CryptoCoinsInfoClub.com

Bitcoin Transaction Size

Weight Units - Bitcoin Wiki

Weight Units - Bitcoin Wiki

Weight units are a measurement used to compare the size of different Bitcoin transactions to each other in proportion to the consensus -enforced maximum block size limit . Weight units are also used to measure the size of other block chain data, such as block headers . As of Bitcoin Core 0.13.0 (released August 2016) [1] , each weight unit represents 1/4,000,000th of the maximum size of a block. Virtual size (vsize), also called virtual bytes (vbytes), are an alternative measurement, with one vbyte being equal to four weight units. That means the maximum block size measured in vsize is 1 million vbytes. Bitcoin was released with an implicit maximum block size limit of 32 mibibytes (32 MiB), which was the maximum allowed size of a P2P protocol block message. [2] Effective block 79,400 (7 September 2010), this became an explicit limit of 1 megabyte (1 MB). [3] In both cases, to calculate how much a transaction or other data counted towards these maximum block size limits, you simply put the data in the format used by the P2P protocol's block message and counted the bytes. The introduction of a soft-fork segregated witness (segwit) idea in late 2015 [4] meant that the transaction format could be extended with new fields that would be excluded from the historic block size limitsallowing an increase in the maximum block size. But that increase was only possible in a soft fork if the new fields contributed less towards the maximum block size than the fields in the original transaction format. Although some people complained about that being unfair [5] , many Bitcoin Protocol developers considered discounting the new fields to be advantageous. [6] [7] The new fields store witnesses, which are transaction signatures and other data necessary to authenticate the spender of certa Continue reading >>

[bitcoin-dev] Clarification About Segwit Transaction Size And Bech32

[bitcoin-dev] Clarification About Segwit Transaction Size And Bech32

[bitcoin-dev] Clarification about SegWit transaction size and bech32 mail at albertodeluigi.com mail at albertodeluigi.com Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Mark,suppose I am an average user. Give me a bech32 address and ask me to send a few coins there. I am 100% sure you will never receive my coins. I will call you back saying: "Mark, sorry, I tried with three different wallets, but it seems what you gave me is not a bitcoin address!"My point is: we want SegWit is used and implemented more and more by the community. But if besides malleability fix, the main effect of sw adoption is this:1) The blockahin is heavier (transactions require more space)2) the fee is smaller only for some kind of tx3) the transactions of the exchanges, which aggregate outputs, would be heavier and pay a higher fee using segwit!then how can we expect people, exchanges and services to adopt segwit?Thank you,Alberto De LuigiIl 2017-12-18 23:03 Mark Friedenbach ha scritto:> Why would I send you coins to anything other than the address you> provided to me? If you send me a bech32 address I use the native> segwit scripts. If you send me an old address, I do what it specifies> instead. The recipient has control over what type of script the> payment is sent to, without any ambiguity.> >> On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:41 PM, mail at albertodeluigi.com wrote:>> >> Hi Mark,>> thank you. I understand your point, but despite what we define as a >> fork, when a software uses a particular address, it becomes part of >> the rules of that software. If another software doesn't recognize that >> address as a bitcoin address, then the rules it enforces aren't >> compatible with the behaviour of the first software. If you send me >> your bitcoins, I can't receive it, exactly like if it was Continue reading >>

What Determines The Transaction Size Or Number Of Bytes? : Bitcoin

What Determines The Transaction Size Or Number Of Bytes? : Bitcoin

Do not use URL shortening services: always submit the real link. Begging/asking for bitcoins is absolutely not allowed, no matter how badly you need the bitcoins. Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy. News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. For example, /r/CryptoCurrency is a good place to discuss all cryptocurrencies. Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. Trades should usually not be advertised here. For example, submissions like "Buying 100 BTC" or "Selling my computer for bitcoins" do not belong here. /r/Bitcoin is primarily for news and discussion. Please avoid repetition /r/bitcoin is a subreddit devoted to new information and discussion about Bitcoin and its ecosystem. New merchants are welcome to announce their services for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they are no longer news and should not be re-posted. Aside from new merchant announcements, those interested in advertising to our audience should consider Reddit's self-serve advertising system . Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. Be aware that Twitter, etc. is full of impersonation. Continue reading >>

Saving Up To 80% On Bitcoin Transaction Fees By Batchingpayments

Saving Up To 80% On Bitcoin Transaction Fees By Batchingpayments

Author of various Bitcoin documentation. My opinions are my own. Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batchingpayments What if I told you that theres a way you can save more than 80% on transaction fees by compressing your Bitcoin transactions? Youd probably think I was crazy or was proposing a radical change to the Bitcoin system. But Im not. Since the earliest version of Bitcoin, it has been possible to combine multiple Bitcoin payments into a single transaction, significantly reducing overhead. In this article, well describe why payment batching works, how much it can save you, how to use it, and how much block chain space would be saved if it was used more frequently. Inputs, change outputs, and paymentoutputs Lets imagine buying lunch at a local pub. First, well pay with physical cash to see how it works and then well switch to electronic cash that is, bitcoin to see the similarities. Alice the customer has a pleasant lunch at Bobs Pub and is presented with a bill by her waiter Charlie for $10. Alice pays Bob with a twenty dollar bill and receives $10 in change. Bitcoin transactions work basically the same way. To keep the examples simple, lets imagine one bitcoin equals one dollar. Alice receives the bill for 10 BTC and starts a transaction by adding a 20 BTC input from her wallet. Then she adds two outputs: a 10 BTC output that goes to Bob and another 10 BTC output that returns the change to her own wallet. Heres what Alices serialized Bitcoin transaction looks like, with the different parts colored according to how theyre used: white for the boilerplate parts of the transaction, pink for Alices input, green for Alices change, and blue for the payment to Bob. Byte map of a P2PKH transaction with one change output and one paymentoutput And here are the Continue reading >>

Blog | Tradeblock

Blog | Tradeblock

1) Historical Transaction Type Trends: 2009-2015 Non-basic or atypical transaction types began appearing on the Bitcoin blockchain in 2013. Atypical transactions types comprised 0.03%, 1.23%, and 10.15% of the total transaction volume in 2013, 2014, and 2015 (to-date), respectively. 2) Transaction Type Trends vs. Average Transaction Size: 2014-2015 Thus far in 2015, P2SH transactions have reached as high as 15% of the daily transaction volumes; meanwhile, multisig transactions have remained under 2%, partly owing to the efficiency of P2SH over the latter. Non-standard transactions appear to coincide with recent attempts to saturate the network with spam transactions, also known as the stress tests. Note: Chart represents 30-day moving averages. The chartabove summarizes the mean and median daily transaction sizes for the five categories described. Basic bitcoin transactions with 1 input and 2 outputs are typically~250 bytes of data. P2SH and non-standard transaction categories, which together comprise 87% of atypical transactions, have average byte sizes that are 52% and 80% higher than basic transactions, respectively. 4) Blockchain Data Size vs. Transaction Volume: 2015 The somewhat muted effect of atypical transactions on the blockchain size is illustrated in the two charts above. Of note, P2SH transactions have accounted for 7% of total transactions thus far 2015, while the overall data size is disproportionately higher at 10% of the total. The use of atypical transaction scripts likely had an impact on the increasing global average transaction size; albeit, the effect is limitedgiven that such transactions comprise only 10% of the total volume. Shifting the focus back to basic transactions, the average daily size of such transactions was 566 bytes in 2015, per Fig Continue reading >>

Satoshis Best Kept Secret: Why Is There A 1 Mb Limit To Bitcoin Block Size

Satoshis Best Kept Secret: Why Is There A 1 Mb Limit To Bitcoin Block Size

Satoshis Best Kept Secret: Why is There a 1 MB Limit to Bitcoin Block Size Bitcoins scaling crisis was one of several things Satoshi and earlier Bitcoiners never anticipated. Heres how that 1 MB blocksize limit got put there. Anybody familiar with Bitcoin is aware of the vexing problem caused by the 1 MB blocksize limit and the controversy that arose over how to scale the network. Its probably worthwhile to look back on how that limit came to exist, in hopes that future crises can be averted by a solid understanding of the past . In 2010, when the blocksize limit was introduced, Bitcoin was radically different than today. Theymos, administrator of both the Bitcointalk forum and /r/bitcoin subreddit, said, among other things : "No one anticipated pool mining, so we considered all miners to be full nodes and almost all full nodes to be miners. I didn't anticipate ASICs, which cause too much mining centralization. SPV is weaker than I thought. In reality, without the vast majority of the economy running full nodes, miners have every incentive to collude to break the network's rules in their favor. The fee market doesn't actually work as I described and as Satoshi intended for economic reasons that take a few paragraphs to explain." It seems that late in 2010, Satoshi realized there had to be a maximum block size, otherwise some miners might produce bigger blocks than other miners were willing to accept, and the chain could split. Therefore, Satoshi inserted a 1 MB limit into the code. Yes, Satoshi kept this change a secret until the patch was deployed, and apparently asked those who discovered the code on their own to keep quiet . He likely kept things quiet to minimize the chances that an attacker would figure out how to use an unlimited blocksize to DOS the network. Sat Continue reading >>

Estimating Transaction Size (in Bytes)

Estimating Transaction Size (in Bytes)

According to the transaction fee rules, the size of the transaction is used to calculate fees ( ). From what I've read elsewhere, the size of the tx will be: 180 bytes per input + 34 bytes per output + 10 bytes. However, while I've found that calculation to hold up most of the time, it doesn't seem to be accurate all of the time. Is there a more reliable way to know how large a transaction will be so that appropriate fees can be assigned when creating a raw transaction? Quote from: BradZimdack on November 15, 2012, 01:31:46 AM According to the transaction fee rules, the size of the transaction is used to calculate fees ( ). From what I've read elsewhere, the size of the tx will be: 180 bytes per input + 34 bytes per output + 10 bytes. However, while I've found that calculation to hold up most of the time, it doesn't seem to be accurate all of the time. Is there a more reliable way to know how large a transaction will be so that appropriate fees can be assigned when creating a raw transaction? There is no way of knowing in advance how big the signatures are going to be. You can try making several transactions and based on the size of those figure out how large the fee must be. You could also use a conservative estimate for the size and have users in some cases pay a little bit more. Quote from: BradZimdack on November 15, 2012, 01:31:46 AM According to the transaction fee rules, the size of the transaction is used to calculate fees ( ). From what I've read elsewhere, the size of the tx will be: 180 bytes per input + 34 bytes per output + 10 bytes. However, while I've found that calculation to hold up most of the time, it doesn't seem to be accurate all of the time. Is there a more reliable way to know how large a transaction will be so that appropriate fees can be assig Continue reading >>

Johoe's Bitcoin Mempool Size Statistics

Johoe's Bitcoin Mempool Size Statistics

This page displays the number and size of the unconfirmed bitcoin transactions, also known as the transactions in the mempool. It gives a real-time view and shows how the mempool evolves over the time. The transactions are colored by the amount of fee they pay per byte. The data is generated from my full node and is updated every minute. Note that in bitcoin there is no global mempool; every node keeps its own set of unconfirmed transactions that it has seen. The mempool is also cleared when I reboot my node. The idea is based on the retired service bitcoinqueue.com. The data is separated into different fee levels given in satoshi per bytes. The lowest colored stripe is for transactions that pay the lowest fee. Higher fee transactions are stacked on top of it. Since miners prefer high fee transactions, a new block usually only removes the top 1 MB from the queue. If a colored stripe persists over several hours without getting smaller, this means that transactions paying this amount of fee are not confirmed during this time, because there are higher paying transactions that take precedence. If a stripe on the bottom chart is much bigger than on the top chart, the transactions are larger than the average. You can click on some fee level in the legend to hide all fee levels below that level. This way you can better see how many transactions are competing with that fee level. Note that sizes include the segwit discount. So for the core chain, a block will always take at most 1 MB from the mempool, even if it is bigger than 1MB, because the lower diagram already shows the size minus three quarter of the witness size. The segwit discount is also included when computing the fee level for a transaction. In case a transaction pays exactly the fee that defines the boundary betwe Continue reading >>

Bitcoin Transaction Fees Are Dropping To $1, Can This Be Sustained Long-term?

Bitcoin Transaction Fees Are Dropping To $1, Can This Be Sustained Long-term?

Join our community of 10 000 traders on Hacked.com for just $39 per month. Over the past few days, bitcoin transaction fees have dropped to around $1 for median-size payments, even though the bitcoin mempool size has remained relatively high at above 120 million bytes. Widely utilized bitcoin wallet platforms like Blockchain are recommending a fee of 55 satoshis per byte, which round up to just above $1 for median-size transactions. Previously, merely one month ago, bitcoin transactions increased to $30 for median-size transactions, particularly on non-Segregated Witness (SegWit) wallet platforms and exchanges. Given that SegWit can further decrease transaction fees by 35 percent as cryptocurrency hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger explained, if leading companies such as Coinbase and Blockchain integrate SegWit, transaction fees for normal bitcoin payments could fall below $1. Recently, Coinbase, one of the most valuable cryptocurrency company in the sector along with Bitmain and Binance, was heavily criticized for struggling to implement SegWit and transaction batching. Several analysts went as far as to claim that Coinbase is contributing significantly to the congestion of the Bitcoin network. In response, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong stated that the company will soon adopt SegWit and transaction batching to ensure that users enjoy lower transaction fees and a seamless experience in transacting with bitcoin. BitGo, the multi-signature security service provider and blockchain technology company, revealed this week that 2MB blocks have been mined this week, due to SegWit-optimized transactions and inputs created on BitGo with extremely low fees. BitGo demonstrated that without a block size increase to 2MB, bitcoin blocks can expand to 2MB with SegWit integrated. The f Continue reading >>

Block Size Limit Controversy

Block Size Limit Controversy

In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto . He added it as a safety measure to prevent miners from creating large spam blocks. However, the limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. However, most proposals involved hard forking changes. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all economically active full nodes. Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize Off-chain solutions are not yet ready to take off the load from the main blockchain. Increased blocksize will leave space for extensions like Mastercoin, Counterparty, etc. Neutral: Bitcoin competitors will have lower fees Negative: Bitcoin full nodes are forced to use more resources that don't support Bitcoin Small blocks eventually will require higher fees for fast confirmations. Positive: It will no longer be cheap to spam transactions such as Satoshi Dice bets Positive: Fees will not be zero. This is eventually a necessity in order to incentivize miners and secure the mining ecosystem Negative: Bitcoin may look unattractive to new users with high fees Negative: High fees may stop or reverse global adoption, investment, development, support and centralization A low blocksize limit encourages higher transactions fees to incentivize miners ("let a fee market develop"). A fee market naturally develops due to miner latency regardless [1] The relay network can be optimized so that miners don't have a stale rate increasing with latency. This should cause the fee market to once again require a block size limit to exist. Arguments in oppo Continue reading >>

How To Calculate Transaction Size Before Sending (legacy Non-segwit - P2pkh/p2sh)

How To Calculate Transaction Size Before Sending (legacy Non-segwit - P2pkh/p2sh)

How to calculate transaction size before sending (Legacy Non-Segwit - P2PKH/P2SH) I know that I pay the transaction fee per kB, so how can I calculate how large the transaction will be before I send it via the RPC api. I run a site using bitcoins, and I cannot let the user's balance go negative, so I need to know if they have enough balance to cover the cost. Assuming all the inputs you are spending are from regular "pay to address" transactions, each input will contribute 180 (plus or minus 1) bytes to the transaction. Each output adds 34 bytes to the transaction. And there's a fixed extra 10 bytes which are always present. The "plus or minus 1" comes from the fact that each input needs a signature to be claimed. The signature contains two 32 byte values, but if either of the values has a first byte of 0x80 or more, it has a 0x00 byte prepended to it. So I'm assuming one of the two is high and the other is low. That way I'm off by at most one byte per input. So if your transaction has in inputs and out outputs, the transaction size, in bytes will be: For example, this transaction has 40 inputs and 16 outputs. That gives us a transaction size of i.e. 7754 +- 40 bytes. The actual size is 7761 bytes. If the inputs are from "pay to pubkey" transactions then the inputs are smaller than for "pay to address" transactions. And this will be different also for "pay to script hash" inputs too, depending on how/if that's implemented. Edit: This transaction was made with bitcoins stolen in the Linode heist and shows a transaction size of 1337 , possibly a deliberate use of leetspeak in the blockchain. Edit2: Now that compressed public keys are commonplace, each input is 32 bytes shorter and so the transaction size is now: Is the formula described in Edit2 up to date with bitcoin v Continue reading >>

Bitcoin Scalability Problem

Bitcoin Scalability Problem

For a broader coverage related to this topic, see Bitcoin . The bitcoin scalability problem exists because of the limits of the maximum amount of transactions the bitcoin network can process. It is a consequence of the fact that blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size. [1] Bitcoin blocks carry the transactions on the bitcoin network since the last block has been created. [2] :ch. 2 In contrast to Visa's peak of 47,000 transactions per second, [3] the bitcoin network's theoretical maximum capacity sits between 3.3 to 7 transactions per second. [4] [5] The one-megabyte limit has created a bottleneck in bitcoin, resulting in increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block. [6] Various proposals have come forth on how to scale bitcoin, and a contentious debate has resulted. Business Insider in 2017 characterized this debate as an "ideological battle over bitcoin's future." [7] On 21 July 2017 bitcoin miners locked-in a software upgrade referred to as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 91, meaning that the controversial Segregated Witness upgrade activated at block 477,120. [8] A fork (referring to a blockchain) is what occurs when a blockchain splits into two paths moving forward. Forks on the bitcoin network regularly occur as part of the mining process. They happen when two miners find a block at a similar point in time. As a result, the network briefly forks. This fork is subsequently resolved by the software which automatically chooses the longest chain, thereby orphaning the extra blocks added to the shorter chain (that were dropped by the longer chain). A blockchain can also fork when developers change rules in the software used to determine which transactions are valid. [9] As per CoinDesk , a h Continue reading >>

Monero Developers Aim To Reduce Transaction Size By 80% Or More

Monero Developers Aim To Reduce Transaction Size By 80% Or More

Standing still in the world of cryptocurrency will eventually lead to sudden demise. This is why the Monero developers are working on a new solution to reduce the networks transaction size. If this effort is successful, transactions will become 80% smaller than they are now. The goal is to implement this change by September 2018 at the latest, although that date is subject to change. Monero Transaction Size Needs to be Addressed In the world of cryptocurrency, very few peopleactually wonder how large their individual transactionsare on the network.Theanswer would surprise a lot of people,as one would think there isnt much data involved in sending money across a blockchain. As it happens, the reality is very different.Thats especially true in the world of Monero , where the anonymity and privacy offered by the network come at the cost of larger transaction sizes. To put this into perspective, a single output transaction on the Monero blockchain is 6 kilobytes in size. That may not seem like much, but one has to keep in mind the average Bitcoin transaction size is around 250 bytes, give or take. This means every transaction conducted in XMR is over 20 times the size of a Bitcoin transfer. From a long-term perspective, this vast size difference is not manageable, and somethingwill need to change sooner or later. While it is true the Monero ecosystem has a dynamic block size to ensure thisdoesnt become a big problemanytime soon, the developers are actively looking for ways to improve upon things before the situation gets out of hand.The new solution goes by the name of multi-output bulletproofs. It is a solution currently being researched and developed by the Monero Research Lab, and it currently exists in a Java version only. There will be a C++ version as well, but it wi Continue reading >>

Making Sense Of Bitcoin Transaction Fees

Making Sense Of Bitcoin Transaction Fees

A competitive fee must be added to every Bitcoin transaction. Failure to do so can result in loss of time, money, or both. But overpayment can also cost you money. Fees may seem irrational or unnecessarily complex. This article breaks fees down in detail, and includes a discussion of how using segwit can reduce fees. Bitcoin fees can be counterintuitive. Consider two examples based on reports from actual users. Alice, a successful blogger, displays a QR code to accept Bitcoin donations (this is a bad idea from the perspective of privacy ). Once every month, she sweeps the accumulated funds into her Electrum wallet. She usually pays a fee amounting to 1.5% of the balance. One month, Alice receives hundreds of small donations, an unusually high number. Unlike previous monthly transfers, this one requires a fee of 90% even though the balance was no different from the others. Bob is a sporadic Bitcoin user who has watched fees rise since 2016. Although he has increased the amount he pays in fees, he doesnt know how to calculate an acceptable fee. While browsing Overstock one day, Bob notices a limited-time 50% discount on quality bedsheets. A payment Bob made last week went without a hitch, but today Bobs payment becomes stuck. He misses the deal and eventually needs to ask for a refund after the transaction finally does confirm. Although the root cause in both cases may differ, the outcome is the same. A user who has come to expect one behavior from Bitcoin sees the opposite for no apparent reason. The root cause in both cases is lack of understanding around fees. Bitcoin transaction fees work differently from fees charged by banks. A bank levies fees based on the amount of currency being transacted. The Bitcoin network, in contrast, levies fees based on the amount of dat Continue reading >>

Bitcoin Fees Are Skyrocketing

Bitcoin Fees Are Skyrocketing

Bitcoin network has struggled to process more than four transactions per second. by Timothy B. Lee - Dec 11, 2017 3:42 pm UTC Rising demand has caused Bitcoin's transaction fees to skyrocket. Timothy B. Lee, using data from Blockchain.info The cost to complete a Bitcoin transaction has skyrocketed in recent days. A week ago, it cost around $6 on average to get a transaction accepted by the Bitcoin network. The average fee soared to $26 on Friday and was still almost $20 on Sunday. The reason is simple: until recently, the Bitcoin network had a hard-coded 1 megabyte limit on the size of blocks on the blockchain, Bitcoin's shared transaction ledger. With a typical transaction size of around 500 bytes, the average block had fewer than 2,000 transactions. And with a block being generated once every 10 minutes, that works out to around 3.3 transactions per second. A September upgrade called segregated witness allowed the cryptographic signatures associated with each transaction to be stored separately from the rest of the transaction. Under this scheme, the signatures no longer counted against the 1 megabyte blocksize limit, which should have roughly doubled the network's capacity. But only a small minority of transactions have taken advantage of this option so far, so the network's average throughput has stayed below 2,500 transactions per blockaround four transactions per second. Bitcoin has a transaction fee system to handle situations where demand for the network exceeds its capacity. Whenever someone submits a transaction to the network, they have the option to include a transaction fee that goes to whichever miner includes that transaction in a block. If there are more transactions than will fit into one block, miners can be expected to choose the transactions with th Continue reading >>

More in litecoin