Topic: Unconfirmed Transactions Problem (Read 9372 times)

It's proportional to the number of "pending transaction", not the amount of BTC.
 https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Sometimes, Confirmations take a long duration.
I think, It's proportional with the amount of btc transferred
Anyways, At the end, It will be confirmed.

First, fees are fairly dynamic, and they really are not very high - especially if you actually consider what bitcoin is and how much value you can transfer for a relatively low fee.  On the other hand, if you are transferring smaller values (let's say below $100), then the percentage of your transfer spent on fees is going to seem higher.   Fees are also something that you can frequently adjust to your level of urgency, and there a whole hell of a lot of folks who are paying lower than average fees and still having their transactions go through.



Second, I think that if you look at the mempool chart, it should be pretty obvious that the spike upwards and the spike downwards was not a product of "organic growth."

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1week

Third, as we understand bitcoin is both open source and a dynamic project that does not specifically reward contributors.  Accordingly, there have been a lot of attack vectors, and some of those attack vectors get sealed up and sometimes new attack vectors are discovered.  There can also be a certain level of balancing that causes some acceptance of attacks because sealing up some of the attack vectors would cost too much on users (for example some attack vectors could be sealed up by making fees higher and mandatory, but a large majority of folks will recognize that approach would not be good for the fundamentals of bitcoin).  So, yeah, there are ongoing efforts to attempt to protect against various attacks and even to identify if there is a decent way to deal with some attack vectors or to leave them alone because it would cost too much to attempt to seal such attack vectors with whatever remedy(ies) is (are) currently being proposed.

May be he didn't knew that the problem will be like this. If usually he can send bitcoin with low transactions fees, he never guess that the transaction will pending untill 3 days.
So from this problem, for the next transaction you can additional some more few cent fees to hasten your bitcoin confirmed.

Hmm, I just want the lowest fees again, Yobit increased the fee to 50K satoshis on that day. Don't know exactly if the delays happened because the excess of Bitcoin users or because the spam attackers, as you said now.

If it was an attack, the system would be better protect against this practice.

I have the sense that this thread was not really about solving the transaction delays from a few days ago with a larger fee, even though some posters had been proposing that providing a higher fee could have partially solved their transaction delay issue.

I doubt that providing a higher fee would have solved the issue from a few days ago, because it seems as if the problem of the delays during that period was due to  some kind of spam attack on the network that delayed ALL transactions on almost an equal basis and no matter what the fees.  Sure, there may have been some outlier transactions that got processed, but for the most part, NO transactions were being processed. 

After about 30 hours, once the attack seemed to have been over (or addressed or gotten under control), then transactions began to go through and the back log of the mempool came back down to more normal levels, which came down pretty fast (about 12 hours or so), and thereafter transaction times returned to taking well under 1 hour with normal or even relatively low fees.

These do happen every once in a while, when there are spending attacks or sometimes just like that when there is plenty of txs and the block mining is slow, there is no thing much you can do other than using high fees and waiting for blocks I guess.

If you took the time and effort to read his post, then you would know that he has withdrawn coins from C-CEX, which means that there is no way for him to initiate a double spend transaction with higher fees.

If what he says is true, then the exchange is the one to be blamed as they most likely included a very poor fee.

That's why I find it a much better idea if people are given the option to up the fees at the time they perform a withdrawal. So far none of the exchanges I have used has done this.

You can try a double spend, just send the same value with a higher fee, well, if you have more bitcoins in your wallet, of course.

And well, why do you used a low fee?

Its getting problem almost 3 days my withdraw in ccex is not comfirm that time i really need money so that i withdraw it tuesday evening but it comfirm it yesterday morning that is the worst thing happen that 3 days before the bitcoin comfirm.

Not true. You can know before you send your tx.
Just check the mempool and calculate the fees yourself before sending.

Bitcoin is the only "personal responsibility" payment and storage system that exists
and you are choosing to defer that responsibility for convenience. That is true crap.

And, you've said nearly nothing with your snarky assertions.

Yep and you will only know after if you fall into the 'spammer bin' or not. Come on what a crap is that?

As long as the absolute value of your transaction is high enough, the relative value-to-fee ratio stays low even if you have to go over 100 sat/B.

However, lower value transactions will become more and more affected as the race for block space goes on.

I m  happy for today and want to thank you a lot since I have some faint idea now about spam...
I very hope SW comes along with BU features and we can be happy for next years!

Of course we can use banks for various reasons.  We weigh our options and we choose which to use based on a variety of factors. 

Bitcoin provides some things that banks don't provide, correct? 

We have expectations regarding bitcoin in the present, as compared with banks and future expectations, too.  So we may take a position in bitcoin and watch its development based on our investment and the direction that we think either is going in respect to the other, no?
 



Wake up who?

Who to fix what?  What are they to fix?  What is broken?

What are "the most important features" in bitcoin and had those "most important features" been 'uninstalled?"  Who did it?  Did they do it in the dead of the night or based on consensus?

Regarding language:   Whether you are a native English speaker or not, you are correct that it is possible that sometimes ideas or tone can come out in a funny and/or inaccurate way in writing.  So, I understand that sometimes it may take a few interactions back and forth before working out what we are saying.

Also, involvement in these forums can also be a kind of learning process, so we may tweak and or adjust our ideas, as well by interacting with others and learning some of the perspectives of other folks.






Regarding dynamic value:  What is that?   There is no one in charge of establishing the value of bitcoin, and therefore the value of it is whatever the market will bear.  Different people come to different assessment of value, and different assessments about whether bitcoin is over valued or undervalued based on a lot of the things that are going on, and no one really has perfect information.  In the end, people and companies have varying levels of information, and some are going to approach their investment in different ways that are profitable - whether predicting the price to go up or down and whether they buy into it short term or long term.  Also, manipulation is going on and attempts to push the price based on information and disinformation and using the exchanges, so there is a lot going on that affects value based on what is already there in existence and what is anticipated to be coming down the pike.






I think that the big blocker proponents and those folks who are pushing for change sometimes seem to get caught up on changes for the sake of changes and want to get rich and think that the solution is big blocks etc.

In other words, there is a lot of mischaracterizing of the position of devs.  Seg wit is a big change, and it likely takes a lot of work to implement.

The thrust of the matter is that the big block change has not been convincing to be an actually necessary change without downsides.. Furthermore, some of the early proposals regarding blocksize limit changes were coupled with changes in governance.. and to make bitcoin easier to change in the future (changing consensus).  The agenda was somewhat hidden and not merely focused on technical solutions, but instead attempts to make bitcoin easier to change which is neither necessary and would have been dangerous and possibly the downfall of bitcoin...

I am glad that there are enough devs out there who recognized the underlying coupe of the big blocker agenda.




Part of the issue and maybe even part of the underlying dynamics of this thread is whether there is an emergency.  


Yeah, we have some uncertainties that come about with unconfirmed transactions and sudden delays in transactions, but is that such an emergency to rush out some change that could potentially undermine the whole of bitcoin and make it vulnerable to either getting coins stolen or creating backdoors or bloating (is the problem that is fixed greater than the problems that could be created?)







Of course there is some politics as well when we are talking about money, but you seem to be suggesting politics as merely personal battles.... yeah, people like to characterize these matters as personal battles, but the fact of the matter still remains that there is already a consensus plan in place involving seg wit, and there is a failure to reach consensus regarding blocksize limit increases... despite the loud voices of various whiners who are really a minority - not the majority that they claim to represent.





Yeah, but we have known about seg wit for nearly a year, and it had been being worked on.  Code was initially put on the testnet in April and May.. so these kinds of things take time and it is a process.  The process is not done.  There are going to continue to be battles.  There are going to continue to be sabotage attempts.  There are going to continue to be folks trying to say seg wit is too complicated.  There are continuing to be proponents to increase the blocksize limit and to change bitcoin's governance.

At the same time, seg wit seems to be a very great development that is progressing well and going to bring a lot of good things to bitcoin, even if it does not bring everything that everyone wants, but as individuals we figure out how we are going to approach it, how we are going to use it and how much of our value we are going to store with it (investing into bitcoin).





You can characterize the petahashes any way that you like, but it is a big ass system of computers that are involved and invested into bitcoin and seem, for the time being, to be securing the network and the coin.  Anyone can get into mining, and surely now you need a lot more capital than you needed a few years ago, but it still remains competitive and decentralized.  Even governments could get into developing mining systems and attempting to influence the direction of bitcoin, who knows how it is going to develop, exactly, but it seems to continue to go up to the extent that folks in mining continue to see bitcoin mining as profitable or potentially a good way to secure coins and/or attempts at control of the process.

The incentives are created to earn big bucks, so I am not sure why you seem to be criticizing it for being what it is incentivized to do.  People (and companies) will try to be creative and try to figure out how to earn "big bucks" from bitcoin mining, and to the extent that they feel that they are not earning "big bucks" or that they can earn "bigger bucks" in other ways, they will get out of mining, no?

Security results from the incentives to earn big bucks, and bitcoin is attempted to be designed around such incentives and not trusting anyone to attempt to undermine the system... Is bitcoin perfectly designed?  Are there going to be ways to exploit and undermine it or sabotage it?  Surely there have been a lot of attempts to undermine it in a variety of ways, and since we do not know the future exactly, we invest in accordance to the level of faith that we have that the system is secure or is going to remain secure and since there are various increasing ways to get in and out of bitcoin, we can get in or out or reapportion if we believe that bitcoin is overvalued or undervalued (whether that assessment is based on our concerns about security or centralization or whatever).





From my distorted layman's perspective, I thought that seg wit was going to potentially bring some more tools in terms of how to deal with spam attacks and what kinds of attacks were possible, but surely, it could also open up some new attack vectors, as well.

I think that there have been folks working on plugging up attack vectors in bitcoin since 2009, and surely the more valuable it gets, sometimes the more resources that may be expended in order to attempt to attack it.  This is not any kind of centralized committee in which some folks can tell other folks what to do or even that they are necessarily rewarded for sealing up an attack vector.  Seems to be a lot of unrewarded work when it comes to developing (and coding), and yeah there are some public faces and announcements, too, but efforts to propose code and address issues is voluntary, too... and likely all over the place in terms of the amount of code proposed and the vetting of the code and time to do each of these processes.





Yes, I know this too.  There are a lot of expectations in bitcoin, including the expectation that it should provide services similar to credit cards (which seems a bit unrealistic at this point).  But many of these kinds of micropayment things are likely to be developed and to evolve in bitcoin.. even though at the time  being, micropayments may not be the best use case for bitcoin or even realistic in terms of current expectations.





debates and controversy and differences of opinion and perspectives is not going to go away.

The debates may seem stronger in certain forums, but does not mean that they are even reflective of various uses of bitcoin and various choices that people make regarding when or if to buy bitcoin and how much to buy, if at all.

I gotta admit, I Agree. lol.
Oh well.
Anyway, luckily, have yet to encounter one where a transaction of mine doesn't confirm or takes hours and even days. Can imagine how frustrating that would be though. Be it blockchain,coinbase, xapo, no delays yet. Longest was probably close to an hour. I just usually follow the recommended fee or so. *Just sharing.*  ^^

if you have a particular question you should open up a new topic about it. but if your problem is with not getting confirmed "yet" then i am sure you have not included enough transaction fees because the problem this talking was talking about is already solved.
check bitcoinfees.21.co for more information.

This thread is very technical. Can someone dumbify it? So point us to a blockchain for dummies. Because, currently I have had transactions that we're stuck in the blockchain for two days already.