Pages:
Author

Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 4. (Read 13753 times)

legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Si vis pacem, para bellum
November 26, 2016, 03:13:43 PM
Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? Roll Eyes

Let's assume that someone, or some entity, starts openly sending a huge number of transactions (on the order of many thousands) with hefty fees between just two addresses. Will miners continue to confirm these transactions when it becomes absolutely clear that exactly these transactions are causing the congestion? Or would they choose to ignore them altogether even despite the fees which might be higher than fees of most other transactions?

In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?

Miners will consume the fees gladly if two people are paying over the odds to play Ping Pong with their bitcoins....
Under the current economic law the persons who pay the most go first and I guess they will run out of money (btc)  before the miners will say no thx...

If these Bitcoin Ping Pong players also happen to be miners (or just one miner with two wallets), they might never run out of money at all. I guess that would be a working (allegedly) concept of perpetuum mobile as it can be applied to Bitcoin payments. So it all inevitably and invariably comes down to some rogue miner (a group of miners) wanting to artificially raise fees, earn money, and make it look like Black Friday...

What do you guys/gals think, is it feasible (possible)?


Its very possible that miners could be involved in this game...

Nobody will complain while he is making a few thousand dollars per hour from inflated fees....
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 26, 2016, 03:00:28 PM
Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? Roll Eyes

Let's assume that someone, or some entity, starts openly sending a huge number of transactions (on the order of many thousands) with hefty fees between just two addresses. Will miners continue to confirm these transactions when it becomes absolutely clear that exactly these transactions are causing the congestion? Or would they choose to ignore them altogether even despite the fees which might be higher than fees of most other transactions?

In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?

Miners will consume the fees gladly if two people are paying over the odds to play Ping Pong with their bitcoins....
Under the current economic law the persons who pay the most go first and I guess they will run out of money (btc)  before the miners will say no thx...

If these Bitcoin Ping Pong players also happen to be miners (or just one miner with two wallets), they might never run out of money at all. I guess that should count as a working (allegedly) concept of perpetuum mobile as it can be applied to Bitcoin payments. So it all inevitably and invariably comes down to some rogue miner (or a group of miners) wanting to artificially raise fees, earn money, and make it look like Black Friday at the end of the day...

What do you guys/gals think, is it feasible (possible)?
full member
Activity: 127
Merit: 100
November 26, 2016, 02:48:54 PM
Might be because we reached the maximum btc users now it's time to move on?
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Si vis pacem, para bellum
November 26, 2016, 02:47:58 PM
Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? Roll Eyes

Let's assume that someone, or some entity, starts openly sending a huge number of transactions (on the order of many thousands) with hefty fees between just two addresses. Will miners continue to confirm these transactions when it becomes absolutely clear that exactly these transactions are causing the congestion? Or would they choose to ignore them altogether even despite the fees which might be higher than fees of most other transactions?

In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?

Miners will consume the fees gladly if two people are paying over the odds to play Ping Pong with their bitcoins....
Under the current economic law the persons who pay the most go first and I guess they will run out of money (btc)  before the miners will say no thx...
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
November 26, 2016, 01:55:29 PM
I was also got trapped in this. I was so much tensed because the website shows that the invoice is expired but my bitcoin  transaction was confirmed only twice i was highly tensed but fortunately i had recovered somehow.
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
November 26, 2016, 01:38:56 PM
In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?
That sets a very dangerous precedence and I would be against that. However, miners are able to do that should they choose to.

much easier rule is not use fees to delay transactions
or blocking addresses

 but transaction maturity.
EG like blockreward maturity of 100 confirms

transactions cant be respent for atleast an hour and dropped out of mempool if someone tries to repeat spend in every block.
atleast it stays more inline with 'priority' than using a fee war to sort out things
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 01:31:00 PM
In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?
That sets a very dangerous precedence and I would be against that. However, miners are able to do that should they choose to.
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 26, 2016, 01:27:34 PM
Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? Roll Eyes

Let's assume that someone, or some entity, starts openly sending a huge number of transactions (on the order of many thousands) with hefty fees between just two addresses. Will miners continue to confirm these transactions when it becomes absolutely clear that exactly these transactions are causing the congestion? Or would they choose to ignore them altogether even despite the fees which might be higher than fees of most other transactions?

In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
your presuming the increase in mempool was due to...........
black friday? spam?
Switching back the topic? No, not black friday. The mempool was actually much smaller on Black Friday, so it's more likely to be spam (the spike).

have you ASKED why, RESEARCHED why, or just presumed.
Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
November 26, 2016, 12:59:49 PM
because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important
No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions.

much like this topic
your presuming the increase in mempool was due to...........
black friday? spam?

have you ASKED why, RESEARCHED why, or just presumed.
oh one more hint. you can actually get the blockchain data, get all the multisigs and analyse it and see the inputs and outputs and see correlations, patterns of usage.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 12:53:13 PM
because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important
No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
November 26, 2016, 12:51:21 PM
Shame on miners, if this type of situation happens then bitcoiners would give away using it. I can't understand is it the  end of bitcoin era or it's going to teach us a new lesson. Please miners common let's not go our hard earned money in vain.
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
November 26, 2016, 12:45:32 PM
yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios
Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong.

pretending there is no answer, is different then not asking the question. please try to atleast learn why things happen instead of relying on unknown reasons.

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 12:40:49 PM
yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios
Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
November 26, 2016, 12:39:43 PM
It's over, thanks.



Cheesy

lol Meuh, you're like the funnier version of LiteCoinGuy. Well, LiteCoinGuy is a less funny version of you! Grin
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
November 26, 2016, 12:39:02 PM
but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
-snip-
No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit.

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

im glad to see you are starting to research though, so i will atleast give you a pleasant
have a nice day
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 12:36:23 PM
but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
-snip-
No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit.
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
November 26, 2016, 12:33:18 PM
rationally segwit is only offering 1.8x capacity increase.
That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months.

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
the 2.1mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where LN (dual permissioned multisigs) channel opening and closing reign supreme
the 1.8mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where peer to peer(permission-less) reign supreme. (bitcoins ethos)

if you think LN should reign supreme, i have to remind you of something (i did warn you)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16998029
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
November 26, 2016, 12:24:17 PM
rationally segwit is only offering 1.8x capacity increase.
That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months.

It's over, thanks.
-snip-
One would expect that to happen during a date such a Black Friday, but nope. Definitely genuine transactions. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1011
November 26, 2016, 12:22:58 PM
It's over, thanks.

Pages:
Jump to: