Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19685. (Read 26608252 times)

legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Absolutely correct. Though the default client allows for some zero fee transactions and miners may choose to keep doing so because they feel it's good for Bitcoin at this stage.

Quote
Including in Blocks

This section describes how the reference implementation selects which transactions to put into new blocks, with default settings. All of the settings may be changed if a miner wants to create larger or smaller blocks containing more or fewer free transactions.

50,000 bytes in the block are set aside for the highest-priority transactions, regardless of transaction fee. Transactions are added highest-priority-first to this section of the block.

Then transactions that pay a fee of at least 0.00001 BTC/kb are added to the block, highest-fee-per-kilobyte transactions first, until the block is not more than 750,000 bytes big.

The remaining transactions remain in the miner's "memory pool", and may be included in later blocks if their priority or fee is large enough.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit. Cheesy

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.


I can now be found in the Humanities section. Embarrassed

Sorry for bombing your thread.

Wait until I get to the part about how governments are using fluoridation in your tap water to direct your thoughts and how the pharmaceutical industry invented Aids. Angry
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...

Nope. Because the reason for mining empty blocks is that the miner does not, at the time, have enough information to mine a valid block with transactions from the mempool. It's fiendishly clever.

So the miner is mining purely for the block reward because that is all that is available for that short period of time. Which incentive only goes away when the block reward does.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention.

Aaaghhh!!!

I don't understand why my user name would be included in your quoted attribution - when I was not taking part in the discussion?
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

So I see no issue with including them.

The issue is that they cause the situation to be represented inaccurately. Say we had a backlog sufficiently large that we could fill a hundred blocks. Each block could legitimately be mined up to close to the full block limit of 1000000. Somewhere around 5-7 blocks mined in an hour's sample should honestly produce an aggregate average block fill of 99/100%.

Now, consider that if 3 empty blocks get thrown out there on top of those 5-7 (empty blocks tend to get mined very quickly since miners will usually start mining in transactions asap), that pulls the percentage down to maybe 70%. The question is, is that a fair representation of the situation?

My inclination is to regard empty blocks as NOOPs and exclude them from the calculation. Though I would probably indicate that empty blocks were found.


It seems that you are attempting to tweak to make it more accurate, but in the end, your tweaking may cause it to be a little bit less accurate.

Hopefully, you can provide a short explanation for what you are doing in order that fewer readers will be mislead by the resulting number, and if it is controversial, you may want to put two numbers next to each other in order that readers can assess the weight that they want to give to each rendition (edit... oh?? maybe that is what Fatman3001 was suggesting?).






legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
Ideally I'd like to see both versions plus a snapshot of the mempool size. Or a version without empty blocks, number of empty blocks for that period, and a snapshot of the mempool size... but that sounds like a lot of work.

Actually surprisingly little. I'll see if I can do it and work out JJG's size increase. Also, there's a bug which nobody seems to have noticed yet Smiley

Cool, looking forward to it.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Ideally I'd like to see both versions plus a snapshot of the mempool size. Or a version without empty blocks, number of empty blocks for that period, and a snapshot of the mempool size... but that sounds like a lot of work.

Actually surprisingly little. I'll see if I can do it and work out JJG's size increase. Also, there's a bug which nobody seems to have noticed yet Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?


Based on low volume and the almost non-movement of BTC price in the past few days, I kept considering that the price was preparing for a dump of 1 to 2 %... like  odds of 55%/45%.   

Currently, my thinking is sort of reversing, but not strong, and I am leaning more towards and upsurge in price by maybe 1 or 2%.. odds of... that would be about 55%/45%.. only a feeling and I'm not really sure as you can see by my numbers...

Also, a long weekend, can cause a certain amount of waiting until the end of the weekend to make some attempts at a high volume push in one direction or another.. but sometimes it seems that the big players may each be waiting for some other big player to act first, but no one bigger player wants to act first at this time, so we await in a kind of limbo land in which we do not know whether one or more big players have a plan to attempt a push of the price.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention.

Aaaghhh!!!

Took you long enough.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit. Cheesy

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.


I can now be found in the Humanities section. Embarrassed

Sorry for bombing your thread.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention.

Aaaghhh!!!
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

So I see no issue with including them.

The issue is that they cause the situation to be represented inaccurately. Say we had a backlog sufficiently large that we could fill a hundred blocks. Each block could legitimately be mined up to close to the full block limit of 1000000. Somewhere around 5-7 blocks mined in an hour's sample should honestly produce an aggregate average block fill of 99/100%.

Now, consider that if 3 empty blocks get thrown out there on top of those 5-7 (empty blocks tend to get mined very quickly since miners will usually start mining in transactions asap), that pulls the percentage down to maybe 70%. The question is, is that a fair representation of the situation?

My inclination is to regard empty blocks as NOOPs and exclude them from the calculation. Though I would probably indicate that empty blocks were found.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit. Cheesy

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.


I can now be found in the Humanities section. Embarrassed
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?
im pretty sure it is reality as the price is stable so it can start growing easily
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 9709
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

No idea but I don't know why people are still doing 0 fee transactions now.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Until we have a significant volume of multisig, SegWit's putting the signatures outside the block size accounting does nothing for scalability. SegWit's '3-4x for multisig' is completely dependent upon the proportion of multisig transactions, is it not?

Yes, fee market pressure could drive more to multisig which would increase capacity from 1.75x to somewhere between 2-3x as blocks will unlikely be mostly filled with SepSig.

No. My point is that multisig necessarily _increases_ the size of a transaction - by replacing one signature with several. SegWit's 3-4x claim for multisig is based only upon the fact that they don't count the signature portion of the transaction in the 'block size' accounting. If there are no -- or an insignificant number -- of multisig transactions, then SegWit's claimed 3-4x due to multisig is either zero, or an insignificant amount, respectively.

In a world where multisig is the norm, yes SegWit will have an effective transaction count increase. But here in the real world, where multisig is very little, MultiSig's claim of 3-4x increase is smoke and mirrors.



This is a fair point upon consideration ... thus we should assume SepSig increases capacity to 1.75-2MB.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit. Cheesy

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit. Cheesy
Jump to: