Issue just got solved. Man the core devs are really talented at what they do, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4oeqhk/bitcoin_core_child_pays_for_parent_merged/
Topic: Receiving Unconfirmed TX (Read 1130 times)
Fees are up to like 60 cents now. Wow.
If everybody pays the 60 cents, there will be slow transaction for most people. You have to pay even higher fees.
Most people dont care. We need to be tolerant for everyone's needs and urgencies.
Dont tell me that a 1000 satoshi transaction is more urgent than a 1000 bitcoin one.
Segwit will come soon and make more room for all of us, but as always there always be priorities, and those that pay more will get priority.
Fees are up to like 60 cents now. Wow.
If everybody pays the 60 cents, there will be slow transaction for most people. You have to pay even higher fees.
i know you love altcoins.. and sidechains is an altcoin.
No, its more like a derivative of bitcoin, that is closely tied to it, it doesnt have the full characteristic of a coin, its simply a payment channel.
the solution is not to have a fee war and delay growth to keep the fee war going.
There will always be a fee war, its just supply and demand.
Even if the capacity were 1 billion tx/ second.
just wont work in the automated dynamic bidding war you propose. because EVERYTHING will be deemed a priority
Not thats not how a market works.
If you go into a grocery shop and you see 1 tomato left on the shelf, and you want to buy it, but there are 5 other people want to buy it to. The shop owner says, the tomato will cost 100$, would you pay that much for it?
It's all supply and demand, not all transactions will be priority, but some are obviously more important than others.
Ex: If I buy 10,000 BTC from a merchant, i immediately want to transfer it to a secure place. Whereas if I get 10,000 satoshi from a faucet, i dont care if it gets delayed a few hours.
it doesnt work like that. there is no mechanism to guarantee 90% payment gets in 2nd block or 10% payment gets in 10th block.
Of course there is, its called probability theory.
Fees are up to like 60 cents now. Wow.
That's what a "free market" is. It's an auction house where the balance between the demand and the supply determines the value. If the supply isn't increased, then there isn't any way to prevent those that are willing to pay the most from purchasing the limited space for them selves.
I just quote parts where I would like to add comment, other parts I can just agree with you as usual. Free market is free to set both demand and the supply. Currently supply is regulated to one size, and the demand is free indeed. Thus "free market" is not the right word I believe, I usually use "fee market" instead.
And eventually the fees are high enough that some people don't feel like paying them, so they don't use bitcoin. This reduces the number of transactions a bit. Eventually this reduction in demand reaches an equilibrium with the available space where the number of transactions willing to pay the fee is roughly equivalent to the available space in the block.
Of course I think you and I are in agreement that this will severely limit the usage of on-chain bitcoin transactions. We'll probably reach a point where there are a few VERY LARGE bitcoin "banks" (such as Coinbase) that offer "accounts" to their customers. They'll handle transactions between their customers completely off-chain, and they'll settle up with other large services with hundreds of thousands of bitcoins moving in a single transaction that pays a fee of less than 1% (in other words a single fee of thousands of bitcoins). The average user will not be able to compete with such large transactions and will be financially forced off-chain.
Of course I think you and I are in agreement that this will severely limit the usage of on-chain bitcoin transactions. We'll probably reach a point where there are a few VERY LARGE bitcoin "banks" (such as Coinbase) that offer "accounts" to their customers. They'll handle transactions between their customers completely off-chain, and they'll settle up with other large services with hundreds of thousands of bitcoins moving in a single transaction that pays a fee of less than 1% (in other words a single fee of thousands of bitcoins). The average user will not be able to compete with such large transactions and will be financially forced off-chain.
Nothing to argue, just to note Im dissapointed there is not serious discussion about on-chain size and how to safely increase it as the technology evolve to keep required decentralization. Just a paralel, every game has minimum and recommended system requirements, and I believe Bitcoin full nodes should have as well, while the requirements should be increased as technology evolves, this practically means slowly increasing on-chain size as long as minimum required computers easily sync with the Bitcoin blockchain - pretty fair and longterm predictable rules.
There is quite a lot discussion about the slow confirmation. I also had experience. The congestion now is not caused by dust but by real transactions.
Imagine you went to a gasoline station to buy some gasoline for your car. On Monday the pumps at business A indicate that the cost of the fuel is $2.55 per gallon, and across the street at business B it is $2.59. Tuesday it's $2.75 at business A and $2.73 at B. Wednesday it's $2.60 at A and $2.63 at B. This constant changing of the price is not helpful to average people.
Example...
Customer: How much will the gasoline cost tomorrow?
Business: Don't know.
That's a conversation that is not positive in any way, shape, or form. And yet that's exactly how the real world works (without unicorns).
Example...
Customer: How much will the gasoline cost tomorrow?
Business: Don't know.
That's a conversation that is not positive in any way, shape, or form. And yet that's exactly how the real world works (without unicorns).
1. gas stations dont change every 10 minutes.
2. gas stations have business plans. and you can actually predict and know the price in the future.
3. if someone wants gas in 10 minutes. its not a free market decision to use station A at a higher price because its closer or B which is cheaper but takes more time to fill up..
with bitcoin its "pay more then the previous customer or walk to work"
the other comments, yea i could use better PR words.. but its not like im advertising bitcoin to the outside world professionally. (when i do, my tone is much different, but still honest). however, people reading this already use and know bitcoin so there is no point glamorizing it. i speak frank.
you say that the free market is an auction house.. sorry its not.
a free market is where negotiation is done. EG buy bread.. "i want one loaf ill pay $2. i want 10 loaves but i will only give you $18"
bitcoin example "i want in the next block ill pay 20cents. i want in the 10th block so i will pay 2cents"
however "pay more then the person before" is not a free market its an open market. there is a difference..
i agree bitcoin is still in its infantcy, and thats why we should not be pushing an open market under the pretense thats its a free market. especially when there are no "automated" "analytical" tools to price it nor any choice on bartering for priority...
its still a "pay more or wait". not a "pay X get X pay Y get Y" negociation.
either way blockstream lovers want people to put up with it for another year. they want the price to increase so that the "bribe" discount using their new features is a worthy tempter. without explaining that the delay they caused will make any scalibility benefit they claim, be to late to be useful.
lets make some rational comments about real life
Ok. Let's.
1. imagine you went to walmart to buy any product, whether its baked beans or a large TV. on monday they say there is a 4cent fee, tuesday its a 7 cent fee, wednesday is a 9cent fee.. ignoring the actual price.. just the variation of the fee alone is not helpful to average people. EG X:"whats the fee tomorrow" y:"dont know".. is a conversation that is not positive in anyway, shape or form... unless you ride unicorns
Imagine you went to a gasoline station to buy some gasoline for your car. On Monday the pumps at business A indicate that the cost of the fuel is $2.55 per gallon, and across the street at business B it is $2.59. Tuesday it's $2.75 at business A and $2.73 at B. Wednesday it's $2.60 at A and $2.63 at B. This constant changing of the price is not helpful to average people.
Example...
Customer: How much will the gasoline cost tomorrow?
Business: Don't know.
That's a conversation that is not positive in any way, shape, or form. And yet that's exactly how the real world works (without unicorns).
2. lets go deeper into that path. knowing the fee varies, having to check what the current fee "might be" to then make a transaction. is not something people do when out shopping. if the fee worked out as 0.00035840 for your transaction.. average real world people wouldnt know if its best to make it 0.00035841, 0.00035850, 0.00036000 without having to do some maths in their head to work out high much extra premium they are actually adding
Certainly, it would be helpful if there were software that could recommend a fee that is likely to confirm in the next block. Perhaps with a little statistical analysis the software might even be able to suggest a range of fees that are likely to confirm in the next block, in a few blocks, or within the next 24 hours.
It would also be helpful if mining pools could offer a service that allows the recipient to pay the pool directly for guaranteed confirmation of transactions in the next block they solve (or within a few of their blocks, or within their next 100 blocks).
In the meantime, we are left with a protocol in its infancy without a lot of the layers and services that would provide ease of use for the average user.
3. by automating it to solve 1&2 would no longer make it a "free market", but structured inflation because now its automatically going to increase. not only that you cannot have a limitation on utility which you know would effect the fees.. no longer makes it a free market of choice but an auction house of limited stock for the rich and greedy to dominate
That's what a "free market" is. It's an auction house where the balance between the demand and the supply determines the value. If the supply isn't increased, then there isn't any way to prevent those that are willing to pay the most from purchasing the limited space for them selves. Of course that wouldn't prevent those that purchased on-chain space from providing off-chain solutions (or linked-to-chain solutions) for a fee.
4. even with a fee there are NO guarantee's it will be in the next block. there is only a "presumed high chance" due to outbidding your other X thousand competitors every 10 minutes.
Correct. You offer a fee, and if the space in the block isn't already taken up by those willing to pay more per unit of space, then you most likely get in (assuming the miner or pool isn't blacklisting you for some reason).
5. pretending everything is perfect fluffy unicorns to people already using bitcoin is futile propaganda. your trying to use a sales pitch for people already using it. your preaching to the converted and they have already seen the light. they do not need sales pitches. they have personal experience. which just so happens to contradicts the fluffy unicorn theory.
Not sure what the point was there or how to respond to it. It seems like you're trying to say that Bitcoin is a complex system and that those that are using are already aware of that? While I agree that it's a complex system, I'm not convinced that the majority (or even a large minority) are really aware of the complexities.
6. again saying if you pay the fee you will get in the next block.. is not guaranteed advice. if there are 5000 people making a transaction each.. even if they paid $20,000,000 as a fee each. not everyone is getting in the next block. no matter what you say its just not possible. there are no guarantees
Nope. No guarantees in bitcoin. It is a voluntary system. You aren't forced to use it. Your peers aren't forced to relay your transaction. The miners and pools aren't forced to confirm your transaction. It's all based on financial incentive and the assumption that most will operate in a fashion that is in their financial favor. However, if you pay a higher fee per byte than everyone else, it is VERY likely that you'll get into one of the next few blocks.
in short NEVER EVER EVER tell people bitcoin is a virtually free, instant payment system.
I don't think I ever have. But I agree that a lot of people have been misled with that idea and those people have in turn misled others, and they have misled others, and so on.
never tell anyone that "your merchant should accept zero confirms, blame them"
That one is debatable. I'd argue that as long as the merchant has software that can analyze the transaction and verify that the transaction meets certain conditions there can be an acceptable level of risk. Especially if the merchant has a trust relationship with you or other methods of recourse if your transaction fails.
never tell anyone that "its your fault for not paying a premium above everyone else"
That's not a very nice way to phrase it, but it's essentially true. If you are going to use a system, it is your responsibility to understand how to use it properly or suffer consequences when you don't. If someone drives too fast and looses control of their car, killing nearby pedestrians, it is the driver's fault for failing to operate their vehicle properly.
if you can only shout out blame but cannot come up with a solution to make things easier, without harming the system or the user experience. then you obviously lack many skills. one of which is PR. it is better to be honest and tell the world that bitcoin is not instant nor free. and let people come into bitcoin prepared. rather then lie lie lie and even insult those already using it,
You might want to work on your PR there. Your presentation is quite confrontational and isn't likely to bring around very many people to your way of thinking.
because they havnt found the unicorn you promise them
There's that unicorn again. I think we can probably send him home. He isn't really needed for this conversation.
do not over promise. basically.. be rational, be realistic. be honest. and whatever you do. do not promise them a better future if you have only read some words on paper about the future but not personally experienced the future first hand
Good advice. I think we are in agreement there.
lets word it a different way..
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
And eventually the fees are high enough that some people don't feel like paying them, so they don't use bitcoin. This reduces the number of transactions a bit. Eventually this reduction in demand reaches an equilibrium with the available space where the number of transactions willing to pay the fee is roughly equivalent to the available space in the block.
Of course I think you and I are in agreement that this will severely limit the usage of on-chain bitcoin transactions. We'll probably reach a point where there are a few VERY LARGE bitcoin "banks" (such as Coinbase) that offer "accounts" to their customers. They'll handle transactions between their customers completely off-chain, and they'll settle up with other large services with hundreds of thousands of bitcoins moving in a single transaction that pays a fee of less than 1% (in other words a single fee of thousands of bitcoins). The average user will not be able to compete with such large transactions and will be financially forced off-chain.
Use an altcoin that no one cares about if you don't like to pay fees. Having a decentralized network costs resources. If you want speed use centralized fiat or wait for Lightning.
You just have to choose priority how fast your transaction should confirm, and intelligent software can choose the right fee. I guess a more development going to better prediction models about the dynamic fee, but many dumb wallets still using static 0.0001 fee or similar.
Its people failure to use wallets using static fees, and not some smarter wallets which can relatively accurately choose coresponding fee based on how fast you need your transaction to confirm.
right now there is no"prediction models".. the game is if your highest your in first.. everyone else.. um whenever.Its people failure to use wallets using static fees, and not some smarter wallets which can relatively accurately choose coresponding fee based on how fast you need your transaction to confirm.
EG
personA pays 20cents, personB pays 0.3cents, personC pays 0 cents.
the rule is A is top of the list... the other two.. well they can wait...
thats it. there is no guarantee personB will get accepted any faster then personC..
and thats why the dynamic automated fee still wont work. there is no way of saying person B pay 10% to get into 10th block
Bitcoin Core uses statistic to predict the fee based about your preffered priority how fast to confirm. While its not perfect as it dont take into account curent trends but relly just on past statistic, its much better than wallets using just static 0.0001 fee or similar.
What you mean might be RBF (replace by fee) where you can change fee anytime by submiting new transaction and nodes dont consider it double spend. Hopefully this dont get out of hand and thousands of wallets automatically resubmit the RBF transaction every 10 second with +1 Satoshi higher fee - the bandwith consumption of Bitcoin p2p network would be much bigger than simple increase of onchain capacity to allow add more transactions instead. Thats why I would like option in Bitcoin software to ban peers re-sending RBF transactions often.
I dont believe there is over 2000 transaction demand to be confirmed right in the next block yet, so today situation is sustainable for bit longer, but time is ticking if ever bigger adoption comes and Bitcoin is not ready to handle the amount of transactions necessary for everyone to move Bitcoin out of exchanges, at least.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactionstime of posting 17,000+ tx waiting
I thought not demand yet for over 2000 NEW transactions every 10 min to be included right in the next block paying premium fees when sending the transaction. Not now, but if it ever happen in future for longer periods like days then its clear Bitcoin become basically unusable. But planned Segwit + 2 MB hard fork could get Bitcoin few more years with normal user experience.
I would like to take the opportunity to sneak in a small question which is also relevant to this topic I believe, forgive me!
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
you can (depending on the wallet your using) get it to stop rebroadcasting your transaction and then just send it again but this time with an adequate fee
as for contacting the pools.. well you could find their contact details and see if they will. but probaly would end up taking more time to get an answer then it would just to stop ur current tx and send a new one with adequate fee
Thanks for your time!
You just have to choose priority how fast your transaction should confirm, and intelligent software can choose the right fee. I guess a more development going to better prediction models about the dynamic fee, but many dumb wallets still using static 0.0001 fee or similar.
Its people failure to use wallets using static fees, and not some smarter wallets which can relatively accurately choose coresponding fee based on how fast you need your transaction to confirm.
right now there is no"prediction models".. the game is if your highest your in first.. everyone else.. um whenever.Its people failure to use wallets using static fees, and not some smarter wallets which can relatively accurately choose coresponding fee based on how fast you need your transaction to confirm.
EG
personA pays 20cents, personB pays 0.3cents, personC pays 0 cents.
the rule is A is top of the list... the other two.. well they can wait...
thats it. there is no guarantee personB will get accepted any faster then personC..
and thats why the dynamic automated fee still wont work. there is no way of saying person B pay 10% to get into 10th block
I dont believe there is over 5000 transaction demand to be confirmed right in the next block yet, so today situation is sustainable for bit longer, but time is ticking if ever bigger adoption comes and Bitcoin is not ready to handle the amount of transactions necessary for everyone to move Bitcoin out of exchanges, at least.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactionstime of posting 17,000+ tx waiting
1. imagine you went to walmart to buy any product, whether its baked beans or a large TV. on monday they say there is a 4cent fee, tuesday its a 7 cent fee, wednesday is a 9cent fee.. ignoring the actual price.. just the variation of the fee alone is not helpful to average people. EG X:"whats the fee tomorrow" y:"dont know".. is a conversation that is not positive in anyway, shape or form... unless you ride unicorns
2. lets go deeper into that path. knowing the fee varies, having to check what the current fee "might be" to then make a transaction. is not something people do when out shopping.
2. lets go deeper into that path. knowing the fee varies, having to check what the current fee "might be" to then make a transaction. is not something people do when out shopping.
You just have to choose priority how fast your transaction should confirm, and intelligent software can choose the right fee. I guess a more development going to better prediction models about the dynamic fee, but many dumb wallets still using static 0.0001 fee or similar.
in short
NEVER EVER EVER tell people bitcoin is a virtually free, instant payment system.
never tell anyone that "your merchant should accept zero confirms, blame them"
NEVER EVER EVER tell people bitcoin is a virtually free, instant payment system.
never tell anyone that "your merchant should accept zero confirms, blame them"
You cant advertise Bitcoin this way anymore, thats true. Its pitty, because the adoption could be bigger.
never tell anyone that "its your fault for not paying a premium above everyone else"
Its people failure to use wallets using static fees, and not some smarter wallets which can relatively accurately choose coresponding fee based on how fast you need your transaction to confirm. I dont believe there is over 2000 transaction demand to be confirmed right in the next block yet, so today situation is sustainable for bit longer, but time is ticking if ever bigger adoption comes and Bitcoin is not ready to handle the amount of transactions necessary for everyone to move Bitcoin out of exchanges, at least.
I would like to take the opportunity to sneak in a small question which is also relevant to this topic I believe, forgive me!
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
you can (depending on the wallet your using) get it to stop rebroadcasting your transaction and then just send it again but this time with an adequate fee
as for contacting the pools.. well you could find their contact details and see if they will. but probaly would end up taking more time to get an answer then it would just to stop ur current tx and send a new one with adequate fee
I would like to take the opportunity to sneak in a small question which is also relevant to this topic I believe, forgive me!
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
1st off, yes I'm stupid.
I messed up and put in a too low fee.. 0.0000007 (for a 2 BTC deposit, yes, my bad). Should have upgraded my client and use the slider for calculating fees
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, can't I pay a miner separately to pickup my transaction? (yes, I know that will be 'costly') Just wondering if there is such a legit service somewhere.
lets word it a different way..
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
...
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
...
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
Segwit and sidechain will increase the capacity of the network.
Otherwise, there will be a market for fees, still that doesnt mean that silly services should put too low fees for withdrawal.
Maybe there are cases when the transaction can be delayed, if I trust the source and receive a TX at night, i dont mind if it needs 5-6 hours to confirm, i`ll just check in the morning and it will be confirmed by then.
But when the source is untrusted or shady, i would rather not wait 5 hours to see. So there are some cases when the tx is urgent.
So matching the priority of transactions is equally important to increasing the capacity!
i know you love altcoins.. and sidechains is an altcoin. so from a real world user prospective is figurative the same as saying go play with litecoins or NXT (im laughing while sarcasticly using your favourite altcoin as a lame example).
so your solution to bitcoin is to tell people to use altcoins... well played.
as for segwit. the REAL DATA being transmitted is the same.. the only difference is that its pretending the transactions are smaller, to bribe users into getting a discount.. which is only a temporary bribe because it just resets the fee war. not stops the fee war.
put it this way. if we moved to bigger blocksize in 2015.. fee's would still be 1cent average now..
but due to delays and stupid thoughts that segwit is the future.
fee's currently are 70sat/byte = 0.00035/average tx = 25cents.
even if you want to play down the numbers
60sat/byte =0.0001356/median tx = 10cent.
so give segwit another month to have a release candidate.. give it a few months for miners to test and to have enough consensus for miners
and the fee's will be much higher.. but then discounted to probably what they are today(if your lucky)
then we get to the jist of it.
again there are 2500tx average a block, which segwit has a 1.8x proposed scaling.. meaning 4500 tx average block..
wait. are you thinking what im thinking..
all them 5000tx created each 10 minutes wont fit into the 4500tx average.. and so the fee war has already started again.. no period of peace, no time to relax and enjoy cheap fee's just every increasing fee's right off the bat.
especially if you want every merchant/wallet service to outbid each other
the solution is not to have a fee war and delay growth to keep the fee war going.
again for emphasis
forcing a fee war is not a solution.. delaying growth is not a solution
what should have happened was we scaled up last year before it was even needed to allow unhindered natural growth. and today be thinking about the next scaling.
but so far even segwit and sidechains doesnt look likely to activate until 2017.. so even that is not a "solution" for today
and now i expect an insulting flame posts from blockstreamers all saying their fluffy unicorn is perfect.. yet they never rode one or seen the bitcoin community us one to see the results in reality
lastly our comment "So matching the priority of transactions is equally important to increasing the capacity!"
just wont work in the automated dynamic bidding war you propose. because EVERYTHING will be deemed a priority
just paying more is meaningless unless a wallet service can say. "hey jeff if you pay 30% fee you can get it accepted in 3 blocks". where there would be a method to guarantee it got in the third block because jeff said he needs it within 30 minutes but not really worried about 10 minutes.
it doesnt work like that. there is no mechanism to guarantee 90% payment gets in 2nd block or 10% payment gets in 10th block.
lets word it a different way..
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
...
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
...
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
Segwit and sidechain will increase the capacity of the network.
Otherwise, there will be a market for fees, still that doesnt mean that silly services should put too low fees for withdrawal.
Maybe there are cases when the transaction can be delayed, if I trust the source and receive a TX at night, i dont mind if it needs 5-6 hours to confirm, i`ll just check in the morning and it will be confirmed by then.
But when the source is untrusted or shady, i would rather not wait 5 hours to see. So there are some cases when the tx is urgent.
So matching the priority of transactions is equally important to increasing the capacity!
lets word it a different way..
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
lets word it a different way.
first of all.. imagine fee prices were back down early 206 average of 10cent..
then lets say blockchain.info would start charging 11cents, electrum would charge 12cents, core would charge 13cents
and out of all them 5000 transactions in them 10 minutes. only the core users get to the next block.
the electrum and spammers are still waiting.
so now the minimum is 13cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 14cents for electrum users and 15 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 15cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 16cents for electrum users and 17 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 17cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 18cents for electrum users and 19 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 19cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 20cents for electrum users and 21 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 21cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 22cents for electrum users and 23 cents for core users
ok.. so its been an hour 30,000 have been relayed. every transaction has a fee.. but only 15,000 have been confirmed. and due to everyone paying more then the transactions already waiting.. the price has gone up from 11 cents to 24 cents in an hour
50% of people got their transactions settled but are whinging that the fee jumped from 1 cent to 23 cents compared to an hour ago. and 50% of people are whinging because even though they paid the automated dynamic fee, they are still waiting
whats evenworse about "automatic auctions" is that even 21.co is measuring growth in 10sat increments. which based on an average tx size of lets say 500bytes is not just a 1cent jump, but a 3.6 cent jump per 10sat increment bid
which if i used that 3.6cent increment. starting from 11cents.. within 10 minutes 18.2cents, 10 minutes later 25.8 10 minutes later 33cents and so on and so on
the solution is not to FORCE an automated bidding war. but to sort out capacity so that more transactions get accepted so less people have to fight to get in the next block
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
if every bitcoin service were to integrate automatically dynamic fee's checked/adjusted every time... the fee's would skyrocket every 10 minutes
lets word it a different way.
first of all.. imagine fee prices were back down early 206 average of 10cent..
then lets say blockchain.info would start charging 11cents, electrum would charge 12cents, core would charge 13cents
and out of all them 5000 transactions in them 10 minutes. only the core users get to the next block.
the electrum and spammers are still waiting.
so now the minimum is 13cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 14cents for electrum users and 15 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 15cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 16cents for electrum users and 17 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 17cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 18cents for electrum users and 19 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 19cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 20cents for electrum users and 21 cents for core users
so now the minimum is 21cents to fight the remaining transactions from the last 10 minutes that havnt confirmed, and another new batch of transactions also has to out bid the new transactions being added.. making the price 22cents for electrum users and 23 cents for core users
ok.. so its been an hour 30,000 have been relayed. every transaction has a fee.. but only 15,000 have been confirmed. and due to everyone paying more then the transactions already waiting.. the price has gone up from 11 cents to 24 cents in an hour
50% of people got their transactions settled but are whinging that the fee jumped from 1 cent to 23 cents compared to an hour ago. and 50% of people are whinging because even though they paid the automated dynamic fee, they are still waiting
whats evenworse about "automatic auctions" is that even 21.co is measuring growth in 10sat increments. which based on an average tx size of lets say 500bytes is not just a 1cent jump, but a 3.6 cent jump per 10sat increment bid
which if i used that 3.6cent increment. starting from 11cents.. within 10 minutes 18.2cents, 10 minutes later 25.8 10 minutes later 33cents and so on and so on
the solution is not to FORCE an automated bidding war. but to sort out capacity so that more transactions get accepted so less people have to fight to get in the next block
in short an automated bidding war is not a "free market"
delaying growth and limiting choice is not a "free market"
In short, they don't care about transaction fee at all.
They believe the transaction will be confirmed eventually and they can save more money (if they pay the transaction fees for the users).
Yes, that is what I`m telling here!
They either dont care, or the fees come out from their end and they want to minimize costs.
But most of the time the fees are charged to the customer, so in most cases they are just lazy.
Which might work 90% of the time, but just now it's being demonstrated that it's not the case the other 10% of the time.
Also, maybe maximum 5000 request per hour might be the reason why they don't use that API.
That is a probem. Maybe we need an api with bigger capacity, it might be a paid one, but atleast services would not have to worry about stuff like this.
Bunch of angry customers with pitchforks is not good PR for them.
Jump to: