8 ms·

Another all time high (or so): Over 100k transactions in mempool (waiting to be confirmed) https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/all.html https://jochen-hoenicke.d

Another all time high (or so): Over 100k transactions in mempool (waiting to be confirmed) https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/all.html https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/all.html

colordrops 10y ago
I wonder how many people are aware of the ongoing and raging battle between big blockers who want a hard fork to upgrade block size, and small blockers, who want a soft fork that adds functionality to make side chains feasible. I am strongly biased for one of these, but won't say which to avoid being attacked. Awaiting the propaganda wave in response to my comment...
- mchristen 10y ago
  Doubtful, the crew at r/bitcoin do a great job of stifling any opposing discussion and sadly r/bitcoin is way more popular then r/btc. One could be a regular visitor to r/bitcoin and have no clue that there is a huge political battle going on amongst the users, miners and developers.
  - adrianpike 10y ago
    > One could be a regular visitor to r/bitcoin and have no clue that there is a huge political battle going on amongst the users, miners and developers. True story, I'm one of those visitors. Off to go read up on some stuff, apparently.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
    If there's nothing else you can agree on in the Blocksize debate, the censorship in that subreddit is reprehensible.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      It's strange that reddit would enable that kind of activity. Are moderation logs not public? Makes me wonder what other communities are oblivious to moderators influence.
      - colordrops 10y ago
        You must not be a heavy user of reddit. Nearly the entire site is compromised, both by mods and admins. And even without that, subreddits are created and defined by users, and thus free to set whatever explicit and implicit rules they wish.
        wapz 10y ago
        Yup. Particularly /r/ama is a prime example of being compromised by admins.
        bhaak 10y ago
        Care to elaborate?
        wapz 10y ago
        A lot is from rumors but since around the time they moved all the staff to SF, users 'reported' many of the "high-profile" AMAs to be paid. There was also a lot of speculation of vote manipulation by mods/admins. I didn't dig too deep so the above was mostly speculation (not from me).
        skipants 10y ago
        You mean /r/iama? /r/ama is the casual, non-celebrity one.
        wapz 10y ago
        Whoops yup! You are right!
  - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
    /r/bitcoin was being brigaded by a person (Roger Ver) with a personal vendetta against the moderator of /r/bitcoin, and pays people to do it. The moderation policies are there for anyone to see, and if you feel like you don't have an outlet for your theories there, there are plenty of other outlets for you elsewhere. What seems to be mostly adolescents continually scream 'censorship' without knowing the meaning of the word. Without that moderation, you get the cesspool funded by Roger Ver. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fantastic_T 10y ago
      I was one of the first people to join /r/bitcoin, and was banned years later, after the block size debate started, for being on the large block side.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - bmelton 10y ago
      > What seems to be mostly adolescents continually scream 'censorship' without knowing the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word, according to Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. If members of a subreddit are engaging in the suppression of ideas they consider objectionable, that is censorship. Smart people understand that there is no actionable defense against such censorship, but lacking an actionable defense doesn't diminish its status as censorship to something lesser. Similarly, it's still censorship whether done by the government, reddit, or Bob's Corner Bakery.
- Jenya_ 10y ago
  the final decision will be made by miners anyway
- wmf 10y ago
  I also enjoy block size drama, but I'm not sure it effects the speculators one way or the other; many of them have probably never created a single on-chain transaction.
- haakon 10y ago
  Here's your "propaganda". The segwit softfork may fix some things that make side chains more feasible, but that undersells it severely. It mainly solves a bug in bitcoin that prevents a good implementation of Lightning Network (which is not a side chain), and it also upgrades on-chain transaction capacity by doubling it, while solving another bug in Bitcoin (quadratic scaling of sigops) which make such a capacity increase safer. More information here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
  - codys 10y ago
    The concept of segwit is fine. The problem is that the implementation of it as a soft fork is questionable, and trying to position it as a capacity increase is even more questionable.
    - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
      Only people who really don't understand how bitcoin works are pushing for a hard-fork over a soft-fork.
      - mchristen 10y ago
        https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.hlo5gb230 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050... Mike Hearn would disagree with you, and he knows a lot about how Bitcoin works.
        Frogolocalypse 10y ago
        The same Mike Hearn that referred to bitcoin as the failed experiment? https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-has-failed-40a31b7ea891#.hxoswbawj https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-ha... The same Mike Hearn that recently announced the failure of his R3CEV venture to deliver a blockchain solution for banking? https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 The same Mike Hearn that tried and failed to push through a fork of the bitcoin network called Bitcoin XT that allowed for a personally controlled black-list? https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist... Yeah. That guy. He has an agenda, and it hasn't been aligned with bitcoin for quite some time.
- out_of_protocol 10y ago
  Saddest part: the community is super-toxic now (and looks like it was intentional). There are no way to discuss anything that makes sense.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 6nf 10y ago
  Segwit only doubles the transaction capacity, and then you are stuck again. Letting miners decide when to increase block size is a long term solution. Segwit is not.
  - schmichael 10y ago
    Why would miners want larger block sizes? Don't small block sizes increase their fee revenue?
    - zik 10y ago
      The utility of bitcoin is damaged by the limited maximum transaction rate. It's no help to miners if bitcoin is replaced by another cryptocurrency, which is looking more plausible now than it ever has. In the end they could be collecting fees off a lot more transactions if the block size was larger anyway.
      - schmichael 10y ago
        Is it possible a majority of miners sell their block rewards immediately and have little investment in the long term success of Bitcoin? I know they have hardware investments to recoup, so I'm sure there are many sensitive variables in their financial equations. If their hardware is viable for an altcoin then it seems like increasing the Bitcoin block size would not be in their best interest. Why not maximize shortterm Bitcoin profits and hedge long term profits with altcoins?
        6nf 10y ago
        All major miners have spent loads of money purchasing mining hardware, and they all need to run that hardware for a long time just to break even. Higher future Bitcoin prices is critical to their ROI.
        codingmyway 10y ago
        Asics can't be redirected to different alt coins that have a different proof of work. They will run to recoup the costs. That is why bitcoin will be more secure even if prices and transactions drop from a move to an alt. Miners are playing a game of chicken to milk the fees while hoping users don't swerve to another chain.
- kobeya 10y ago
  The battle is over, and not newsworthy outside of small vacal subreddits that statistically few people read.
  - leadingthenet 10y ago
    Oh really? Who won then? Because the way I see it, both SegWit and BU are under 30% activated, and the most plausible future is the status quo.
TD-Linux 10y ago
There is no global mempool, it's a per-node thing. I think the default for Bitcoin Core is to hold 300MB of transactions, which means for most nodes the number of transactions in the mempool is constant. A better metric is transaction fees. Here's an example site: https://bitcoinfees.info/ https://bitcoinfees.info/
- kobeya 10y ago
  Although that is unfortunately currently being broken by a spam attack.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Frogolocalypse 10y ago
A full mempool is by design. Without it, bitcoin can be used as a permanent secure distributed file storage system with massive redundancy. Thanks... I'd prefer to keep it as a non-censorable store of value.

Another all time high (or so): Over 100k transactions in mempool (waiting to be confirmed) https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/all.html https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/all.html

colordrops 10y ago

I wonder how many people are aware of the ongoing and raging battle between big blockers who want a hard fork to upgrade block size, and small blockers, who want a soft fork that adds functionality to make side chains feasible. I am strongly biased for one of these, but won't say which to avoid being attacked. Awaiting the propaganda wave in response to my comment...

mchristen 10y ago
Doubtful, the crew at r/bitcoin do a great job of stifling any opposing discussion and sadly r/bitcoin is way more popular then r/btc. One could be a regular visitor to r/bitcoin and have no clue that there is a huge political battle going on amongst the users, miners and developers.
- adrianpike 10y ago
  > One could be a regular visitor to r/bitcoin and have no clue that there is a huge political battle going on amongst the users, miners and developers. True story, I'm one of those visitors. Off to go read up on some stuff, apparently.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  If there's nothing else you can agree on in the Blocksize debate, the censorship in that subreddit is reprehensible.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    It's strange that reddit would enable that kind of activity. Are moderation logs not public? Makes me wonder what other communities are oblivious to moderators influence.
    - colordrops 10y ago
      You must not be a heavy user of reddit. Nearly the entire site is compromised, both by mods and admins. And even without that, subreddits are created and defined by users, and thus free to set whatever explicit and implicit rules they wish.
      - wapz 10y ago
        Yup. Particularly /r/ama is a prime example of being compromised by admins.
        bhaak 10y ago
        Care to elaborate?
        wapz 10y ago
        A lot is from rumors but since around the time they moved all the staff to SF, users 'reported' many of the "high-profile" AMAs to be paid. There was also a lot of speculation of vote manipulation by mods/admins. I didn't dig too deep so the above was mostly speculation (not from me).
        skipants 10y ago
        You mean /r/iama? /r/ama is the casual, non-celebrity one.
        wapz 10y ago
        Whoops yup! You are right!
- Frogolocalypse 10y ago
  /r/bitcoin was being brigaded by a person (Roger Ver) with a personal vendetta against the moderator of /r/bitcoin, and pays people to do it. The moderation policies are there for anyone to see, and if you feel like you don't have an outlet for your theories there, there are plenty of other outlets for you elsewhere. What seems to be mostly adolescents continually scream 'censorship' without knowing the meaning of the word. Without that moderation, you get the cesspool funded by Roger Ver. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fantastic_T 10y ago
    I was one of the first people to join /r/bitcoin, and was banned years later, after the block size debate started, for being on the large block side.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - bmelton 10y ago
    > What seems to be mostly adolescents continually scream 'censorship' without knowing the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word, according to Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. If members of a subreddit are engaging in the suppression of ideas they consider objectionable, that is censorship. Smart people understand that there is no actionable defense against such censorship, but lacking an actionable defense doesn't diminish its status as censorship to something lesser. Similarly, it's still censorship whether done by the government, reddit, or Bob's Corner Bakery.
Jenya_ 10y ago
the final decision will be made by miners anyway
wmf 10y ago
I also enjoy block size drama, but I'm not sure it effects the speculators one way or the other; many of them have probably never created a single on-chain transaction.
haakon 10y ago
Here's your "propaganda". The segwit softfork may fix some things that make side chains more feasible, but that undersells it severely. It mainly solves a bug in bitcoin that prevents a good implementation of Lightning Network (which is not a side chain), and it also upgrades on-chain transaction capacity by doubling it, while solving another bug in Bitcoin (quadratic scaling of sigops) which make such a capacity increase safer. More information here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
- codys 10y ago
  The concept of segwit is fine. The problem is that the implementation of it as a soft fork is questionable, and trying to position it as a capacity increase is even more questionable.
  - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
    Only people who really don't understand how bitcoin works are pushing for a hard-fork over a soft-fork.
    - mchristen 10y ago
      https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.hlo5gb230 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050... Mike Hearn would disagree with you, and he knows a lot about how Bitcoin works.
      - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
        The same Mike Hearn that referred to bitcoin as the failed experiment? https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-has-failed-40a31b7ea891#.hxoswbawj https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-ha... The same Mike Hearn that recently announced the failure of his R3CEV venture to deliver a blockchain solution for banking? https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 The same Mike Hearn that tried and failed to push through a fork of the bitcoin network called Bitcoin XT that allowed for a personally controlled black-list? https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist... Yeah. That guy. He has an agenda, and it hasn't been aligned with bitcoin for quite some time.
out_of_protocol 10y ago
Saddest part: the community is super-toxic now (and looks like it was intentional). There are no way to discuss anything that makes sense.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
6nf 10y ago
Segwit only doubles the transaction capacity, and then you are stuck again. Letting miners decide when to increase block size is a long term solution. Segwit is not.
- schmichael 10y ago
  Why would miners want larger block sizes? Don't small block sizes increase their fee revenue?
  - zik 10y ago
    The utility of bitcoin is damaged by the limited maximum transaction rate. It's no help to miners if bitcoin is replaced by another cryptocurrency, which is looking more plausible now than it ever has. In the end they could be collecting fees off a lot more transactions if the block size was larger anyway.
    - schmichael 10y ago
      Is it possible a majority of miners sell their block rewards immediately and have little investment in the long term success of Bitcoin? I know they have hardware investments to recoup, so I'm sure there are many sensitive variables in their financial equations. If their hardware is viable for an altcoin then it seems like increasing the Bitcoin block size would not be in their best interest. Why not maximize shortterm Bitcoin profits and hedge long term profits with altcoins?
      - 6nf 10y ago
        All major miners have spent loads of money purchasing mining hardware, and they all need to run that hardware for a long time just to break even. Higher future Bitcoin prices is critical to their ROI.
      - codingmyway 10y ago
        Asics can't be redirected to different alt coins that have a different proof of work. They will run to recoup the costs. That is why bitcoin will be more secure even if prices and transactions drop from a move to an alt. Miners are playing a game of chicken to milk the fees while hoping users don't swerve to another chain.
kobeya 10y ago
The battle is over, and not newsworthy outside of small vacal subreddits that statistically few people read.
- leadingthenet 10y ago
  Oh really? Who won then? Because the way I see it, both SegWit and BU are under 30% activated, and the most plausible future is the status quo.

TD-Linux 10y ago

There is no global mempool, it's a per-node thing. I think the default for Bitcoin Core is to hold 300MB of transactions, which means for most nodes the number of transactions in the mempool is constant. A better metric is transaction fees. Here's an example site: https://bitcoinfees.info/ https://bitcoinfees.info/

kobeya 10y ago
Although that is unfortunately currently being broken by a spam attack.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Frogolocalypse 10y ago

A full mempool is by design. Without it, bitcoin can be used as a permanent secure distributed file storage system with massive redundancy. Thanks... I'd prefer to keep it as a non-censorable store of value.