likely to have good intentions after all, they invest a lot of money and time and they would want what's best for BTC even if it goes against my point of view, I would still somehow benefit from losing, whereby in government elections, there is a huge chance that those getting the votes (including mine) are actually going to screw me over, steal my money and make my life worse.

This is one of the reasons why I am not all-in super maxi YOLO shit, I don't attack those who think blocks need to be huge, I mean aside from the sick minority who want to destroy Bitcoin that exists on both sides, I believe the majority of them are genuine people who want what they think is best for BTC, it just so happens that their view on things differs from mine.



That is an interesting point you have right there, and I would personally say I care more about the value of BTC than the "utility" BUT, only after defining what "utility" actually is, you may think utility is BTC being a great medium of exchange, cheap and instant like credit cards, and that's fine, someone else may say the best utility for BTC is the store of value or the ability to transfer it without going through one or more centralized entities.

Interestingly enough, if I asked you the same question, I would be very surprised if you said you care more about the "cheap and fast" aspect than you care about the "value", because I know you are someone who perfectly understands what bitcoin is, and what are its limitations, it's technically not possible for BTC to beat any traditional medium of exchange in terms of speed and price.

The reality is, BTC was never intended to do such a thing, I don't understand why many people think BTC took a different path, it's probably people's different ways of interpreting the white paper.


Every single aspect of the abstract of the white paper still holds true, you can still transact BTC without going "through a financial institution", the white paper doesn't say you would transact for dirt cheap, does it?  

Obviously, it doesn't mean BTC can't be a lot cheaper to use than it is now, so none of that does justify why blocksize shouldn't be increased, all the arguments against that are rather weak today, so whatever excuses some people had back then and were somewhat valid -- are probably totally meaningless and useless now.

The real question however is, can we keep the same level of security, reliability, and smoothness with a block size increase of say 300% where blocks become 12MB on disk, will that break the bank or burn the hardware of any node out there? certainly not, but will 12MB solve all the scalability issues? also no

So now it becomes a matter of what people who own Bitcoin actually want. are the majority of people upset about the fees? are there enough people ditching BTC for its high fees? these questions are hard to answer, if I were the BTC's CEO and had to take action, I would cut block rewards and time in half then increase the block size enough to suck the volume of all major altcoins and stop there.

Mempool dropped below 100 today and every time I monitor Mempool I see 100, 150 and 200 plus. The transaction fee in Mempool is as much as shown, but you have to pay double the transaction fee. Other days see Mempool 70 60 or below 50 but today Mempool is above 100.

oh shut up with your stupidity

you pretend people choose what they want.. that choice was taken from them years ago.. heck users dont even need to vote anymore. everyone just sheep follows core blindly.. so where is the choice
and no dont even try to recite the mantra that the choice is core roadmap or f**k off"  (**= uc/or)

bitcoin has not used real consensus for 6 years
new junk and new formats have slid in without needing network readiness

just look back at history
consensus as used november 2016-june 2017 only reached 45%
but as you well know core and their sponsors(NYA) managed a mandate that within 2 months of that caused an unnatural 100% activation which then didnt need network readiness then after

so stop pretending that getting majority compliance is not possible when core have set precedence that even in contention they can slide things in unnaturally.. so stop pretending that core devs cant do what they have already done and stop pretending they cant undo what they already done

please put an effort to act differently in 2024 and stop acting the way you have previously/currently by following a silly scripted agenda for last few years..
just try it and maybe ill stop telling you that you are stupid when you stop acting like it

you sound more like corporate shill than a bitcoiner.. and accusing me of being a shill is funny especially when i dont need to be paid or merit-kissed to post messages.. unlike you

and no i dont align with another network. you are the one that idolises that bitcoiners should shift over to using other networks
your silly games dont work
grow up and stop sounding like an echo chamber of a idiot

you are even trying to insert stupidity of 100x transactions. again the silly echo chamber mantra of "gigabyte blocks asap"
you are avoiding what is actual proposals and actual scaling (to make transactions leaner to utilise the available space better to not need "gigabytes asap", but instead smaller adjustments over time)
so just stop your silly sales pitches of extremes that are not being proposed as your reasons to avoid discussing actual proposals

you sound more like an idiot because you lack even any indepth thought process about the scripted narrative you copy from the other idiot you echo

try to be different in 2024. use your brain not your copy-paste

..
and dont even bother making any replies with the word "censorship" without atleast searching core devs utilisation of the words "rejection", "ban", "eviction", "drop", "prune" and realise core do remove transactions they dont deem fit to be in blocks
if you use the word censorship pretending that no transaction should be evicted, rejected, dropped then you have not done any meaningful research or understanding of the topic you speak

It is not easy. It never was. That is the hard to swallow pill. It is bloody hard to find consensus for a change in decentralized systems. Let alone, a change that will split the network into two separate. The history has shown that people will not follow.

It may be simple to your head, like changing a constant in the code, but I suggest you to confirm this assertion by trying to convince everyone to follow; they won't. Not because increasing the block size is inherently a bad idea (I mean, for some it is), but because they acknowledge that for a network of this shape to work harmoniously, people need to make compromises. Compromises like prioritizing the harmony over their diverse interests and perspectives.

I never said your opinion matters more than in election. franky1 keeps repeating the same soundbites for years now with such devotion as if he was getting paid. Does anyone give a fuck?

What I said is people choose what they want. franky1 might someday realize his behavior isn't effective. Repeating the same arguments as if his opinion mattered turns out to be a waste of time. He acknowledges that the Bitcoin network will never align with his perspectives and ideals. Instead, he sees potential in a neighboring network where the rules are much closer to ideal according to him. It is totally feasible for him to opt-in to that, and completely look down on us with his middle finger raised.

If it wasn't useful, people wouldn't see it as a "golden goose". Somehow it is the most valuable cryptocurrency and least useful according to you. Perhaps people assess its utility differently, not based on the number of on-chain transactions per second. Maybe, I say maybe, being socially resistant to change outweighs the flexibility of handling 100x more on-chain transactions.  

If by "utility" you are referring exclusively to the ease and cost-effectiveness of on-chain transactions, then I can easily admit I care more about the overall value. I don't view this entire situation as a competition centered on the ability to handle the highest volume of on-chain transactions.

if you look at the many changes that Glowzo has done to soften the rules of what gets into mempool. such as multiple layers of ancestry of transactions where great great great great grandparents are not even a confirmed UTXO. this allows spammers to not just put 1 tx per block confirm but junk up dozens of transaction ancestries into ONE BLOCK. which will become the new method to spam fill blocks with cheap young transactions

and it only takes one silly update of not counting UTXO or not evicting 2tx spending same output to then allow transactions to double spend value

bitcoins rules of mempool/preconfirm relay, and residency of blocktemplates have become too soft

I don't see how CPFP has anything to do with this. You can just make a child transaction that pays 500 sats/byte, and then even if if the parent transaction is only 20 sats/byte it will be confirmed in the next block as of now.

Because (500 + 20) / 2 = 260 which is slightly lower than the average fee right now.

The point being, I don't see Ordinals transactions using CPFP with high fees, because they already use extraordinarily high fees in their transactions (in fact, what caused this mess in the first place).

Also a miner is not incentivized to accept a child transaction and a parent transaction together except in the above case.

when idiots have been doing junky spam on bitcoin and other idiots think its their opportunity to advertise other networks as the solution to the junk

results show:
jan 2003  LN capacity ~5003btc
dec 2003  LN capacity ~5021btc

bitcoin transacts PER BLOCK more volume then the entire LN network has locked for the year

seems the community do not care for using another network. especially if said network is buggy as hell...
so lets not waste 2024 trying to force people away from bitcoin and instead instruct core devs to be bitcoin devs again and actually want to secure bitcoin again.

this is not just about punishing the junk spammers but also uncludging the crap that affects the mempool
things like disabling the unconditioned opcodes from the pre-confirm relay. thus undoing the junk ability to inhabit mempools
but also do stuff about the bump fee increments to be smaller increments per bid

ontop of this, disable CPFP so that transactions in mempool have a confirmed UTXO again(good security against double spend, and none of the spam can inhabit mempool that has parents of unconfirmed heritage. thus stops spammers having an ancestry of dozens of transactions all unconfirmed waiting to spam blocks

yep unconfirmed ancestry is another fatal flaw of bitcoin evolution waiting to annoy people.. having nodes being allowed to relay transactions where the parent is not even a confirmed utxo is a exploit waiting to happen

and before any idiot that shouts that removing transactions from mempool is censorship.... no its called "eviction" and yes core devs made that buzzword and have many reasons to evict transactions from mempool/pre confirm relay, and evictions from block templates to never get residence in a block

yep bitcoin has good reasons to evict transactions. and we should not be softening the rules to allow junk more residency in bitcoin

Yeah , I'm dead serious.
You're ignoring the first issue in this, and the whole decentralization no central node no central entity mirage!
The main problem is not how problematic is to get out, but how easy is to change that so you don't have to pack your bags and do it!
We're talking about a system, actually you brought this up, and made it sound like in a decentralized world your opinion and your voting power means more than in an election...which we don't have! So sell your hoard and get other coin cause it's so simple to do it just sounds ...like raising a middle finger!


Limited? Lol!No, the limit is not the number of merchants cause there are millions accepting Bitcoin but the limit itself is that there are no clients for it.
My family shop accepts both visa and cash, do I have 1 million clients as how how many card owners are in the city? No!

And speaking of number of people using it:


How does it feel competing with litecoin, as with dogecoin there is no comparison anymore?
And the other coins, like solana and polygon are out of these league and in one of their own and despite the millions of tx processed somehow, they still work and nobody is crying about spending $200 on a ssd!


Why don't you actually say what you think?
We shouldn't try to fix this as it's going to ruin our golden goose and everyone is comfortable with the $ rather than the utility!
That...till the nokia shares start to slump. Oh , my bad, satoshi price! 

Just be honest with it, you care more about the value than the utility and that is.
Lol, do you think I mine for securing the network or other unicorn ideals?


Yeah, spot-on! This is what actually matters for most, right?
So why fix something when we don't need and it might ruin the most important thing we expect Bitcoin to do for us! Brings us more $$$$$$$!


Meanwhile:



Anyone here remember how this was suppose to kill Visa, PayPal and WU? 

Which is precisely why people don't want to make it a 4-year election cycle. There's a good saying that "making something social destroys the truth of it". Experimenting in the main chain is no longer acceptable.

People treat Bitcoin as a store of value. A conservative, capped, deflationary, boring, quiescent store of value. The rules are long set. There is no way you find universal consensus on the ideal block size limit. I myself believe that the limit should rise a little bit, but if to accomplish that I'll have to risk losing the aforementioned invaluable properties, then hell no. We shall improve scalability only on second layers, and if that isn't enough, then our next best course to an electronic peer-to-peer cash is a reputable altcoin like Monero, where change is more socially acceptable on a basis level.

[quote author=mikeywith link=topic=5478905.msg63399642#msg63399642 date=1703727656
Transacting for cheap on the blockchain will not be a thing in the future, I can't stress this enough, without other layers/sidechains that actually work we need to start to treat BTC for what it is treated by the majority of people who don't seem to be complaining about fees because they hardly spend any of their BTC anyways.
[/quote]

For those who have thick shirt collars, I think whatever it costs to get it done quickly without having to wait a long time is done and it's not a big problem, just enter, but for people who have some BTC it's very different and whether they are required to enter pool the miners by increasing the fees. If you want to take it slow, you have to be patient for at least 6 days before it is processed because there are lots of queues and it is true and natural that fees will be made proportional to trading volume even though this is just speculation and not based on actual value.

 I don't think not moving to other coins/blockchains has anything to do with the number of merchants accepting them, I hardly believe that there are enough people who use BTC for any sort of merchant payments, it just doesn't make sense to me, the way I see it is that almost nobody uses BTC for "merchants payment" if we talking merchants, how many accept bitcoin? 15,000? 30,000? against 350M + who accepts credit cards? what does that give you? 0.00x % ? you round it to the nearest whole number and you get exactly 0%.


I do however agree with the first part of your post,  leaving BTC isn't as easy as leaving your country, and the main reason why people are not leaving BTC is that they treat it as a store of value, and they think it has the best and most guaranteed chances of growth compared to any other coin. if it was not for the "store of value" concept, why would anybody buy BTC today? it's the most expensive coin to spend and the slowest to move, which proves the above point, in the grand scheme of things -- nobody uses BTC to "transact".

And yes, someone will quote the white paper "P2P electronic cash system .................", spare yourself the efforts, nobody cares.  

So now begs the question, is BTC on-chain even feasible to use for daily payment? will it ever be? The answer is simply put - NO!.

