Pages:
Author

Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 3. (Read 13790 times)

legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:

I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down

So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2016, 03:57:21 AM
100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.
Well, you can't call something that is 2-2.1x marginal though, regardless of what was proposed

It is marginal in the sense it will be consumed in less than no time
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 27, 2016, 03:34:36 AM
Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.
Well, you can't call something that is 2-2.1x marginal though, regardless of what was proposed. If I created a proposal with 100 MB blocks, I could just call BU modest then? Besides, there is no way that 8 MB blocks would be accepted today in terms of safety and resource usage.

So this crisis is over, but I have no doubt there will another one not far from now.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that it's not possible to largely scale Bitcoin (in its current form) on-chain while preserving decentralization. Regardless of what block size limit you put on there, those are just patches to a gun wound.

The moment the price of of bitcoin inflates the miners cannot cope up with the transactions traffic.
Those events are not related at all. "Miners can't cope" is also misleading. The consensus rules dictate the maximum amount of data/transactions that can be transferred, not the miners.
hero member
Activity: 994
Merit: 544
November 27, 2016, 12:21:17 AM
jbreher, why then are you promoting an alternate Bitcoin project that today's technology can't deal with? Why are you pushing in a direction that literally could never deal with mainstream adoption before it arrives? You can't have it both ways.

This is the problem that bitcoin is now encountering. Instead of moving forward it is moving backward. I just noticed that every time the price of bitcoin increases the transactions will take a long time to confirm. So I say that there is a connection between mining and the increase in bitcoins price. The moment the price of of bitcoin inflates the miners cannot cope up with the transactions traffic.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3079
November 26, 2016, 08:58:49 PM
Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.
The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial

Regular Bitcoin transactions will only be able to make use of 0.7 - 0.8 MB of the increase, because the 3 MB in the increase is for signatures only. Lightning will add enough extra signature MB's to use what standard transactions can't.

but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

When you say "leading BTC developers", you're referring to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn? I think you mean "former BTC developers"
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
November 26, 2016, 08:46:29 PM
Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.
The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

So this crisis is over, but I have no doubt there will another one not far from now.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
November 26, 2016, 08:45:22 PM
It's not about targeting dial-up users, it's about targeting the majority of users. Who do not even have 10 Mbit/s. C'mon, you can do better than this.
target the majority of users to run a full bitcoin node and at the same time ask them to TX on LN.
bitcoin will be the settlement layer used by elites, which is ran by 1000's of average joe nodes
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 08:27:06 PM
At least now we have less than 5.000 unconfirmed transactions, this week show to you all an alert even so it's more fast than others transfer methods even with a big chaos.

3.000 now Smiley
False. Stop thinking that there is some kind of singular entity (i.e. "the Mempool"). In other words, stop thinking that one service contains all of the unconfirmed transactions of the network in their mempool. This website (e.g.) shows over 15 000 in their mempool (my node is between 15 and 20k right now).

That said, it surely has cleared up nicely now.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 26, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
At least now we have less than 5.000 unconfirmed transactions, this week show to you all an alert even so it's more fast than others transfer methods even with a big chaos.

3.000 now Smiley
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
November 26, 2016, 08:13:43 PM
All that drama, its "just" 60-70k on my node, we hit 80k last month ~10/27. Bitcoin with 1 MB blocksize and no further additions like e.g. SegWit will be unable to handle the demand from time to time. Get ready to pay even higher fees or learn to be patient. (Bitcoin) Black Friday and Christmas are coming, this is just a hint at what will come soon.
If there is consistently demand for >1.01 MB worth of transactions every 10 minutes, then users will either pay enough to get their transaction confirmed within ~1 block or their transaction will likely not get confirmed at all, as the required fee to get a transaction of a particular size will be increasing.

increase the blocksize. duhhhhhhhhh.  idiots

I have yet to see it proved that it does actually have anything to do with the block size and not miners deliberately postponing confirmations, for whatever reason. Whoever is going to challenge that point, you know what to do. Basically, you should provide a list of the blocks mined since about time this congestion started with their respective sizes. The list is not going to be long, there are only 144 new blocks mined daily on average, and we will easily see who is right and who is not...

Anyone willing to compile such a list?
It is in the miners' best interests to confirm transactions that pay the largest fee on a per unit of size basis. In other words, a miner will confirm transactions in their found blocks that maximize their total block reward.

I think it is generally fair to say that blocks have been generally full as of recently.

No one other than cultist bitcoiners will ever download the entire Blockchain. Hell, even I won't ever do it again. I lost my copy of the entire chain a little over a year ago, waited two days for it to never catch up and quit. I'm an SPV kind of guy forever after that. Pruning mode in the new clients is a joke and if you want to revert to a full node you need to redownload the whole thing again.

What are you going to do about laptop people? Over half of the people I know only own a laptop, believing it stupid to have both a desktop and a laptop when the laptop does everything they want to do. Most, if not all, of these "laptopers" have less than a 500gb SSD drive. Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Really big blocks - when is that happening again?

Not that I argue with your logic, downloading the blockchain is a painful process for many people and they will use SPV clients. However, Bitcoin is primarily used precisely because people can't use ApplePay or a credit/debit card. Not always because they need to buy something illegal with Bitcoins. Many use cases are areas like gambling that can't be funded with a credit card but these areas are only illegal in the eye of police states. These people are willing to take some pain to learn Bitcoin and download the blockchain. But yeah, given that Bitcoin is a pilot project of cryptocurrency and competition tirelessly working on more manageable and flexible alternative designs, the current status quo of Bitcoin is not going to be forever.
The reason why I like to use Bitcoin is because using Bitcoin is cheaper then using a credit card. The ~$0.20 transaction fees necessary to get a transaction confirmed may not be enough to make using a credit card more economical, however if Bitcoin transaction fees rise enough, then using Bitcoin will no longer be cheaper then a credit card.

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Right now we have 250k transactions processed daily, increasing that by 100k times will give us a figure around 25 billion transactions daily. If we divide this figure by the total number of humans currently living (about 7.5 billion), we will get only 3 transactions per person daily. Some people may make dozens of transactions on a daily basis, some only maybe a few a week, but on average we should get quite close to that number (perhaps, it should be somewhat greater than that). And note that I'm not counting business transactions altogether. Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure
Why do you think that each of the 7.5 billion people on the planet will suddenly start using Bitcoin? Adoption (and in turn transaction growth) is not going to explode overnight, but will rather grow over time.

As transaction growth (and in turn the necessary -- and actual -- block size, and the blockchain size) increases, hopefully the capacity of various technologies necessary to run a full node will increase, and the unit cost of such technologies will hopefully decrease. Based on history, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3079
November 26, 2016, 07:45:16 PM
It's not about targeting dial-up users, it's about targeting the majority of users. Who do not even have 10 Mbit/s. C'mon, you can do better than this.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
November 26, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: jbreher
Quote from: Carlton Banks
The Bitcoin entire blockchain is nearly 100GB today. That's totally unfeasible for anything less than a 10 Mbit/s + connection.
Less than 28 hours to move that entire database over that limited link. Cry me a river.

Uh, yeah. You're agreeing with me: that double-digit Mbit/s is a rough minimum, below which most people will be put off from trying. And that minimum increases 1MB every ten minutes.

Tell us again about how you want the minimum internet connection to d/l the blockchain to start increasing at 16x times that rate, lol Cheesy

You have no point to be made. Shooting for "the minimum internet connection" is stupidity. The minimum internet connection of which I am aware was unable to download last year's blockchain. All things being equal, more nodes are good. However, stifling adoption of bitcoin is not worth catering to the lowest common bandwidth denominator - who won't run nodes anyway.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3079
November 26, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
The Bitcoin entire blockchain is nearly 100GB today. That's totally unfeasible for anything less than a 10 Mbit/s + connection.
Less than 28 hours to move that entire database over that limited link. Cry me a river.

Uh, yeah. You're agreeing with me: that double-digit Mbit/s is a rough minimum, below which most people will be put off from trying. And that minimum increases 1MB every ten minutes.

Tell us again about how you want the minimum internet connection to d/l the blockchain to start increasing at 16x times that rate, lol Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
November 26, 2016, 07:22:16 PM
jbreher, why then are you promoting an alternate Bitcoin project that today's technology can't deal with? Why are you pushing in a direction that literally could never deal with mainstream adoption before it arrives? You can't have it both ways.

Carlton Banks, I am not. I am pushing BU. Which has an adaptive maxblocksize as an emergent property of the system.

We do not yet know the rate of adoption in the future. For such is unknowable. But with maxblocksize set by the needs of the system itself, it allows us to deal with adoption as it occurs. It frees the system from waiting on core devs to push out a measly 1.8x capacity  - which experience hath shewn requires a calendar year of effort on their part -- even after starting years late.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 502
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
November 26, 2016, 07:11:23 PM
Might be because we reached the maximum btc users now it's time to move on?

Good one. Nothing like a good spam attack to get the FUDsters and big blockers going again. Bitcoin, once again, performs beautifully. And still, we're paying pathetically low fees. Why the hell are miners going to secure the network in the future with such piss-poor fee revenue? Perhaps we should be discussing lowering the block size...
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
November 26, 2016, 07:10:27 PM
Quote from: jbreher
A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

The Bitcoin entire blockchain is nearly 100GB today. That's totally unfeasible for anything less than a 10 Mbit/s + connection.

Less than 28 hours to move that entire database over that limited link. Cry me a river.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3079
November 26, 2016, 07:08:47 PM
jbreher, why then are you promoting an alternate Bitcoin project that today's technology can't deal with? Why are you pushing in a direction that literally could never deal with mainstream adoption before it arrives? You can't have it both ways.
full member
Activity: 298
Merit: 100
November 26, 2016, 07:07:20 PM
Wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans now

Are the miners sleeping? LOL

there's millions of unconfirmed transactions. when your node drops unconfirmed transactions from the mempool, they don't cease to exist. they can be re-broadcast. and otherwise they can still simply float around the network.

nothing to see here. competition for block space and higher fees as we head into a low-subsidy future = a good thing.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
November 26, 2016, 07:04:03 PM
I'm not sure why you guys are now speculating of a future in which a 100k increase of the block size limit is possible. You are not factoring in computational limits into this.

Bullshit. You must be young and yet to acquire wisdom. I've seen processing power and storage do 100,000X in my lifetime. If we are to grow to Visa scale, we need only do it slightly ahead of adoption. The right way to do this is not to choke off adoption with artificial limits, but rather to increase any such limits so they stay above the rate of adoption.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
November 26, 2016, 06:59:48 PM
100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Pages:
Jump to: