Quote from: shorena on November 30, 2015, 07:57:48 PM

Quote from: meono on November 30, 2015, 07:46:25 PM

Quote from: Lauda on November 30, 2015, 07:10:39 PM

How about you stop being cheap and start including a higher fee? I've had no problems transacting ever (IIRC). I add a pretty high fee and it ends up usually confirming within the next block. Another factor to consider is the priority of your coins on your addresses (could be e.g. low). If you combine a lower fee with that it could explain your situation in general.
-snip-

How about you got a fucking clue b4 openning your mouth like an idiot?

Its true though, most issues due to attacks (spam TX, OP spam) are solved by paying a higher fee.

Quote from: meono on November 30, 2015, 07:46:25 PM

Cheap is a relative term. Unless you're too narrow minded to see bitcoin needs to work for many other countries beside USA.

Currently bitcoin tx fees are artificially driven thanks to artificially blocksize limit. This is like having ISP cartels dictates your Netflix expense.

Your metaphor is bad. The blocksize limit was put in place in fear of spam. So its like Netflix allowing only X movies or episodes to be watched at a time over all users because they are afraid their servers cant handle the load, which might crash the service and affect all users. Im pretty sure Netflix has these limits put in place, but because its a central service its easy for them to increase the limits (more servers, more bandwith). Bitcoin handled the spam very well, the question is whether there will be enough people running nodes if the blocksize is increased too high and if there are actually bigger blocks despite a higher limite because miners are afraid of orphans. There are possible solutions. Rushing to the first best is not a good idea though.

Quote from: spud21 on November 30, 2015, 07:53:20 PM

Quote from: Alley on November 30, 2015, 07:19:18 PM

Alot of blocks are full now. Hopefully the blocksize gets increased sooner rather then later.

Not all of them are full out of the last six blocks.

Height   Age   Transactions   Total Sent   Relayed By   Size (kB)
386078   21 minutes   284   1,337.94 BTC   F2Pool   976.54
386077   22 minutes   1808   36,261.60 BTC   BitFury   971.84
386076   30 minutes   1720   31,228.98 BTC   BitFury   968.77
386075   49 minutes   1450   49,481.13 BTC   AntPool   912.46
386074   1 hour 0 minutes   2232   34,151.33 BTC   KnCMiner   912.66
386073   1 hour 12 minutes   2   25.26 BTC   BTCC Pool   0.42

The last block by BTCC Pool was 0.42 kB in size compared to over 900 kB for all the other five blocks. BTCC Pool could help alleviate this attack on the network by including its fair share of transactions in its blocks.

...because BTCC found the block 386072 as well within the same minute. They flush their mempool once they found a block AFAIK.

Blocksize limit does not prevent spam or reduce spam any more effective than having rules enforced by nodes. This has been covered many times. I get sick of seeing this same false BS feed by Blockstream folks.