No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.
Median transaction size is now
44% increase.
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
Topic: Why Blockstream is against "contentious" hard forks - Control (Read 3236 times)
No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.
Median transaction size is now
44% increase.
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.(i am asking 21.co also)
It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.
[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly.
]Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger? No-- they're also doing 4x as much.
What's the median number of testicles?
IMHO
If it aint broke, dont fkkn fix it.
If it aint broke, dont fkkn fix it.
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.(i am asking 21.co also)
It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.
[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly.
]Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger? No-- they're also doing 4x as much.
You could say this only if you know the characteristcs of the tx size distribution (of the future!) or at least the first moments. the average or mean as you know is a very good estimation while the median is just the mid of all sizes and a just bit more stable against outliers. And the density is highest where?
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.(i am asking 21.co also)
It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.
[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly.
]Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger? No-- they're also doing 4x as much.
Things ignored by this post:
...
At the end of the day, _no one_ has the authority to push a hardfork onto other people
...
At the end of the day, _no one_ has the authority to push a hardfork onto other people
Things gmaxwell may be hoping you ignore in this post:
Quote
The segwit design calls for a future bitcoinj compatible hardfork
- Gregory Maxwell greg at xiph.org, [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system., https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlalso when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..
Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.
its the AVERAGE lol
as explained
then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
Yeah, "others (you and me) say" average 500 byte.
But segwit supporters say "1.8x in combination with the
They wouldn't say "average" in this context would they?, as according to your own (seemingly correct guesstimates) that would be a
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an idiot. It is important (to me) as who is claiming what, and why median is used.
I will reread!
As you know I have asked Greg if he knows the average tx size, and why the median, not average tx size, is such a great fee size indicator.
Still waiting.
Even 21.co seem a bit flummoxed.
edited
also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..
Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.
its the AVERAGE lol
as explained
then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..
Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.
Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.
But " I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block soft-fork" (Gmax)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
segwit is 4mb.
that was when Gmaxwell thought the plan was 2mb blocklimit AND segwit.
in the same paragraph he said
Quote
If widely used this proposal gives a 2x capacity increase
which is where he got the 4mb number from. but more recently its suggested to be only 1.8x capacity... hense new numbers are 3.6mb(real data) for 2mb block limit,
also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..
yet listening to Gmaxwell and Luke JR in the last month.. it looks to be 3600tx for 1.8mb(realdata) while sticking with just 1mb block limit
at 226byte tx 3mb block without segwit 13200tx (15400tx if blocks 3.5mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.yea i noticed that. so edited to be easier to comprehend
Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.
But " I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block soft-fork" (Gmax)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
segwit is 4mb.
for instance if we naively go by the every tx is 226byte right now..
1mb block= ~4400tx so segwit would be 7920(4400*1.8 )
then others say that the average is 400bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2500tx so 1mb segwit would be 4500tx(2500*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 9500
then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
but remember a 2mb segwit is not actually 2mb of real data.. its actually 3.6mb where 1.6mb is still there but blockstream wont talk about it because "there is no witness"
also remember there are extra bytes being added for the other features, flags, etc.. so the blocks would actually be much higher then 3.6mb when a block is 'full'.
but seeing as Gmaxwell has withdrawn his plan to add CT to bitcoin. the bloat wont be as much as over 5mb. so lets just take the stats of the 3.6mb as a guideline expectation..
7200tx for 3.6mb
or if we were to stick with traditional transactions and just a blocksize increase.
at 226byte tx 3mb block without segwit 13200tx (15400tx if blocks 3.5mb)
Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:1mb block= ~4400tx so segwit would be 7920(4400*1.8 )
then others say that the average is 400bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2500tx so 1mb segwit would be 4500tx(2500*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 9500
then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
but remember a 2mb segwit is not actually 2mb of real data.. its actually 3.6mb where 1.6mb is still there but blockstream wont talk about it because "there is no witness"
also remember there are extra bytes being added for the other features, flags, etc.. so the blocks would actually be much higher then 3.6mb when a block is 'full'.
but seeing as Gmaxwell has withdrawn his plan to add CT to bitcoin. the bloat wont be as much as over 5mb. so lets just take the stats of the 3.6mb as a guideline expectation..
7200tx for 3.6mb
or if we were to stick with traditional transactions and just a blocksize increase.
at 226byte tx 3mb block without segwit 13200tx (15400tx if blocks 3.5mb)
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.
To be clear, I'm in the hard fork camp. I'm not 100% pro or anti regarding segwit or blocksize, but I am anti regarding a soft fork for a major change. However, I'm calling you out because you shouldn't be playing their game. It isn't right when they're playing it anti blocksize, and playing the same game anti segwit doesn't make it any better.
i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..
its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.
and then.. he says this..
- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction
Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.
Ok, so the median tx is 226 (and never seems to change)
But the average tx is twice that? (and varies)
I am asking 21.co why they use median tx size to calculate fees.
Their first reply said "Median is the same thing as Average." !!!
(which we all now know it isn't)
Goes to show what the general perception is I would think.
Greg say's about median, "It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fee,"
How so?
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
Franky, are Core saying segwit will handle 7200 tx per block? (link please)
it depends on which variant you read.
for instance if we naively go by the every tx is 226byte right now..
1mb block= ~4400tx so segwit would be 7920(4400*1.8 )
then others say that the average is 400bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2500tx so 1mb segwit would be 4500tx(2500*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 9500
then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200
but remember a 2mb segwit is not actually 2mb of real data.. its actually 3.6mb where 1.6mb is still there but blockstream wont talk about it because "there is no witness"
also remember there are extra bytes being added for the other features, flags, etc.. so the blocks would actually be much higher then 3.6mb when a block is 'full'.
but seeing as Gmaxwell has withdrawn his plan to add CT to bitcoin(instead trying to promote his zerocoin, monero and elements). the bloat wont be as much as the over 5mb from the original plan.
so lets just take the stats of
3.6mb(real data) for 7200tx as a guideline expectation if there is 2mb blocklimit included in 2017..
1.8mb(real data) for 3600tx as a guideline expectation if there is 1mb blocklimit remaining in 2017..
i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..
its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.
and then.. he says this..
- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction
Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.
Ok, so the median tx is 226 (and never seems to change)
But the average tx is twice that? (and varies)
I am asking 21.co why they use median tx size to calculate fees.
Their first reply said "Median is the same thing as Average." !!!
(which we all now know it isn't)
Goes to show what the general perception is I would think.
Greg say's about median, "It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fee,"
How so?
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
Franky, are Core saying segwit will handle 7200 tx per block? (link please)
So why are you talking about the median? It is a completely worthless statistic with regards to this topic.
It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic. ~Paid for by Blockstream~
I always suspected that you were paid by them! I have no idea why you would pull me into this one. I have used various average TX sizes when doing some basic calculations in regards to capacity, and have even used sizes larger than what franky is showing here today. It comes down to the nature of the use. My transations are is closer to the median in size than to the average.
this is because lauda only has a couple addresses and only pays one person at a time. so his experience is limited to his own usage..
however people that have re-use addresses where funds are spread over multiple addresses, have larger txs
however exchanges batching customer withdrawals together so there are multiple outputs have larger tx's
however pools splitting up the block reward to pay the many individual miners have larger tx's
however merchants, services, businesses who collect or spend from or to multiple parties have larger tx's
so trying to brush the average transaction to be "just like lauda's" is a mindset of someone who cannot think beyond themselves.
i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..
- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction
Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.
So why are you talking about the median? It is a completely worthless statistic with regards to this topic.
It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic.
Rofl "You are all blockstream shills!!!" Is the best thing ive read all day. I can finally go to bed 😊
. ~Paid for by Blockstream~
. ~Paid for by Blockstream~
It would put bitcoin on a different path, maybe. Segwit is dangerous and unnecessary at this point.
Correction: A block size limit increase is dangerous and unnecessary. I think your right. But when you tell us Greg laugh's. Then Icebreaker mock's. Carlton mock's and finally Lauda mock's.
I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you.
I have no idea why you would pull me into this one. I have used various average TX sizes when doing some basic calculations in regards to capacity, and have even used sizes larger than what franky is showing here today. It comes down to the nature of the use. My transations are is closer to the median in size than to the average. I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you.
Jump to: