Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 5. (Read 13790 times)

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "we need to be like visa today"
seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "7billion people using bitcoin today"

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "bitcoin cannot cope with it today"

so lets be rational.
the 4mb BLOAT size increase has no correlation to transaction capacity increase.
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)

so sticking with bitcoins peer-to-peer permission-less ethos. rationally, segwit is only offering a ONE TIME 1.8x capacity 'side effect boost'.
it a one time event. so 'scaling' is not a buzzword that sits beside one time event.

LN should not be the compulsory solution to capacity 'scaling', to attain a higher (2.1mb+(2.1x)) capacity. LN just remain a side SERVICE that is an open choice.

now thats the short term mindset everyone should have.

---

as for the future.

at 1.8mb (1.8x capacity) side effect of segwit.. the other 2.2mb BLOAT size buffer (bringing total weight to 4mb) should not be wasted on arbitrary data and features that do not enhance capacity. (such as confidential payments)
we need to stick to lean clean transactions.

afterall bitcoin is a financial system, not a store of arbitrary data.

so concentrating on future TRANSACTION CAPACITY (not bloat). bitcoin CAN dynamically grow, naturally over years.

which is where a 2mb base 4mb weight. still falls within cores happy numbers of bloat, but allows less arbitrary data to keep the blockchain lean and clean and concentrating on transaction capacity

as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to jump to 100gb blocks today
as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to hold it back at low limits today

---

bitcoin does not have 7.5billion users now. bitcoin will never have 7.5billion users.
the fee war alone is pricing out over 1 billion people as it is, so cool down on the whole 'one world currency utopia'. and think rationally
 

First of all, I don't think that we are ever going to get there, i.e. to 100Gb blocks, lol. As I said it a few times already (though not in this thread, thus you might have missed that), without changing the blockchain paradigm (e.g. from a flat blockchain to a multilayered blockchain), Bitcoin is pretty much doomed, and what is most scaring, we might be already in or quickly approaching this final stage. Having said that, I'm inclined to think that the very existence of specialized hardware designed specifically for mining Bitcoin proves my point. So, yes, someone would have attempted to design such processing units, to get a competitive edge over the rest of the pack, provided it could ever come to that in the first place...

And such units would have been designed long before confirmation of blocks became impossible without them

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

So don't give me this today nonsense, you and your cadre are the only people who think that today's technology is the same as tomorrow's technology, just because you can imagine it. Stepping up to 2020's levels of resource usage is suicidal in 2016.

So you think that someone is going to attempt to invent specialized processing units for the sole purpose of running nodes? You do realize that running a node only makes you constantly lose money, so there is zero incentive to attempt a large investment for such.

You're right and two months from now the transactions will double or triple,this is something that all of us will worry and this is the best time to deal this problem,Bitcoin is indeed growing daily and people are now adopting it.

I agree with you in general that there might be a lot of other factors making such scale-ups simply impossible. Though the required capacities and speeds might still be technically achievable in the future, exploiting them would nevertheless be a terrible waste of resources, anyway. Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...

Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today


It is easiest to prove

No. 250k is very small (albeit *big* for something new like Bitcoin). In comparison, Visa does 2000 TPS on average which is over 150 Million transactions per day.

A lot of factors suggest that it was a spam attack (actually a preparatory one; the second wave will come soon).

Hopefully after few days (today) the number of unconfirmed transaction has been dropped to 6k and this is normal (even though before it was somewhere at 2k)

250k daily is really a huge amount even though bitcoin is used worldwide but I see now that the trending of making new transaction is huge and within a few seconds there are lots of transaction made (based on blockchain.info)

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. Even if storage and bandwidth were very cheap (affordable for such blocks) and everyone had connections that could support them, there are still computational limits. Validating such a chain, or syncing up to the network would be a nightmare (you would likely never be able to catch up).

The problem with increasing the block size is not only the transfer speed.

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?

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

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?

You argued for a 50% increase yearly. Segwit represents a 400% increase.


Those two statements are more or less contradicting one another, what if we could reduce the size of transactions by a factor of 10 or 100? Changing the signature scheme from ECDSA to the proposed Schnorr scheme wouldn't quite achieve that, but it's still an improvement. There could easily be other ways to reduce the size of each transaction also.

The simple fact is that on-chain scaling isn't possible for 7 billion humans, I forget the exact estimate, but we're looking at each block growing to 100 GB+ to accommodate that kind of growth. Even 1 GB blocksize is totally impractical, 1GB every 10 minutes isn't feasible for anything but the fastest fibre broadband. 100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

because you don't have a full node ... ?
Power, storage ... and Bandwidth.

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

I want to be reasonable. If we could find a way to - I don't know how - reduce the size of transactions to fit more inside a block, I'd be happy, but if we want BTC's use to increase 10-fold, then 100-fold, we will have to increase the block size, and I don't see it as a big deal. The blockchain will be more than 100 Go in a few weeks, and nobody cares. Why should I care about the block size?

I think I've now met the only person here that's a bigger troll than Frankly.

Even with more nodes online we can sometimes see unconfirmed transactions, I don't know what exactly could cause this, aren't the low fees transactions still belong to the network?
I spent from blockchain.io with their selected fee but it took almost 5 hours while it says your transaction will confirm in 30 minutes.

I didn't blame anyone, that's your preserve


And "nothing happening" and "in the works" cannot both be simultaneously true. Troll harder.

I'm not the cheer leader or the preacher trying to get mass adoption. You fix the thing. I'm not a dev, I'm a user. Most people don't blame the customer for problems with their company (and that's what Bitcoin is competing with - companies). Be careful with that attitude because companies fail and customers move on.

Nothing is happening and just it's been in the works for years doesn't mean it's close.

in Europa, every year ... we have days with NO CREDIT CARD POS working.
strangely, every time when we have rush on Christmas Sold.

strange ?
bitcoin solve this : when you emit, you have no chargeback ... and only mempool can delay this.

with credit card, you CAN NOT PAY the seller when network is OUT (on server side).

Its not hurting the price of bitcoin! So in a matter of speaking it is not a problem (yet).