It's now Ordinals to blame, fine, let's ban them, will that solve the problem forever? will there be enough room for 5% of the world population to transact on Bitcoin's main blockchain for cheap? NO!

is there any technical solution that we may implement in the future that would keep BTC as secure as today and process millions of transactions per second without breaking something? NO!

So what should we expect? what are we waiting for? it seems like our only hope is that the "others" would stop using it so that "we can", those "others" will differ from time to time, it could be BRC-20 junk shit, it could be banks settling their payments, pools spamming the blockchain to keep fees high, rich people paying for coffee using bitcoin, we don't know-- but there will always be "others" to fight.

What is the right thing to do?


We need to accept that we can't expect BTC to

1- Make us ultra-rich, allow us to transact for dirt-cheap, stay as secure, not to be regulated, and cure cancer. That's just too much to ask and seems like we want everything!

Transacting for cheap on the blockchain will not be a thing in the future, I can't stress this enough, without other layers/sidechains that actually work we need to start to treat BTC for what it is treated by the majority of people who don't seem to be complaining about fees because they hardly spend any of their BTC anyways.


What does currently mean for the website you posted? you can only know the pool's real hashrate if they report it publically, other than that it's just guesswork, I opened the link right after you posted your post and it's now showing 152.34 EH/s, there is no way the added 1.3EH in 10 seconds, what you see here is estimated hashrate based on how many blocks they found during x period of time (seems like last 100 blocks for the website you posted), those figures are highly affected by pool's luck, i.e, it's possible for a pool with 10EH to show as 20EH if they had 50% luck for whatever x period the website uses.

With that said, I believe currently through their API (assuming it's correct), foundry reports 155EH.

Really?

https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin

151.02 EH/s currently

foundry is a black box pool.

you can not view its hash rate you need 20ph to join it.


20 ph is about 200 s19's  or 150 s19 xp's or 100 s21's

so your entry fee to just belong to them is over 400K easy

$2000 x 200 = 400k in s19k's plus a space to mine them .

plus infrastructure about 750kwatt transformer fans to cool

if you have 5 cent power they cost 22000 a month to run.

And while that lets you be in that pool (the biggest) I have no idea what you see of their website.

they could fund this attack as they earn 48 blocks a day.

I agree that BCH isn't worth it due to Bitcoin Jesus (Roger Ver) shenanigans back in 2017. Same for BSV (Craig Wrong). We don't need narcissists and there's no way to replicate Satoshi's leadership ever again.

LTC is OK (Scrypt-ASIC powered), maybe DOGE too (if you don't mind its inflationary nature). XMR has always been a serious dark horse (slightly inflationary though due to tail emission), although some people argue it could easily be 51% attacked by Azure/Google cloud CPUs (since it's CPU-powered, just like BTC during its early days).

Ever since Binance listed ORDI (late Oct/early Nov 2023) we saw a huge increase in BTC fees.

The question is: who funds all these BTC transactions? Who has such a large BTC stash to keep funding (mostly useless/worthless) NFTs for over 2 months?

Could it be someone who wants to make BTC p2p/e-cash transactions unaffordable for the Average Joe?

Could it be, let's say... BlackRock?

Yes yes, I know it sounds like a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but it sounds plausible to me. Not only they want to sell BTC ETF, but they also want to make KYC mandatory.

Good luck getting cheap BTC fees in your favorite non-KYC DEX (Bisq), especially if you love DCAing regularly.

We ALL know that it's very hard to control/usurp the BTC network, unless you can manufacture TONS of ASICs quickly to perform a 51% attack.

But it's easier to raise BTC fees to absurd levels, provided you have a large enough BTC stash to constantly fund expensive BTC transactions.

So, follow the money trail (BTC leaves a trace, assuming mixing hasn't been done): who has that stash and keeps funding all these NFT transactions for over 2 months?

That's the only way to unravel this "mystery" and I'm surprised no serious blockchain analysis has been performed so far.

ps: I'm pretty sure big blockers (BSV) would LOVE this conspiracy theory (despite claiming they don't believe in conspiracy theories ), because it would prove BTC is not sustainable for the Average Joe.

And when I say Average Joe I mean people living in the West, let alone someone living in Africa/Asia and earning $100-200/month. Those poor "unbanked" (remember the narrative?) guys have been priced out of the market a while ago...