Mempool Observer Topic - page 87. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Woodie

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 879

Rollbit.com ⚔️Crypto Futures

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 04, 2024, 03:46:58 AM

I wanted to discuss a thing that I noticed for a long time but didn't ask.
Sometimes I notice that some people replace their transactions with fees like 1000 sat/vB even though the recommended fee was around 100 sat/vB. Their previous fee was already enough to include their transaction on a block but it was waiting to be included in a block. But the person keep bumping it from 500 to 600 sat/vB and then 600 to 1000 sat/vB. Should I call them dumb people?
For example, look at the image below Cheesy

Dumb people, I don't think so...
Considering the mechanism of Bitcoin transactions is based on next block confirmation is given to the highest bidder, it's actually a smart way to ensure high fees are maintained...if anything this whole Ordinals spamming the network could be a smoke screen in my opinion.. What if miners were involved in artificially pumping of transaction fees to make some money while the business is lucrative Tongue

I know this could be an unpopular opinion but mining isn't cheap for starters and this is one possibility to pay themselves while they can !!

Besides if this was something like beginners mistakes, why doesn't this happen with other blockchains which have far cheap tx fees ??

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 05, 2024, 04:17:36 AM

Quote from: cryptosize on January 04, 2024, 06:15:38 PM

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently. Wink

Jokes aside, I didn't find any logical reason to increase the fee more and more when the recommended fee is way lower than what they have spent.

in january 2023 core changed its 'bump fee' default from 1s/vb to 5sat/vb for both GUI transacting default and RPC transacting default
they then in summer changed code whereby (not in GUI) in RPC if a user manually chooses a fee, then it ignores the bump fee default

meaning less techy users are pushed to pay more because the gui defaults to bump fees in higher increments than 1sat/vb, or 100sat/kb(0.1sat)
where as those that know how to rpc transact get more freedom to not pay as much

many alternative wallets also messed with their fee estimation defaults too

this is where you see some replacements bumped by 5s/vb increments (core gui created tx)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by 2s/vb increments (not-core gui created)
this is where you see some replacements bumped by many s/vb increments

for instance

both of the replacements were not done via cores gui interface
because both transactions were not replaced by rounded 5sat increment
eg the second tx would have been 1035 or 1040 not 1039

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: cryptosize on January 04, 2024, 06:15:38 PM

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently. Wink

Jokes aside, I didn't find any logical reason to increase the fee more and more when the recommended fee is way lower than what they have spent. I thought they were average Joe who did not understand the system and they kept bumping their fee until their transaction got included in a block. But, if they are real average Joe who does not understand when they should increase the fee when they don't need it, how do they know that there is an option to increase the fee which boosts up the transaction fee? Or maybe because sometimes it takes a long time to find the next block and they might think their transaction is stuck because of the fee? But the reality is; that their fee was enough already but the next block wasn't found yet.

armanda90

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 612

SSF Games - Redefining Blockchain Gaming

Quote from: BitcoinsGreat on January 05, 2024, 02:52:26 AM

Right now we have 257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing. Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.

Right now have decreasing with bitcoin transaction and take only 50 Sat/vbyte for sending bitcoin from one wallet to other wallet, my sending last several days have been landed well after decreasing of lower fees transaction and its take more than three days before receiving in my bitcoin wallet.
For ETF approved or not I don't get accurate information because have rumor is fake news and bitcoin drop drastically but we get benefit with fees sending of bitcoin decreasing drastically and use lower fees transaction just take about twenty minutes only.
I don't think in the future have potential with fees transaction for sending bitcoin will up again above 150 Sat/vbyte despite ETF approval or not, if you have bitcoin assets in wallet its right time for depositing in exchange account if you want to sell it and save in one wallet if you hold bitcoin in several wallet due with lower fees, faster transaction not make difficult later when selling bitcoin in the market.

As03

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

thank you @nutildah

So it is possible

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: As03 on January 05, 2024, 02:24:29 AM

Hello I wanted to thank you all for this post where I learned many things I didn't know.

There's one thing I'm not sure about :

I read in many places that miners could "choose what transactions they resolve from the mempool" but somebody said quite loudly here that it is impossible ?

what's true and can you explain it ?

Sure. Its the mining pool operator that creates a template for which types of transactions they want included in blocks they mine. The miners working with such pools tacitly agree to such templates. If they don't agree with them, they can simply find another pool that uses a template more in line with their principles. Some mining pools allow individual miners to vote on or even set their own templates, but not all of them.

BitcoinsGreat

sr. member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 280

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

Well, seems like the Kramer effect was more serious on the mempool than on the price, at first glance I though Viabtc mined two consecutive blocks but no,

Seems like the fees are back under 50sat/b, not great not terrible!
Of course it's still almost like holiday in the most of the world, it's barely 4 am in Europe so by tomorrow evening they might grow again but still the huge wall of fees is decreasing, from record high of 240Mvb till 10 sat/vb we're down to 185Mvb, although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

Right now we have 257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing. Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.

As03

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

Hello I wanted to thank you all for this post where I learned many things I didn't know.

There's one thing I'm not sure about :

I read in many places that miners could "choose what transactions they resolve from the mempool" but somebody said quite loudly here that it is impossible ?

what's true and can you explain it ?

cryptosize

sr. member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 310

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 04, 2024, 03:46:58 AM

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

I wanted to discuss a thing that I noticed for a long time but didn't ask.
Sometimes I notice that some people replace their transactions with fees like 1000 sat/vB even though the recommended fee was around 100 sat/vB. Their previous fee was already enough to include their transaction on a block but it was waiting to be included in a block. But the person keep bumping it from 500 to 600 sat/vB and then 600 to 1000 sat/vB. Should I call them dumb people?
For example, look at the image below Cheesy

No, they're not dumb, they're most likely bad actors trying to raise fees permanently. Wink

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: NotATether on January 04, 2024, 06:20:58 AM

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

Seems like we've both forgot a thing, low fees if indeed this is a trend will kill this topic faster than spammers will be able to do it! Don't know if I should feel sad or why should I if ever.

Fees aren't going low if there's one bajillion transactions in the mempool all paying the same fee.

Looks like Ordinals spammers have learned their lesson about paying high fees, but now they have replaced that tactic with making all 20sat/byte transactions and somehow expecting to beat the curve.

It's a slow squeezing if you ask me, because fees have been stuck at 41 sats/vbyte for a while, so some might jump the gun and pay 50 sats and the Ordinals mass will tweak their fee to be slightly higher, and so on.

I think there is 50 sat/vbyte wall to be break. There are so many transactions there!

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

Seems like we've both forgot a thing, low fees if indeed this is a trend will kill this topic faster than spammers will be able to do it! Don't know if I should feel sad or why should I if ever.

Fees aren't going low if there's one bajillion transactions in the mempool all paying the same fee.

Looks like Ordinals spammers have learned their lesson about paying high fees, but now they have replaced that tactic with making all 20sat/byte transactions and somehow expecting to beat the curve.

It's a slow squeezing if you ask me, because fees have been stuck at 41 sats/vbyte for a while, so some might jump the gun and pay 50 sats and the Ordinals mass will tweak their fee to be slightly higher, and so on.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

I wanted to discuss a thing that I noticed for a long time but didn't ask.
Sometimes I notice that some people replace their transactions with fees like 1000 sat/vB even though the recommended fee was around 100 sat/vB. Their previous fee was already enough to include their transaction on a block but it was waiting to be included in a block. But the person keep bumping it from 500 to 600 sat/vB and then 600 to 1000 sat/vB. Should I call them dumb people?
For example, look at the image below Cheesy

Quote from: stompix on January 03, 2024, 10:23:20 PM

Seems like we've both forgot a thing, low fees if indeed this is a trend will kill this topic faster than spammers will be able to do it! Don't know if I should feel sad or why should I if ever.

I don't think you should feel sad because you are not here just to increase your post count. People like you with genuine interest won't feel sad even if this thread dies. I know that you want cheap fees too Cheesy

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Well, seems like the Kramer effect was more serious on the mempool than on the price, at first glance I though Viabtc mined two consecutive blocks but no,

Seems like the fees are back under 50sat/b, not great not terrible!
Of course it's still almost like holiday in the most of the world, it's barely 4 am in Europe so by tomorrow evening they might grow again but still the huge wall of fees is decreasing, from record high of 240Mvb till 10 sat/vb we're down to 185Mvb, although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx.

