The NYA signers have greatly overestimated their importance. They do not speak for me. My node is running 0.15 and that’s the only decision that matters. Join me

Nodes are the validators, miners moving off the network only have the power to temporarily adjust the block time. If we keep our nodes on the network with true innovation and development of applied cryptography (MAST, SegWit, bridged payment channels, tumblebit, schnorr, etc) then the miner fluctuation is merely a temporary nuisance. Undoubtedly some will realize that it's dumb to run a client controlled by people and developers who are amateur at best, have nothing to contribute aside from porting code from core devs, and has an openly admitted purpose of "political compromise."

This is a problem of "industry leaders" thinking too fondly of their own importance. Bitcoin will continue to force their humbleness or ignore them. They simply cannot make the decision they think they have made for us. Being their important selves, they have "solved" our scaling problem and only need the political power and influence to make sure this is easy to do again in the future. That arrogance, desire to control, and political nonsense is the very thing bitcoin is designed to resist.

I've got a full node, and it's staying this time because I didn't fully appreciate how critical it was to keep one running. The NYA "agreement" by a few companies who think they speak for me has made me realize. So I'm not running 2X hardfork on my node. Regardless of whether the entire network splits and does something else. I'm following the developers who know their shit and are actually killing it with new cryptographic applications and brilliant security, thorough testing and implementation, and breakthrough innovations. And I can run that network all by myself if I have to.

Join me. Start up a node. 0.15 is much faster at initial sync and operation. Stake a claim with who you want your developers to be.

TL;DR I didn't sign the NYA. They don't have the authority to speak on my behalf. My node will never run 2X and that's all that matters.

submitted by /u/Cryptoconomy
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

Mempool filled with 14KB transactions, tons of inputs, 0.15 mBTC fee

With the blockchain experiencing extremely high transaction volumes (most blocks at the 1MB size limit), I am interested in studying the “backlog” of transactions in the memory pool on my own full node. In order to make such an analysis meaningful, I want only “honest” transactions in my mempool (loosely defined as: transactions that should be mined someday).

I’ve tried adjusting minrelaytxfee to 0.0001, but I find that TONS of “unqualified” transactions build up in my mempool. Here is a representative transaction: effec9299f18314a7a13e525a7bdbaa9316be9d9cac9d082078ae325fff30500

That transaction is 14,799 bytes (100+ infinitesimal inputs) with a fee of 0.15 mBTC. At the risk of stating the obvious, that transaction should NOT pass a minrelaytxfee of 0.1 mBTC/KB. My mempool collects ~1000 transaction per day that are VERY similar to the one cited above.

Also at the risk of stating the obvious, these transactions are NEVER mined.

QUESTION #1: how do these transactions “fool” the minrelaytxfee test?

QUESTION #2: is there a better mechanism for filtering out such transactions?

QUESTION #4: might these transactions originate on “my” SPV clients?

QUESTION #3: are these transactions SPAM or something else?

Thanks for the insight.

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange