Topic: why transactions are taking too long ? - page 2. (Read 7282 times)

An ideal solution would be a printed version of Bitcoin. It's easy to use and there are literally no fees.

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

 my biggest mistake in bitcoin is that i bought bitcoin when the price is at the $400 dollar last year, in the withdrawal transactions not much, just delays when withdrawing btc in some site other than that nothing really.

That's why they produce empty blocks, some even above 10% of their total blocks, right? I'm certain that this would get worse or they'd impose their soft limits again. My transaction last night got 3 confirmations in 6 minutes (block interval was short), albeit this confirms that the network is functioning properly. The number of unconfirmed transactions is going down even though the recommended fee is a bit higher.

I'm certain that you've heard this a lot of times; fork off already.

The 'limit' is not "caused" by the mining difficulty, if anything you could say that the failure to increase the limit is caused by Core. Miners could easily produce two megabytes blocks and I am still confident that they will. It is just a matter of time, though I suppose we should not have expected the first real experiment in decentralized governance to be easy.

No, although it partially affects the confirmation time.If you have Bitcoin core, it should rebroadcast your transaction every half an hour or so, hence not much use for more nodes. Its the mining difficulty that causes the 'limit' AFAIK

I think good move could be fee for running nodes.
This will cost electricity, good amount of hdd and you can't rely on certain number
of supporters who runs nodes as believers in bitcoin.
I don't know is this possible but sound good  .

Can this help with this problem, i mean with more nodes, confirmation will be faster?

That is correct, fees are going to continue to go up until enough people are pushed out. That is the way such a "fee market" works. There is simply not enough capacity for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed.

I have noticed that people are adding significant higher fees in the hope their transaction gets confirmed within a normal time frame. Now more and more people are doing this it will have less effect. It will only push the transaction fee higher and higher as people want their transaction to be included in the next block.

I would say that the blocksize limit has much to do with the present confirmation delays. Furthermore that a discussion of blocksize is also very much relevant to the debate between Core and Classic. I would not consider this discussion to be off topic for this thread at all.

Just learn how fees work and act accordingly! The network is doing fine! Bunch of whiners!

Either send me a direct PM or open up another thread/post in relevant one. This thread is not about Core vs. Classic; Segwit vs. 2 MB block size limit or any of that. I'd be willing to discuss in such.
However, this thread is about transaction delays and the recent attack.

Hmm, there's no connection between the transaction commit time and block size?

A hard fork would be a show of good faith; especially if it isn't needed at the moment.  The willingness to compromise is key to being viewed as reasonable and inclusive.  Resisting compromise rankles against common sense; it undermines the trust and faith folks will put in you.

Do you truly believe in the SegWit-only approach so much that you're willing to give up the advantages of embracing a compromise?

At a minimum, help me understand when a block size increase would be entertained.  What reports do we watch?

I'd say that intentionally feeding you false information is manipulating, but suit yourself.

Exactly why would anyone want to do a HF right now (these are not easy to do and definitely not the preference of many) because of additional 100 kB? It is pointless at the moment and some patience is necessary. Segwit is just around the corner. and a HF proposal should be presented between April and July as well.

---

---

However, keep in mind that this is not the right place to discuss this. We are moving away from the original topic. On-topic: Currently there are 17.5k unconfirmed transactions (according to blockchain.info) and the number seems to be going down for now.

High ground?  As in the dryer place?  The tactical advantage?  Or the morally superior position?    Can't a guy make a joke around here? 

I sincerely understand; you mean you don't use unseemly tactics, e.g. manipulation.  You argue points on their merit that the rational mind will see for itself from first principles.  Me too.

Lauda, the ball is in your court.  Do you see the opportunity for compromise here?  1.1MB (or 2MB) *and* SegWit?  Or will you stand firmly on the SegWit only approach?

Thanks David Rabahy, I am sorry, I am a bit sensitive when it comes to that word. I like to pride myself in at least taking a high ground in these discussions, whether I am right or wrong.

 in regard of this : thanx to finaly recognize it ..  

Oops, my bad; I was joking; I should have added a smiley.  For the record, I never felt manipulated.

I am pretty sure most folks involved are indeed earnestly believing in their espoused positions; it is possible there are disruptors in here, deliberately flaming discontent.

I believe the following two positions are both true at the same time;

1) the block size should be increased for the expansion of Bitcoin
       this does come at a cost; bigger bandwidth, etc.
2) reasonable fees are good for the health of Bitcoin
       naturally the tricky part is figuring out what reasonable is

Folks that believe only one of these are the real source of trouble.  Lauda did show eventual support for 1).  It is unlikely he is a disruptor; just passionate.  VeritasSapere too showed willingness to compromise even though 2MB is already a big one; unlike a disruptor.  The proof is in the pudding.  As a show of good faith, the Core guys ought to boost the block size if nothing else to 1.1MB; even though they don't think it is required or it even hurts a little.  Sticking to the wait for SegWit (no matter how great it is) exclusively is not the smart move politically.

I highly suggest depolarizing.  Recruiting folks into one camp or the other is polarizing; stop it.  Compromise (even a little beyond reason) goes a very long way to improving the external image/brand.

Their was a rumor that some of the users attacked the block by creating small heavy transaction without giving transaction fees which made exchanges not to accept the transaction and for that which ever transaction was done with high transaction fees got cleared.

If by "wouldn't hurt" you mean it would waste unnecessary resources and add more cost to node operators, then yes. This does not however mean that the block size limit will never be increased. The issue is much more complex.

Regardless of how many times you repeat the lie, it won't make it true. What you hope for is not possible in that way.

This does not happen.

If by "prominent" you mean random developers who haven't contributed much to Bitcoin (if at all), then yes.