Stress test is underway - Watch your fees.

Lituation

hero member

Activity: 698

Merit: 500

Free Speech is the most important thing.

Quote from: franky1 on September 13, 2015, 07:53:15 PM

Quote from: Hugroll on September 13, 2015, 07:00:46 PM

Quote from: Lituation on September 13, 2015, 06:49:20 PM

Yesterday I sent some coins with normal fee, they are still unconfirmed. I don't know why miners don't accept yet.
I used normal recommended fee in Bitcoin Core which is 6k sat per kb.

6k satoshi per kb seems a bit low imo, most of the transactions getting confirmed are around 0.0002btc in fees and around 600-700kb in size.

0.00006000 per kb = 0.03600000 for 600kb

so 6ksat per kb is actually quite high!!

Yes, it's very high comparing to other transactions. Surprisingly one of my transactions still unconfirmed with that fee. 2 of others got confirmed after ~48 hours.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1004

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

Block generators are free to choose which transactions to include in their blocks. Among other things, their motivations to include a given transaction are influenced by:

Its fee.
Its orphan cost (related to its size as data).
The effect on Bitcoin's reputation.
For mining pools, their reputation among potential users.

Today, the block subsidy is so high and fees are so low that some block generators consider it profitable to produce empty blocks, minimising the possibility that their block will be orphaned and avoiding the cost of running a full node. Assuming appropriate difficulty adjustments, this increases the average time to first confirmation for all Bitcoin users.

--Encrypted--

copper member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1007

hee-ho.

Quote from: qwk on September 15, 2015, 10:35:28 AM

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

Quote from: p3yot33at3r on September 15, 2015, 12:16:05 PM

It's a combination of greed & being mean. Some of the largest pools (f2pool, antpool, etc) only churn out empty blocks, & by doing so they are not contributing to the network at all. See this thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/empty-blocks-1085800

thanks, both of you. and that thread clears up a lot of things regarding the small blocks.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: mallard on September 15, 2015, 12:08:26 PM

Quote from: qwk on September 15, 2015, 10:35:28 AM

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

Why do they sometimes not include transactions?
Is it a bug or are they just doing it to be mean?

Usually that's because the pool didn't have time to include transactions in a block (send new work to miners), when a new block is found shortly after the previous one. In this case, miners mine an empty block, until the pool sends them updated work (usually within a minute).

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: mallard on September 15, 2015, 12:08:26 PM

Quote from: qwk on September 15, 2015, 10:35:28 AM

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

Why do they sometimes not include transactions?
Is it a bug or are they just doing it to be mean?

By not including transaction, the size would be smaller hence the time taken to propagate is faster, reducing orphans. This in turn reduces their profit from transaction. I have observed that if two blocks are mined with little time gap between them, it would have a good chance for the younger transaction to have a small block size.

p3yot33at3r

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: mallard on September 15, 2015, 12:08:26 PM

Quote from: qwk on September 15, 2015, 10:35:28 AM

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

Why do they sometimes not include transactions?
Is it a bug or are they just doing it to be mean?

It's a combination of greed & being mean. Some of the largest pools (f2pool, antpool, etc) only churn out empty blocks, & by doing so they are not contributing to the network at all. See this thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/empty-blocks-1085800

mallard

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: qwk on September 15, 2015, 10:35:28 AM

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

Why do they sometimes not include transactions?
Is it a bug or are they just doing it to be mean?

qwk

donator

Activity: 3542

Merit: 3411

Shitcoin Minimalist

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 15, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

A miner can decide for himself how many transactions he wishes to include in a block, if any.
It's perfectly "legal" to "make small blocks" even when there are thousands of transactions waiting.

--Encrypted--

copper member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1007

hee-ho.

tired of waiting for an answer on this thread so I'll ask here.

can someone explain to me why some blocks have small size despite of the huge number of transactions waiting in the mempool?

by the way is it save to say that bitcoin passed this test? I don't see so many people complaining about unconfirmed tx like last time.

wxa7115

hero member

Activity: 2702

Merit: 704

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: wxa7115 on September 12, 2015, 12:32:22 PM

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 10, 2015, 04:56:39 PM

Quote from: funkenstein on September 10, 2015, 04:44:38 PM

There's only one way to deal with spam. Ignore it.
Perhaps you have something more interesting to do with your time.