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 03, 2024, 03:58:20 AM

~
Some spammers will still spawn up because you know what they are looking for. BTW, The fee is around 90 sat/vB at this moment. still, I don't want to dare to transfer some BTC with this rate. I have to consolidate some TX.

Seems like we've both forgot a thing, low fees if indeed this is a trend will kill this topic faster than spammers will be able to do it! Don't know if I should feel sad or why should I if ever.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: stompix on January 02, 2024, 09:54:04 AM

Juts in this topic present there is mikeywith and you might look at what I said, when regarding miners, I used "our" Grin

Of course , I'm hobby sized and even before I was running in the very low PH area!

Yes, I didn't notice that you have used "our". But, sometimes I use the word "our' even if I am not part of the group. Anyway, nice to know some miners! Maybe I should check the mining section more often to know some miners and learn things. Now, I remember seeing you and mikeywith in the Bitcoin mining section in one of my threads.

Quote

To be honest, couldn't care less, a signature ban would mean the end of quota post so a bit of end of spam too, if people would engage in genuine discussions 1/100 of the posts I would still consider it a net positive factor!

Some spammers will still spawn up because you know what they are looking for. BTW, The fee is around 90 sat/vB at this moment. still, I don't want to dare to transfer some BTC with this rate. I have to consolidate some TX.

cryptosize

sr. member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 310

Quote from: mikeywith on January 02, 2024, 06:13:34 PM

Quote from: stompix on January 02, 2024, 09:54:04 AM

Juts in this topic present there is mikeywith and you might look at what I said, when regarding miners, I used "our" Grin

Of course , I'm hobby sized and even before I was running in the very low PH area!

I can't say I don't enjoy the extra reward Cheesy

, that would be straight-out lying Cheesy

, although I would prefer steady medium fees than these crazy spikes of 300-500 sats Vbyte, i'd rather see fees stay steady at 10-20 sats/Vbyte, this would boost the mining rewards as well as make the network usable, I mean even 30-40 sats being the baseline is certainly better than 500 sats/Vbyte yesterday, 20 sats/ Vbyte today and then 100 sats/ Vbyte sats tomorrow, too high a fee is bad, and when it's coupled with "unpredicted" fee it gets worse.

This whole BTC fees story reminds me of olive oil prices in 2023-2024...

Producers love it, consumers hate it. Win-lose situation.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 6693

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: stompix on January 02, 2024, 09:54:04 AM

Juts in this topic present there is mikeywith and you might look at what I said, when regarding miners, I used "our" Grin

Of course , I'm hobby sized and even before I was running in the very low PH area!

I can't say I don't enjoy the extra reward Cheesy

, that would be straight-out lying Cheesy

, although I would prefer steady medium fees than these crazy spikes of 300-500 sats Vbyte, i'd rather see fees stay steady at 10-20 sats/Vbyte, this would boost the mining rewards as well as make the network usable, I mean even 30-40 sats being the baseline is certainly better than 500 sats/Vbyte yesterday, 20 sats/ Vbyte today and then 100 sats/ Vbyte sats tomorrow, too high a fee is bad, and when it's coupled with "unpredicted" fee it gets worse.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 02, 2024, 05:12:35 AM

But what assurances would a block size increase truly give the network that it wouldn't suffer the same kind of congestion that it's currently experiencing? What it might do is encourage Ordinals users/developers to embed larger data sizes in the Bitcoin blockchain.

assurances can be made. such as quashing the ability that transactions can take up so much space for one transaction.(lean tx)
assurances can be made that spam be charged at a premium. (fee forumlae)
assurances can be made by not relaying unconditioned opcodes

code is great, code creates rules, core devs relaxed the rules, they can strengthen them again

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 01, 2024, 03:23:42 AM

Quote from: stompix on December 31, 2023, 09:09:28 AM

And we're going to have the few miner around here cheering every time Feebudy goes up and disgustingly licking our fingers full of fudge thinking of those fees! Grin

This probably was my dream before I realized I have not a single input worth $300 in my spending wallet so I'm going to use....

Well, I don't know many miners except phillipma. We might see him around.

Juts in this topic present there is mikeywith and you might look at what I said, when regarding miners, I used "our" Grin

Of course , I'm hobby sized and even before I was running in the very low PH area!

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on January 01, 2024, 03:23:42 AM

Imagine this thread becomes a mega thread, and you have to create a self-moderated thread because of spammers! The signature campaign will exclude this thread from posting. LOL. I can see the future already.

To be honest, couldn't care less, a signature ban would mean the end of quota post so a bit of end of spam too, if people would engage in genuine discussions 1/100 of the posts I would still consider it a net positive factor!

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 02, 2024, 05:12:35 AM

But isn't there a non-zero chance that it would also open more opportunities for some entities to send larger payloads of "spam" per block and store them in the Bitcoin blockchain?

People will not drive each 100 cars at the same time just because they have 100 lines of roads just as they don't buy 100 tv cause they have 100 channels.
Assuming half of the traffic is ordinals, then in an event of x10 space they will need to cough up 19x times more transactions, costing them from 0.9 BTC per block as we speak nearly 1BTC each block! That's with 10MB!

And before you say something about personal nodes, need for decentralization:
- Nobody has a problem that an M63S runs at 7300.00W which would blow the fuses and melt the cables in most houses
- Nobody has a problem that half of the LN nodes are hosted with google and amazon https://mempool.space/lightning
/rant over

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: ABCbits on January 01, 2024, 04:26:02 AM

Quote from: nutildah on December 30, 2023, 11:09:51 PM

Quote from: ABCbits on December 30, 2023, 05:17:25 AM

BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement ~~confiscation~~ stealing mechanism[4].

All the Faketoshi stuff aside, its blockchain is approaching 10 terabytes and is supported by less than 100 nodes. One mining pool dominates with 54% of the hash rate. There couldn't be a clearer picture of why large blockchains leads to centralization. You can say, "ah but nobody wants to run a coin led by Faketoshi," and you'd be right, but even if he stepped out of the picture completely, I sincerely doubt things would be any different.

Even if faketoshi stepped out now, it's far too late since the damage has been done. And Etheruem would be somewhat better example since it has 16.5TB storage usage[1], but with 7.3K node running[2]. Although node number is rather high since Ethereum use PoS.

[1] https://etherscan.io/chartsync/chainarchive
[2] https://goto.etherscan.com/nodetracker

Honestly you could wager a bet with someone that BSV's blockchain in 3-5 years is going to be larger than Ethereum's.

There are some dedicated servers I know at places like Hetzner, OVH, where you can acquire that kind of storage, but it would only fit in a RAID-0 configuration - very risky for data loss. But many of them do not allow running cryptocurrency nodes in the first place, and also nobody's really interested in running a node on top of that, so that puts the nail in its coffin.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: stompix on December 30, 2023, 12:31:41 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 30, 2023, 11:02:28 AM

But isn't there a non-zero chance that it would also open more opportunities for some entities to send larger payloads of "spam" per block and store them in the Bitcoin blockchain?

That's exactly the reason we need to decrease the blocksize to 100 kb to kill all possible spam! Wink

But what assurances would a block size increase truly give the network that it wouldn't suffer the same kind of congestion that it's currently experiencing? What it might do is encourage Ordinals users/developers to embed larger data sizes in the Bitcoin blockchain.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 30, 2023, 11:02:28 AM

Plus Dogecoin and every other major altcoin don't give the same security assurances as Bitcoin. Solana I believe, during the last bull cycle, stopped producing blocks for hours because of network congestion. That should never happen to Bitcoin.

It happens more often than you think, just a quick heads-up since this is mainly a topic about the state of the mempool, block 823575 was 34 minutes late:

Happy ~~2024~~ oh wait 374sat/vb!

No what happened to Solana was different, Bitcoin never stopped producing blocks.

Furthermore, I know the high fees are annoying, but it's how the network was designed with the regulated block sizes and the fee market.

Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 87. (Read 23819 times)