Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 9. (Read 13790 times)

@jubalix

https://hblok.net/storage_data/storage_memory_prices_large-_hblok.net_.png

2008.00 Jan18  NewEgg.com  ADATA  16GB Flash  74.98$
2016.58 Aug22  NewEgg.com  SanDisk  128GB Flash  25.99$

There is no fix and the miners can not do anything. They are not in control of the network.

Wrong. Please educate yourself before spreading such nonsense. First of all, that "20x or more" is an arbitrary number unless a source is provided. Secondly, there are plenty of factors that need to be included (not just storage space).
1) Computational power (validation time).
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates, et. al.

In addition to that, with sighash operations currently having having exponential time, there is a DOS attack vector present even at 2 MB blocks.

...ithink its tiime btc went to a 10mb block size, HD space is what 20 x or more than 2009 for the same price

satoshi had it at 33mb

it probally time satoshi made some sort of proclamation to sort this mess out.

The miners better start to fix this problem. They are the ones with expensive equipment that will be worthless if the bitcoin price drops due to this issue

BTC Transactions Congestion Problems   

Simulation Example
each block has 1 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 4200 transactions per block with a 10 minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes
6 Blocks * 4200 Transactions =  25200 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

BTC Transactions Congestion Solutions   

Simulation Example Updated with Larger BlockSize and Shorter BlockSpeed
each block has 2 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 8400 transactions per block with a 2½ minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes

24 Blocks * 8400 Transactions = 201600 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

Compare Updated Simulation with Original
201600 / 25200  = 8
Updated Version can handle 8X the Transaction Capacity. 

Now the educated asshats that live in these forums will tell you it can't work or it is a security risk, (They are Lying!)
Real World Examples.
PoW coin LTC has a 2½ minute block time with no problems whatsoever from it.
In Fact Chinese Mining Pools are over 51% of the BTC Hash rate , and are also over 51% of the LTC Hashrate.
In Facts some alts run at a 30 second blockspeed.
Oh, they also will complain, it will affect the Block Reward and Halving Dates,
(All of that are Variables that can be modified to compensate for the changes)

If they lower the Blockspeed,
then they will have to increase the Final Supply Number of Bitcoins or allow it to get to the Final Supply Number 4X faster than it would have.

If they only increase the BlockSize ,
then the Block rewards and halving dates are not affected, and will not need modification.
But Transactions grow will be directly proportional to the increase in BlockSize.
IE: 2 MB Block only Double the Transaction Capacity
     8 MB Blocks would increase by 8X also   

 

Nope... all you need to know is simple addition/subtraction and basic knowledge of computers/browsers. If you are using the Blockchain.info wallet, it will automatically set the transaction fee according to your transaction size. You don't have to worry about anything.

 

Seriously ,
If they fix BTC transactions problems then Great , if not, then not really my problem, I am mainly into Alts anyway.
As far as SegWit, no anti here, LN won't work without.
My main point is the transaction congestion can easily be fixed by increasing block size or decreasing blockspeed, and the people that say that won't work are Lying.
Now once that has been done, yes SegWit & LN will be needed if you want to compete with Visa, but if BTC transactions issues are not fixed, LN will crash.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127

What you call trolling , I call an Honest Opinion.  

How many trolls actually tell you the solution to the problem so it can be fixed?  
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475
Either or Both
http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/

 

The same applies for any financial system. Try doing a bank transfer without including the necessary fee and see what happens. In other words, you can't.

Yes bitcoin must come with slogan:
ONLY FOR PROS.NOT FOR INCOMPETENT OR NEW USERS.

Wrong. 0.0002 BTC is equal to 20000 satoshis. For a transaction of the media size (226 bytes) that is still under the recommended, as it is 88.49 bytes/satoshis. That said, due to the incompetence of most users they are likely creating unnecessarily large transactions which require even bigger fees than that. A fixed fee does not guarantee anything. Including a fee of 0.0004 may be inadequate. It has to be measured in satoshis/byte.

In the website which you had posted above, the following information is given:


That means that transactions which paid at least BTC0.0002 in fee are getting confirmed without much delay (provided that their size is more or less equal to the median transaction size). The delay is mostly happening to those who paid a lower tx fee.

you should also take a look at the size of the transactions in total aka mempool size.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

because the restrictive factor is not the "number of transactions" but the size of them because of the 1 MB limit of blocks.


don't pay much attention to that topic, it was a bad joke from someone who was advertising an altcoin.

I think more than 30.000 unconfirmed transaction, just for today about 40.000 unconfirmed transaction http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/11/23/spamming-continues-on-bitcoin-network-delays-transactions/ and it is more growing up, it is bad spamming on bitcoin network, i think the miners are still mining with sleeply.  

I am also heavily active in the altcoin world. I also hope that my few altcoins will become much more valuable.
But it's a big difference in math. I hope that Bitcoin will continue to grow and my altcoins to also grow vs Bitcoin.
So my math tells: if Bitcoin reaches $2000 and [insert altcoin name here] reaches 0.1BTC I am a happy hippo already.

There's no point trolling Bitcoin. Although slower than I'd wish, Bitcoin evolves and all the altcoins with "Bitcoin" in the name (under pretexts that they are the evolution Bitcoin needs) are only silly attempts to gain marketing, not thinking that they lose more than they gain with that.


I thought that my bank is good. Yours is even better!
(In my case though I have to get over a certain amount of money in that account each month, else I have to start paying for their services.)

Just Bitcoin is asset, not money. If you think like that the comparison with banks don't hold so well anymore (imho) and then you can also understand that the transactions are better safe than super fast.
(If you want super fast you either pay a fat fee, either turn to faster coins).


I wish to see a service/website that tells which sites / services have the bigger percents of transactions.
I somehow tend to believe that on-chain gambling is too expensive to worth it and the "normal" gambling sites should not have that many deposits and withdrawals in so small amounts of time.
But I also don't have a good explanation for this wave of transactions so my math may have a glitch somewhere...

But that depends on the fee you're going to send. For example if I'm going to send a transaction of 0.05BTC with 10k satoshis fee, it's going to get confirmed after a pretty long time (about one day). You have to be careful, if you need to pay something pretty fast then you will want to use the fee recommended by your wallet.

i Sent funds from Cryptopia & Bittrex to Poloniex. Got 2 Confirmations within 10 minutes of transaction...

The situation is worsening. Yesterday the number was around 32,000. Now it is close to 58,000. Just 1,816 transactions got confirmed in Block no.440322 (ViaBTC).

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

There is no point in requesting the users to hold back their transactions. Because most of the transactions are from margin traders and gamblers.

fee of bank (per month)? None
fee of mastercard/visa circuit? None
fee of the POS leasing (per month)? Don't know what it is
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank)? None

I get a 5% cashback for all supermarket purchases made with the debit card issued by the bank that I use, and 1% for all other purchases (up to a certain limit which I never come close to). All wire transfers are free of charge (with no limits), all card-to-card transfers are also free of charge (though the total amount is limited per month)...

Obviously, not all banks are born equal

*Current usage*? Not really. The combination used in the attack is actually quite smart:
1) Use a good amount of quantity and slowly increase over the course of 2 days.
2) Use unusually large transactions with a lot of input scripts. These transactions tend to be larger e.g. 1kb. The effect that this does is that miners tend to mine more blocks with less transactions (1k or lower). As a result the ever growing backlog becomes much worse than it is.

---

You can see some dormant addresses that suddenly created over 1 thousand (multisignature transactions) over the course of 2 days each.

You should not look at only one block to make any definitive conclusion (as to whether the miners are actually doing everything they can). I can just as well say that some miners are doing the best what they can while the rest of them (which are in majority, by the way) are doing essentially nothing. In short, it is only around 144 new blocks found daily, so could anyone post exact data as to the actual sizes of the blocks mined for the last two days (or since when the jam has started)?

That would most likely close this question