I don't think it's a good idea just to ignore it. this spam may cause some problem to people that is not aware of it.

Correct, this is spam, and how do we deal with email spam? With filters in order to reduce the noise, spam filters have become so effective that only one out of 1000 reaches its destination. So there could be a way to implement something similar in the Bitcoin Core?

But sometimes legit emails are marked as spam (once a professor received one of my emails in the spam folder, I do not know who the hell reported me as a spammer since I never forward stupid mail chains nor spread propaganda, etc.), I mean, how would you distinguish between real (dusty) transactions and spam? If bitcoin is going to be only for big transactions, a lot of people (like me) will forget anything about it.

Well, my comment was just an analogy; I’m not such an expert in bitcoin to try to recommend any kind of solutions. But I still think it’s a good analogy.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: Hugroll on September 13, 2015, 07:00:46 PM

Quote from: Lituation on September 13, 2015, 06:49:20 PM

Yesterday I sent some coins with normal fee, they are still unconfirmed. I don't know why miners don't accept yet.
I used normal recommended fee in Bitcoin Core which is 6k sat per kb.

6k satoshi per kb seems a bit low imo, most of the transactions getting confirmed are around 0.0002btc in fees and around 600-700kb in size.

0.00006000 per kb = 0.03600000 for 600kb

so 6ksat per kb is actually quite high!!

Hugroll

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lituation on September 13, 2015, 06:49:20 PM

Yesterday I sent some coins with normal fee, they are still unconfirmed. I don't know why miners don't accept yet.
I used normal recommended fee in Bitcoin Core which is 6k sat per kb.

6k satoshi per kb seems a bit low imo, most of the transactions getting confirmed are around 0.0002btc in fees and around 600-700kb in size.

Lituation

hero member

Activity: 698

Merit: 500

Free Speech is the most important thing.

Yesterday I sent some coins with normal fee, they are still unconfirmed. I don't know why miners don't accept yet.
I used normal recommended fee in Bitcoin Core which is 6k sat per kb.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on September 10, 2015, 03:38:32 PM

thanks for the warning, OP.
I hate these stress tests. it doesn't even have any benefit for anyone.
I wonder how much BTC they will waste trying to create 1 month backlog...

0.0001 tx cost, lets average 200 tx per block=0.02btc a block.
6 blocks an hour, 24 hours =144 blocks.. thus an average 2.88btc a day in fee's.

then 28 days is about 80btc in fee's.

so if they average 400txs a block.. the cost for the month would be 160btc...
or if they average 200txs a block.. but have a 0.0002 tx fee.. that too would be 160btc.

hope that helps you work out the math

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 13, 2015, 04:54:58 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on September 12, 2015, 07:56:09 PM

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 12, 2015, 07:49:37 PM

Strange, it's steady ?

Memory and bandwidth are limited, of course, at some point we would get steady numbers, just like water can't be heated above 100C in normal conditions.

That's why a block size limit is not required to get a fee market.

In a world of spherical cows maybe, yes maybe

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on September 12, 2015, 07:56:09 PM

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 12, 2015, 07:49:37 PM

Strange, it's steady ?

Memory and bandwidth are limited, of course, at some point we would get steady numbers, just like water can't be heated above 100C in normal conditions.

That's why a block size limit is not required to get a fee market.

MARC447

newbie

Activity: 47

Merit: 0

I'll never understand things like this but thanks for the warning.

TheIrishman

legendary

Activity: 1049

Merit: 1006

Are the bastards still spamming the network? I just had a payment of 0.00038306 BTC from a faucet confirmed in less than 2 hours. It was included in this transaction:

http://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/da9afed7335dc750b5bc228af8cf127011473fbad7f441062331bb18820bc15d

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1011

Ok, i see ...

So, the server that it provide stats have a maximum of 200 000 transations in mempool to display ( http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions )

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 12, 2015, 07:49:37 PM

Strange, it's steady ?

Memory and bandwidth are limited, of course, at some point we would get steady numbers, just like water can't be heated above 100C in normal conditions.

Topic: Stress test is underway - Watch your fees. (Read 5140 times)