Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 15. (Read 13781 times)
Is the system under attack again or it is happening because of the miners? Even if a small portion of those transactions dont get confirmed, bitcoin will be dead for good. I hope devs got a solution for that kind of an attack.
it worries me if the mempool's small block size is going to have a short term impact on the price.
The mempool and the blockchain are separate storage structures.
Transactions are created and placed into the mempool of the Bitcoin user who created them. The Bitcoin peers connected to that user receive that transaction and place it in their mempool. The mempool can be as big as the user likes, there is a setting that allows you to change it.
The blocks are where the transactions are stored after they've been confirmed. When that happens, a given transaction is removed from the mempool once a block containing that transaction is received by a given user's Bitcoin node. There is no setting to change the block size, the blocksize is part of the consensus rules (mempool size is not).
Also, I really hope that there's some initiative taken to get miners to vote for Seggregated Witness so that atleast temporarily transactions are confirmed quicker.
It takes time to activate soft-forks, that's just how it is (all other soft forks in the past had 95% per 2016 block period activation thresholds IIRC). I'd much prefer that it takes as long as possible, that way there's more opportunity to correct any mistakes.
With around 30,000 unconfirmed transactions and Seggregated Witness far away from reaching atleast 95% of the miners support, I'm guessing it's going to be several months before Seggregated Witness comes into play and it worries me if the mempool's small block size is going to have a short term impact on the price.
What makes you think 'several months' before it comes into play? Technically it could come in December if the miners started signalling it right now.Also, I really hope that there's some initiative taken to get miners to vote for Seggregated Witness so that atleast temporarily transactions are confirmed quicker.
This statement is poorly written. Confirmation time will not change because of Segwit, nor has confirmation time changed because of the mempool spike. The average confirmation time will always be 10 minutes. Segwit will enable higher throughput, i.e. it should *prevent* this from happening less frequently and help with clearing backlogs more quickly. However, even that does not prevent an attacker that wants to play politics from spamming up the network and blaming the developers for the situation. 
With around 30,000 unconfirmed transactions and Seggregated Witness far away from reaching atleast 95% of the miners support, I'm guessing it's going to be several months before Seggregated Witness comes into play and it worries me if the mempool's small block size is going to have a short term impact on the price. Also, I really hope that there's some initiative taken to get miners to vote for Seggregated Witness so that atleast temporarily transactions are confirmed quicker.
95% is a huge number. I don't know the data, but I really hope the you are wrong. Because then this will take a (too) long time to get traction...
And BTC unlimited.. is an altcoin. If they want to mine altcoin, nobody forces them to stay on this chain....
And if they leave this chain, their 8% doesn't matter anymore.
And BTC unlimited.. is an altcoin. If they want to mine altcoin, nobody forces them to stay on this chain....
And if they leave this chain, their 8% doesn't matter anymore.
95% is correct, but as you say, 8% of the hashrate is a moveable feast. kiklo is currently trolling Bitcoin every chance there is, in favour of some altcoin he's promoting. Not sure if Zeitcoin is any good, not looked at it.
SegWit will not even work unless 95% of the miner hash implements it.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.
95% is a huge number. I don't know the data, but I really hope the you are wrong. Because then this will take a (too) long time to get traction...
And BTC unlimited.. is an altcoin. If they want to mine altcoin, nobody forces them to stay on this chain....
And if they leave this chain, their 8% doesn't matter anymore.
Not the altcoin but a proposal for blocksize is also called BTC unlimited, I can see how that is going to confuse people.
http://www.investopedia.com/news/what-bitcoin-unlimited/
Quote
A new term, ‘Bitcoin Unlimited’, has been floating around for some time now. So what exactly is Bitcoin Unlimited? Will it result in a hard fork (forced splitting off of the currency)? (Related: Does Ethereum's Hard Fork Undermind Smart Contracts?)
The issue revolves around the size of the blocks which are added to its blockchain. Blocks are files where data pertaining to the bitcoin network is permanently recorded. A block records some or all of the most recent bitcoin transactions that have not yet entered any prior blocks. Thus a block is like a page of a ledger or record book. Each time a block is ‘completed’, it gives way to the next block in the blockchain. A block is thus a permanent store of records which, once written, cannot be altered or removed. (Related: Bitcoin is Money, Rules Federal Judge in Landmark Case.)
Bitcoin blocks have a limited ‘storage’ capacity of 1MB since the beginning and under the current popular system of Bitcoin Core. However, Bitcoin Unlimited argues that the size of these blocks should be increased as it would enable smoother running by decongesting the blocks. Unlike the present rigid size of 1MB, Bitcoin Unlimited advocates complete freedom and flexibility to increase the size of blockchain and this will be done by miners. So, if there is a consensus on this, we will have a new bitcoin blockchain with large-sized blocks.
The issue revolves around the size of the blocks which are added to its blockchain. Blocks are files where data pertaining to the bitcoin network is permanently recorded. A block records some or all of the most recent bitcoin transactions that have not yet entered any prior blocks. Thus a block is like a page of a ledger or record book. Each time a block is ‘completed’, it gives way to the next block in the blockchain. A block is thus a permanent store of records which, once written, cannot be altered or removed. (Related: Bitcoin is Money, Rules Federal Judge in Landmark Case.)
Bitcoin blocks have a limited ‘storage’ capacity of 1MB since the beginning and under the current popular system of Bitcoin Core. However, Bitcoin Unlimited argues that the size of these blocks should be increased as it would enable smoother running by decongesting the blocks. Unlike the present rigid size of 1MB, Bitcoin Unlimited advocates complete freedom and flexibility to increase the size of blockchain and this will be done by miners. So, if there is a consensus on this, we will have a new bitcoin blockchain with large-sized blocks.
Sorry it is 95%.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/
Quote
Miners representing 95% or more of the total Bitcoin network hash rate must signal support for segwit in order to lock-in segwit’s activation.
Quote
Started: Segwit will be in the started stage from the beginning of the first retarget period on or after 15 November 2016 until it either activates or is considered failed (under BIP9’s policy) after one year of not reaching locked-in. During this time, miners who are willing and able to enforce segwit’s new consensus rules will be signaling their intent to do so by placing bit 1 in the block header versionbits field.
Locked-in: if 95% of blocks during a 2,016-block retarget period signal support for segwit, the segwit soft-fork will be locked-in with activation scheduled for 2,016 blocks later (about two weeks).
Activated: after the completion of the locked-in period, the miners who signaled readiness to enforce segwit will begin producing segwit-style blocks that contain transactions with segregated witnesses
Locked-in: if 95% of blocks during a 2,016-block retarget period signal support for segwit, the segwit soft-fork will be locked-in with activation scheduled for 2,016 blocks later (about two weeks).
Activated: after the completion of the locked-in period, the miners who signaled readiness to enforce segwit will begin producing segwit-style blocks that contain transactions with segregated witnesses
FYI:
A hard fork would have only require 60% or 70% to make the switch.
SegWit will not even work unless 95% of the miner hash implements it.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.
95% is a huge number. I don't know the data, but I really hope the you are wrong. Because then this will take a (too) long time to get traction...
And BTC unlimited.. is an altcoin. If they want to mine altcoin, nobody forces them to stay on this chain....
And if they leave this chain, their 8% doesn't matter anymore.
It's not about miners, it's about the increase in the number of transactions. I don't know if it's some sort of spam attack or a mark of Bitcoin success.
There are days they are much more than the current architecture can handle.
Top size of mempool in the last 2-3 days was 44 MB, now it's some 33 MB. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
I have high hopes that in a couple of weeks, when SegWit will be actually in use, this will not happen anymore (for long time, hopefully).
There are days they are much more than the current architecture can handle.
Top size of mempool in the last 2-3 days was 44 MB, now it's some 33 MB. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
I have high hopes that in a couple of weeks, when SegWit will be actually in use, this will not happen anymore (for long time, hopefully).
SegWit will not even work unless 95% of the miner hash implements it.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.
It's not about miners, it's about the increase in the number of transactions. I don't know if it's some sort of spam attack or a mark of Bitcoin success.
There are days they are much more than the current architecture can handle.
Top size of mempool in the last 2-3 days was 44 MB, now it's some 33 MB. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
I have high hopes that in a couple of weeks, when SegWit will be actually in use, this will not happen anymore (for long time, hopefully).
There are days they are much more than the current architecture can handle.
Top size of mempool in the last 2-3 days was 44 MB, now it's some 33 MB. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
I have high hopes that in a couple of weeks, when SegWit will be actually in use, this will not happen anymore (for long time, hopefully).
Want to do something about it.
Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690300.new#new
FYI:
It was higher the 50,000 earlier today.
Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690300.new#new
FYI:
It was higher the 50,000 earlier today.
Yes, I have seen it that it was more than 50,000 unconfirmed transaction and keeps on adding. I am also puzzeled whether we lack miners or it is due to not exact fees per bytes that keeps them less priority.
This is what happens when people refuse to increase the block size. This issue would have never occurred, had the miners adopted a block size limit of 8 MB. The current limit of 1MB is too small to cope with the increasing number of users.
This is what happens when people refuse to decrease the block generation interval. This issue would have never occurred, had the miners adopted a block generation time a quarter of the current interval. The current interval is too long to cope with the increasing number of users, and an increasing requirement for almost instant confirmations.
Sounds like trying to kill the currency that we want to move forward!
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?
There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?
There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC
24 hours to send a message , you think BTC is that weak.
No one said they could not trade on the exchanges, just don't transmit any BTC in or out for 24 hours.
I Think the huge amount of transactions makes the transactions slow, This is not good, We all know that the advantage of using bitcoins was its fast and hassle free, then now it was too much delay, i also have two receiving transactions in my coinbase wallet. Too bad because it was already 48 hours but until now it was receiving.
This is what happens when people refuse to increase the block size. This issue would have never occurred, had the miners adopted a block size limit of 8 MB. The current limit of 1MB is too small to cope with the increasing number of users.
Sounds like trying to kill the currency that we want to move forward!
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?
There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?
There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC
24 hours to send a message , you think BTC is that weak.
No one said they could not trade on the exchanges, just don't transmit any BTC in or out for 24 hours.
Want to do something about it.
Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690300.new#new
FYI:
It was higher the 50,000 earlier today.
Sounds like trying to kill the currency that we want to move forward!Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690300.new#new
FYI:
It was higher the 50,000 earlier today.
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?
There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC
Something strange is happening, unusualy large number of transactions is not confirmed. Like the network is stuck. I agree that it would be good that community tries to do something about it but would realy this BoyCott BTC on 24 hours solve the problem? The aswer probably lies in the cause of this problem. Do we know exactly what it is?
Wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans now
Are the miners sleeping? LOL
Are the miners sleeping? LOL
Jump to: