Now that we are heading to BIP 148...

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 06:35:34 AM

>> Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

Simple question gets a simple answer: because more transactions are being sent than the amount that the network can handle.

If you based it on that, it would be on the assumption that every transaction has to be confirmed while the network is in this state. That would mean that as demand continues to exceed supply, the amount of time you have to wait for your transaction to be confirmed gets longer and longer.

The point of fees is to prioritise your transaction so that it gets in earlier. Of course recently this has changed in that you have to pay a fee, but it's still similar in that to get your transaction confirmed earlier it's justified for you to pay a higher fee.

Plus, this isn't something that can be implemented anyway because miners are working on a profit incentive. All talk about this would just be about morals speculation of what could theoretically happen, even when it's extremely unlikely.

Cosbycoin

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 506

Quote from: pooya87 on June 08, 2017, 10:38:25 PM

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 06:35:34 AM

Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

pretty simple!
because that will open up way for an easy and huge attack vector which will possibly cripple the network!

imagine if it was first come first serve without the who pays the high fees. someone can easily flood the network with millions of small transactions with small fees and at some point it will be his turn and we have to wait forever until those millions of transactions are confirmed so that we can get our turn.

Yeah, the current treatment is I guess the best one it is on the need based those who are in need to get their transaction done earlier they pay more to confirm the transaction and those who don’t need an early or soon confirmation they don’t pay more. So, this is good I guess.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 11:30:12 AM

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 08:18:35 AM

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.

"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are)

To make your own point somehow different from "baseless speculation", you would have to answer a few simple questions yourself. In fact, just one simple question. To wit, you would still have to explain who is behind the spam attacks. If miners can't allow to run the costs of these attacks, then who is running them, after all? If mining is heavily centralized, there is more than enough economic reason for miners to collude and spam the network with these useless transactions. Since they are the ones who will be receiving the fees, the whole shebang becomes perfectly feasible and makes perfect sense from a financial point of view. In fact, it would be quite profitable if the miners managed to bid up the fees through that

Which seems to be the case as we actually see the fees escalating

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 06:35:34 AM

Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

pretty simple!
because that will open up way for an easy and huge attack vector which will possibly cripple the network!

imagine if it was first come first serve without the who pays the high fees. someone can easily flood the network with millions of small transactions with small fees and at some point it will be his turn and we have to wait forever until those millions of transactions are confirmed so that we can get our turn.

Dorky

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are).

Why is such attack unaffordable to maintain? The miners are just paying themselves back from the high fee that they themselves paid for the spams to make the block full.

Emoclaw

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 251

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 11:30:12 AM

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 08:18:35 AM

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.

"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are).

qiman

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 504

Quote from: ?? on ??

"first-come-first-serve" rule is useless as long as bitcoin transaction fee still exist, i think segwit + increasing block size is better choice. If bitcoin adapt "first-come-first-serve" rule, then bitcoin hater can make lots of spam transaction easily and it will be disaster for bitcoin itself.
Also, i think DASH isn't the only altcoin that will could crash once bitcoin problem has been resolved.

I believe selfish miners are making the biggest problem for Bitcoin would be double the price by now and more and more mainstream users using it but because of the higher transaction fees and infighting it is causing many Newbies to go to other coins instead that are faster and cheaper to use as transaction.s.

Dorky

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain

Quote from: ?? on ??

If bitcoin adapt "first-come-first-serve" rule, then bitcoin hater can make lots of spam transaction easily and it will be disaster for bitcoin itself.

That's true. I never thought about that.

Dorky

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain

Quote from: krishnapramod on June 08, 2017, 09:32:56 AM

Hope 2017 would not be another year of endless debates with zero outcome.

Judging by their behavioral pattern, I would bet 2017 will be another lost year.

Dorky

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 08:18:35 AM

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Kprawn on June 08, 2017, 10:28:30 AM

Dash is the new Anarchist and drug users wet dream, because it is supposed to be more anonymous than Bitcoin and it reflects the true principles

of a Anarchist idea of a coin that would circumvent government controls. Bitcoin has become more mainstream and shed the ties to Anarchist

ideals. Bitcoin is also being regulated now, so criminals will look for a alternative for their shady actions. Roll Eyes

DASH isn't much more anonymous than Bitcoin. It's very similar to Bitcoin, but with a mixer built-in to the reference client ("Private Send"). You could equally use CoinJoin with Bitcoin and have the same options as DASH's private send feature.

Bitcoin's regulation would also be very similar to DASH in that governments will find it pretty difficult to actually track down transactions and users unless they put a crazy amount of resources into it.

Smaller coins obviously can be less regulated for now, but broader government regulations in the future will cover "Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies", or just "cryptocurrencies", and DASH would be handled in a similar way.

Monero is the criminal alternative IMO, but if you go on dark net markets like Alpha Bay you'll see that the majority of merchants still deal with BTC and not Monero or ETH (despite those being options there).

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Dash is the new Anarchist and drug users wet dream, because it is supposed to be more anonymous than Bitcoin and it reflects the true principles

of a Anarchist idea of a coin that would circumvent government controls. Bitcoin has become more mainstream and shed the ties to Anarchist

ideals. Bitcoin is also being regulated now, so criminals will look for a alternative for their shady actions. Roll Eyes

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on June 08, 2017, 09:41:00 AM

Quote from: BitHodler on June 08, 2017, 07:57:34 AM

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

If we assume that miners don't want any scaling (because any scaling, would lead to lower fees for miners) and it's all staling tactics, then what the fuck are we waiting for to go all in on UASF BIP 148 support?

They are leaving us no choice. If we want to scale, there's no other way out.

It is good that more and more people now come to understand the tactics of rogue miners. As I tell it constantly, miners are not interested in changing the current situation, they are quite happy with the status quo and the fees they charge (or collect, if you please). Whatever they do or suggest should be viewed from this point of view, and then it becomes abundantly clear that their "proposals" (whatever they might be or look like) are not actually meant to get implemented for real but only to forestall further Bitcoin development as well as raise meaningless arguments and futile debates. OP seems to be ingenuously pushing Dash ("Dash is going full force trying to topple Bitcoin")

Another shit coin, another trash bag

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: BitHodler on June 08, 2017, 07:57:34 AM

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

If we assume that miners don't want any scaling (because any scaling, would lead to lower fees for miners) and it's all staling tactics, then what the fuck are we waiting for to go all in on UASF BIP 148 support?

They are leaving us no choice. If we want to scale, there's no other way out.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Ver is paying bits to his shills on twitter. How pathetic those BU supporters have become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjqGEvpUMvE&feature=youtu.be

The situation is exactly like OP said. They have heavily invested in ~~altcoins~~ shitcoins like dash,zcash and other bullshit so that's why they don't want bitcoin's development at all.

They want big blocks because that's the only way they can completely take over.

They give us two options:

1-Piece of shit BU
2-Blocking segwit and pumping alts

We need to get rid of them as soon as possible or it will be too late for bitcoin.

Aug 1,
#UASF

krishnapramod

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1079

Looking at the current scenario, it would not be wrong to conclude that the technical aspect of the scaling debate is almost forgotten, it is more of a struggle for power to dominate the bitcoin network.

At first BIP 100 and 101, both hard forks, one to increase the block size based on miners decision, the other a one-time block size increase from 1 MB to 8 MB, 2015 gone debating over the incompatibility of these two.

Then comes BU and SegWit, the blame game continues, one leads to centralization + would put small node operators out of business, the other one is also somewhat centralized in terms of LN + increasing the block size to 2 and then 4 MB might be enough temporarily, but sooner or later it needs to be increased. 2016 gone.

Then Segwit2x, Segwit + increasing block size to 2 MB via a hard fork.

And then BIP148, in this whole BU vs Segwit drama, the two Goliath's, BIP148 is David, and we users are just the spectators. They are not fighting, just stalling each other, and sooner or later the audience would get bored.

Hope 2017 would not be another year of endless debates with zero outcome.

XbladeX

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BitHodler on June 08, 2017, 07:57:34 AM

***
Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

Once people start using alternative and will stick to IT
NOW Jihan is mining probably 2x less than he could more value is creating ETH from mining than Bitcoin
becouse of fees he earn actually less guys.

So BTC no Segwit is 1m$ for him while BTC with segwit would be ~3m$ becouse of coin use and price.
BTC without upgrading will be Nokia guys coins like ETH will crash hard but once they will win battle.

Who care today Nokia when you have Iphone or Samsung ?
Same future is for BTC if will never upgrade.
Do you use still win 3.11 in home?
Do people use today gold ?

this is future of not upgraded tech a graveyard : )

Emoclaw

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 251

Quote from: Dorky on June 08, 2017, 07:46:31 AM

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 07:22:54 AM

Doing what you said defeats the purpose of transaction fees, which is to pay a bit more and send money faster.
If fees are fixed for everyone, then you might as well eliminate them right? Miners would not accept such change, but had they not been introduced in the first place it would be the same thing wouldn't it?
And also how would fixed fees be determined? Would the developers and/or miners set them, or would they be based on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
In either case, Bitcoin would become what it's trying to avoid, centralized. Why would anyone have control over what fees I pay, I don't want to pay any fees.

How does sending a $20 transaction with the same $20 fee work for you?

I wouldn't have any problem if the fee commensurate with the dollar amount of bitcoin transacted, like $20 fee for a $20,000 transaction while $0.2 fee for a $200 transaction, but not $20 fee for the same $20 transaction.

I have a choice in what fee amount I use. With your proposed solution I wouldn't.
Fees are not the problem, scaling is. The fee system has worked fine for years, and still does. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. high fees are the result of a deeper underlying problem.

And how would the network determine the exchange rate? Why should it be dollars and not euros?
That's not how a decentralized currency should work. In addition to your proposal not solving the underlying problems that are actually plaguing Bitcoin, there are flaws that can create abuse of power, thus making Bitcoin centralized.

BitHodler

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1179

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

Dorky

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain

Quote from: Emoclaw on June 08, 2017, 07:22:54 AM

Doing what you said defeats the purpose of transaction fees, which is to pay a bit more and send money faster.
If fees are fixed for everyone, then you might as well eliminate them right? Miners would not accept such change, but had they not been introduced in the first place it would be the same thing wouldn't it?
And also how would fixed fees be determined? Would the developers and/or miners set them, or would they be based on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
In either case, Bitcoin would become what it's trying to avoid, centralized. Why would anyone have control over what fees I pay, I don't want to pay any fees.

How does sending a $20 transaction with the same $20 fee work for you?

I wouldn't have any problem if the fee commensurate with the dollar amount of bitcoin transacted, like $20 fee for a $20,000 transaction while $0.2 fee for a $200 transaction, but not $20 fee for the same $20 transaction.

Topic: Now that we are heading to BIP 148... (Read 1158 times)