Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans (Read 13752 times)

yep, same here.

http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool






65 000 tx in mempool now.

Just wait for r/btc folk to jump with theories of real world usage with sudden exponential growth during random times of the week.



This picture represents mempool TX count.

Bitsquare wallet attack (more than 5 connexions per IP with differents ports) and Mempool rise ...



https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

It's not really that bad or even unexpected. Bitcoin is "private money" with no formal control structure. Innovation springs from the removal of restrictions. Many major businesses (Google, Apple etc.) have benefited from removing the normal strictures of corporate control and putting pool tables, video games and bean bags in common areas to allow their employees to just "play" if they want to. It allows a freedom of thought that fosters innovation.

The downside to that freedom is a loss of control. Bitcoin benefits from that same freedom. No one is in charge. Developers (people normally controlled by the company), for the most part, keep Bitcoin headed in a single beneficial direction. But, without a boss/company/government controlling them they can and do have very different directions in mind that splinter the focus (segwit, classic, bla bla). That is the biggest reason Bitcoin is stagnating and splintering in development but it's also the reason Bitcoin exists. The lack of strict structure and control is a double edged sword.

It doesn't matter. Without resolving current issues first, it doesn't make any sense to talk about future requirements and necessary technological advances to meet these requirements. It is not even so much about these issues as such as the lack of any real attempts at coming to a solution. Or, at least, to an agreement about how to resolve them in a constructive way. It is like dreaming about wedding when you have just been walked out on...

You have to deal with reality and harsh facts, and not get lost in wishful thinking and pipe-dreaming


So why have you been constantly referring to that in your own posts if you don't see any relevance yourself?

Well, it obviously will not be, if we do not allow it. I'd like to at least remove the artificial barriers that currently prevent this. Why is that so hard to understand?


This is not a technological problem, but rather a self-imposed management problem.


I struggle with trying to discern any relevance to this.

If you bothered to read the LN Network Paper, it states that OnChain BlockSize will have to be Increased.  
Reference: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf


 

FYI:
1 Business may make hundreds of transactions per day , and they calculate someone only making 3 transactions per year.  
If that does not prove Core is up to some shenanigans with SegWit , then you are not paying attention.  

So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc? While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today? Previous congestion of the scale we saw recently happened in the summer of 2015...

And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves

I have never heard of that person before. He's related to some LTC pool, but besides that I have no idea "what pool" he operated in Bitcoin. Maxwell's decision to refuse such a stupid bet shows rational thinking. Accepting such a bet gives people added monetary incentive to fight against Segwit.

---

Blocking Segwit and calling for on-chain scaling makes you somewhat of a hypocrite FYI.

I get the feeling segwit will not activate

There is a Chinese pool operator who wanted to bet Greg maxwell 1000 btc yesterday that segwit will not even reach 51% and Greg refused the bet.....

https://m.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5f07m2/gambling_of_1000_bitcoin_segwit_soft_fork_wont/

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

Yes, it is still listed in Github as in beta. I actually have to give them props for that. They know it's not ready and they list it as such. Gavin Andresen, wherever he is, has said over and over again,  "Bitcoin is an experiment and you shouldn’t invest your life’s savings. You should use it at your own risk.”

Another famous quote from Andresen, "The currency’s value is built almost entirely on speculation, so any indication that the system is less than bulletproof can cause a major price shock".

I am a Bitcoin user. I've mined more Bitcoin in the beginning than most of you will probably ever own. I come off as "Debbie Downer" all the time because I tell the truth. I want people to see what Bitcoin is right now, not what it has the potential to be 40 years from now. I've had lots of friends on this forum and personally that lost lots of money using Bitcoin. It's easy to say "it's not bitcoins fault Mark Karpeles was a crook". While that's technically true, it's also true that he was the only exchange in town for a long time. Bitcoin gave him the opportunity to steal from all of us. While computer security is the individuals fault, Bitcoin having no big bank fraud protections and being used from insecure computers allows stupid people to be ripped off (not that I considered Allinvain stupid).

I just want everyone to know what they're dealing with and accept the risk. That way when you lose your money and go running to mommy government to fix it I can laugh at you. LOL

maybe it is because of the low minor fee that the people are being able to give .or the miners have being able to solve the issue t all .or it would be difficult for others .kudoos

To begin with, it was not your conversation with Carlton Banks since it was not you (nor was it Carlton Banks) who started this topic on increasing block size to increase the transaction rates. You joined this discussion in pretty much the same way as I did, and in fact, you did it after me, so there is hardly any reason to make it look as if I intervened in your conversation with Carlton Banks. Further, my assumption of the Chinese miners artificially ignoring transactions is in no way relevant to this discussion, nor has it been proven wrong itself (just in case)...

So what's your point really?

This might just mean a lot more people are using bitcoins and creating transactions, which is a good sign. More people are adopting bitcoin and using it in transactions. Yeah, it's a problem right now, but it's a good problem to have.

Small Snip-bit of CB,
broken record. 



 

FYI:
CB sees Trolls Everywhere, thinks it normal.  

0.13.1

I've not seen a recent official declaration (maybe since Gavin's exit?), but FOSS conventions being what they are...

i didnt know that the core software is still in beta phase and i have found no details regarding that even while searching,i thought unconfirmed transactions are present because there is an attack on the network or the miners are avoiding low fees to pass through

Don't worry about it jbreher. All he ever does when he's losing an argument is call someone a troll. That's like the pot calling the kettle black (no racial pun intended).





The fact is the unconfirmed transactions just prove Bitcoin is not ready for prime time. That's why it's still in beta after all these years. I suspect the same group of devs are working on Bitcoin that are working on the new forum. They will probably be released from beta at the same time. LOL

Your trolling is a well known fact. It's not ad hom, when it's the truth.

And answer my question: Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?