why transactions are taking too long ? - page 6.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 11:19:25 AM

We are approaching the economic change event. As Jeff Garzick has already warned us about.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

We may already be there.

1048 bytes for 2 weeks 95% full.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

We are approaching the economic change event. As Jeff Garzick has already warned us about.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

I wonder how much longer the 1MB blocksize can hold up? http://images.memes.com/meme/170877

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 11:01:05 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

This mean unconfirmed transactions are indeed around 12+ Satoshi per byte which is hardly defined as a spam when these were sent at a time when bitcoinfees indicated 12 Satoshi per byte is enought for one hour confirmation time.

There are ~11k transactions in that range, far lower than the current backlog (in the 1-10 range), ergo spam attack.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

Why you dont listen to people and pretend everything is working fine Huh

Remember not everyone is suposed to send with fees for 12 minute requirement, some are fine with around 1 hour as indicated by bitcoinfees site.

Because everything is working fine. The recommended fee is 60 satoshis per byte; don't blame Bitcoin when you include a fee that is 5 times lower.

The point is ~11k transactions in that range are legit transactions which are not confirmed so not influenced by any spam attack in 1-10 range backlog (if there is ever spam attack and not just normal people sending with fees they were sending recently as working Wink

)

And it is Secondstrade transaction, I heard similar problem has/had Slush pool with daily payments with usual 10 Satoshi fee / byte. You cant expect from normal people who use Bitcoin to be more knowledgeable than these bigger business operators with good technical knowledge but still getting their transactions stuck.

JosNekoKopa

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

Did you ever check the transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/b5bc9629e26345c88a65308dd6b4d24f9572369ff4eec301fdbf319984d842b4

It has 80000 Satoshi for 6791 bytes, or about 12 Satoshi per byte and is not confirmed for over 24 hours. This mean unconfirmed transactions are indeed around 12+ Satoshi per byte which is hardly defined as a spam when these were sent at a time when bitcoinfees indicated 12 Satoshi per byte is enought for one hour confirmation time.

Why you dont listen to people and pretend everything is working fine Huh

Remember not everyone is supposed to send with fees for 12 minute requirement, some are fine with around 1 hour as indicated by bitcoinfees site.

Yes what will happen to this transaction?
Everything was fine before (transaction from campaign, even with lower fee),
how come suddenly we have such problem?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

Did you ever check the transaction

I did. You've based your claim that there is no spam attack on the premise of your transaction having ~12 satoshi per byte fee. This is a false conclusion.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

This mean unconfirmed transactions are indeed around 12+ Satoshi per byte which is hardly defined as a spam when these were sent at a time when bitcoinfees indicated 12 Satoshi per byte is enought for one hour confirmation time.

There are ~11k transactions in that range, far lower than the current backlog (in the 1-10 range), ergo spam attack.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:56:49 AM

Why you dont listen to people and pretend everything is working fine Huh

Remember not everyone is suposed to send with fees for 12 minute requirement, some are fine with around 1 hour as indicated by bitcoinfees site.

Because everything is working fine. The recommended fee is 60 satoshis per byte; don't blame Bitcoin when you include a fee that is 5 times lower.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 10:42:27 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:39:36 AM

These unconfirmed transactions are 12+ Satoshi per byte meaning it is not spam attack, but not enough transaction capacity instead. I mean when you describe spam as malicious attack with minimum fees which is not this case.

Did you even open the website at all? It clearly indicates that the transactions are in the 1-10 satoshi per byte range, ergo spam. There is enough transaction capacity at the moment.

Please stop posting and start reading.

Did you ever check the transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/b5bc9629e26345c88a65308dd6b4d24f9572369ff4eec301fdbf319984d842b4

It has 80000 Satoshi for 6791 bytes, or about 12 Satoshi per byte and is not confirmed for over 24 hours. This mean unconfirmed transactions are indeed around 12+ Satoshi per byte which is hardly defined as a spam when these were sent at a time when bitcoinfees indicated 12 Satoshi per byte is enought for one hour confirmation time.

Why you dont listen to people and pretend everything is working fine Huh

Remember not everyone is supposed to send with fees for 12 minute requirement, some are fine with around 1 hour as indicated by bitcoinfees site.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:39:36 AM

These unconfirmed transactions are 12+ Satoshi per byte meaning it is not spam attack, but not enough transaction capacity instead. I mean when you describe spam as malicious attack with minimum fees which is not this case.

Did you even open the website at all? It clearly indicates that the transactions are in the 1-10 satoshi per byte range, ergo spam. There is enough transaction capacity at the moment.

I have to remind you again:

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 10:30:26 AM

Please stop posting and start reading.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:29:27 AM

What I meant these are not spam attack transactions, but normal people transactions

This is not the case. Please stop posting and start reading.

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 10:24:39 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:19:29 AM

Please stop talking about spam transactions, because legitimate transactions in range 12 Satoshi per Byte are not confirmed for over 24 hours.

The recommended fee is 60 Satoshi per Byte and you blame Bitcoin for your unconfirmed transactions? Roll Eyes

Please stop posting nonsense and start looking at charts. The majority of these transactions (now 56k on https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) are in the 1-10 Satoshi per byte range (6 times lower than recommended in addition to this being sudden, ergo spam).

I use bitcoinfees as well, and at the time the transaction was sent 12 Satoshi per byte indicated enought for one hour confirmation time which is enough for most cases. But since then the one hour confirmation time obviously went up in requirements for higher fees which the sender could not anticipate. These unconfirmed transactions are 12+ Satoshi per byte meaning it is not spam attack, but not enough transaction capacity instead. I mean when you describe spam as malicious attack by individual with minimum fees which is not this case.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:28:01 AM

Quote from: chopstick on March 01, 2016, 10:19:36 AM

A truly hilariously false statement. 2 MB would solve the problem immediately, effectively doubling the capacity of the network.

Merchants and users are abandoning bitcoin out of frustration as we speak.

Don't quote random people from other threads when they've been corrected several times in the meantime. A 2 MB block size limit would solve nothing; actually it could make things worse if the attacker was persistent.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:29:27 AM

What I meant these are not spam attack transactions, but normal people transactions

This is not the case. Please stop posting and start reading.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 01, 2016, 10:23:13 AM

Paying ~ 35 cents USD on an almost 1 BTC transaction with a long list of outputs - um, you are correct that it is not spam - but it still is being incredibly cheap.

Because people were used to these fees as working in the past. What I meant these are not spam attack transactions, but normal people transactions that got stuck because people are not experts and expect Bitcoin can work even when they send transaction with not priority speed.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 10:24:39 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:20:31 AM

I do not see how this is preferable to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

It won't solve this problem.

Quote from: chopstick on March 01, 2016, 10:19:36 AM

A truly hilariously false statement. 2 MB would solve the problem immediately, effectively doubling the capacity of the network.

Merchants and users are abandoning bitcoin out of frustration as we speak.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:19:29 AM

Please stop talking about spam transactions, because legitimate transactions in range 12 Satoshi per Byte are not confirmed for over 24 hours.

The recommended fee is 60 Satoshi per Byte and you blame Bitcoin for your unconfirmed transactions? Roll Eyes

Please stop posting nonsense and start looking at charts. The majority of these transactions (now 56k on https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) are in the 1-10 Satoshi per byte range (6 times lower than recommended in addition to this being sudden, ergo spam).

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:20:31 AM

I do not see how this is preferable to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

It won't solve this problem.

Quote from: BTCBinary on March 01, 2016, 10:15:46 AM

It is reaching the network full capacity, and that is why there is an urgent need for a block size increase. To avoid transactions taking too long, you will need to pay higher fees.

No. The blocks aren't naturally full yet.

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

Quote from: ATguy on March 01, 2016, 10:19:29 AM

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 01, 2016, 09:52:54 AM

The only way an increase in the blocksize would relieve this situation is if the spam transactions made it into blocks.

Please stop talking about spam transactions, because legitimate transactions in range 12 Satoshi per Byte are not confirmed for over 24 hours. For example Secondtrade weekly signature campaign payment has been sent yesterday with 0.0008 Bitcoin fee for 6791 bytes but not confirmed up to now. Definitively not spam transaction with minimum fees. Here:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b5bc9629e26345c88a65308dd6b4d24f9572369ff4eec301fdbf319984d842b4

This waiting really hurt Bitcoin creditibility in normal user eyes. If it is supposed to be a norm this way, then we can say goodbye further Bitcoin adoption and price increase...

Paying ~ 35 cents USD on an almost 1 BTC transaction with a long list of outputs - um, you are correct that it is not spam - but it still is being incredibly cheap.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 01, 2016, 10:16:59 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:03:32 AM

including "spam" in blocks, forces "spammers" to pay fees until they run out of funds.

With the fees they are including, $10 would go a long way.

Bitcoin fees need to stay competitive if we want Bitcoin to remain the dominant cryptocurrency of the world. It is basic economics really, not to mention that this situation also makes Bitcoin less reliable. Not good for adoption at all, there are many people complaining presently, I do not see how this is preferable to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=762

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 01, 2016, 09:52:54 AM

The only way an increase in the blocksize would relieve this situation is if the spam transactions made it into blocks.

Please stop talking about spam transactions, because legitimate transactions in range 12 Satoshi per Byte are not confirmed for over 24 hours. For example Secondtrade weekly signature campaign payment has been sent yesterday with 0.0008 Bitcoin fee for 6791 bytes but not confirmed up to now. Definitively not spam transaction with minimum fees. Here:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b5bc9629e26345c88a65308dd6b4d24f9572369ff4eec301fdbf319984d842b4

This waiting really hurt Bitcoin creditibility in normal user eyes. If it is supposed to be a norm this way, then we can say goodbye further Bitcoin adoption and price increase...

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:03:32 AM

including "spam" in blocks, forces "spammers" to pay fees until they run out of funds.

With the fees they are including, $10 would go a long way.

BTCBinary

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded. As bitcoin is becoming isncreasingly mainstream more and more transactions are done every day and the network is not supporting it. It is reaching the network full capacity, and that is why there is an urgent need for a block size increase. To avoid transactions taking too long, you will need to pay higher fees.

bitcoin-hunter

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Transaction are taking long when you are sending with a low fee, because the confirmations will take a lot longer because of the low fee, I really hate that part from the bitcoin.
If that would be better the bitcoin would be perfect and ready for a take over at the world.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:03:32 AM

including "spam" in blocks, forces "spammers" to pay fees until they run out of funds. This also allows miners to clear the memory pool to avoid confirmation delays. At greater scale this would work very well, since it would make it very expensive to overload the network in this way.

This highly depends on the current recommended fee in that case. Depending on how large the fee is they could fill up the network for days without spending too much money. Also if look at the days destroyed chart then you would see that somebody is moving the same coins constantly (example). There is probably more going on-

Quote from: VeritasSapere on March 01, 2016, 10:03:32 AM

It is mostly impossible to differentiate between "spam" and what most people would consider "legitimate" transactions.

That's only what someone with insufficient knowledge would say.

Topic: why transactions are taking too long ? - page 6. (Read 7272 times)