Most Bitcoin users will be well aware of the ongoing transaction queue issues right now.A lot of transactions are stuck in the mempool as they await network confirmations.Earlier today, it appeared close to US$1bn worth of BTC was stuck in limbo.Developments such as these highlight the need for a Bitcoin scaling solution, albeit that is much easier said than done.Bitcoin Continues To Suffer From Growing Backlog The past few months – or years, depending on how you look at it – have been quite eventful for Bitcoin.Especially where the number of transactions on the network are concerned.With more people sending Bitcoin on a daily basis, a new problem ensues.Albeit everyone wants Bitcoin to become more popular, it is also a big problem when it does.There are only so many transactions that can be processed every 10 minutes due to current .To put this into numbers, there was a backlog of nearly 200,000 transactions this week.In fact, those problems have only grown worse over time.Right now, there are nearly .

Interestingly enough, all of these transactions represent 105 Bitcoin in fees alone.That equals to US$195 in Bitcoin is not being picked up by miners right now.The current network blocks only allow for so many transactions to be included.Scaling Bitcoin can alleviate these concerns, although it will not be easy.Almost $1 billion in Bitcoin stuck in confirmation queue limbo because of internal politics.It’s just embarrassing now.— Weiran Zhang (@weiran) May 17, 2017 Unfortunately, this also means close to US$1bn in Bitcoin transfers is stuck in limbo.Considering Bitcoin has nearly a , that is not good.If over three percent of your entire money supply can’t be moved, things are taking a turn for the worse.Solving this problem will not happen overnight either.If the transaction isn’t confirmed, there is little reason for the average user to get involved in Bitcoin.Even moving funds off exchanges has become excruciatingly difficult as of late due to these delays.Unfortunately, it does appear a growing transaction backlog is the new normal for Bitcoin.

Some mining pools continue to mine empty blocks just because they can.That type of behavior is not helping matters move along either.Bitcoin is being destroyed from the inside due to politics, and nothing else.It is due time for action, rather than words.Unfortunately, these actions are mainly intended to prevent Bitcoin from scaling rather than anything else.What are mining or transaction fees?Each time you send a blockchain asset you must include a tiny transaction fee to ensure your payment is processed and reaches the destination.These fees are paid to each assets network (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.)they are not kept by Exodus.If the asset network is busy, which has been the case for Bitcoin since late-2016, these fees are typically higher.You can always see the fee, along with the corresponding asset amount, in the lower right of the send dialog.If you are looking to minimize transaction fees less popular networks will always have lower transaction fees.For example Litecoin will be less than Bitcoin.

Dogecoin is typically less than 1 cent.This is a pre-BIP.Just need some formatting to make it a formal BIP Motivation: In general, hardforks are consensus rule changes that make currently invalid transactions / blocks valid.It requires a very high degree of consensus and all economic active users migrate to the new rules at the same time.If a significant amount of users refuse to follow, a permanent ledger split may happen, as demonstrated by Ethereum (“DAO hardfork").bitcoin hack apkIn the design of DAO hardfork, a permanent split was not anticipated and no precaution has been taken to protect against transaction replay attack, which led to significant financial loss for some users.litecoin core setupA replay attack is an attempt to replay a transaction of one network on another network.ethereum download blockchain

It is normally impossible, for example between Bitcoin and Litecoin, as different networks have completely different ledgers.The txid as SHA256 hash guarantees that replay across network is impossible.In a blockchain split, however, since both forks share the same historical ledger, replay attack would be possible, unless some precautions are taken.Unfortunately, fixing problems in bitcoin is like repairing a flying plane.litecoin mining valuePreventing replay attack is constrained by the requirement of backward compatibility.bitcoin armory codeThis proposal has the following objectives: A.bitcoin pool with best payoutFor users on both existing and new fork, anti-replay is an option, not mandatory.bitcoin 4chan

For transactions created before this proposal is made, they are not protected from anti-replay.The new fork has to accept these transactions, as there is no guarantee that the existing fork would survive nor maintain any value.People made time-locked transactions in anticipation that they would be accepted later.In order to maximise the value of such transactions, the only way is to make them accepted by any potential hardforks.bitcoin cheaterC. It doesn’t require any consensus changes in the existing network to avoid unnecessary debate.ethereum exchange singaporeAs a beneficial side effect, the O(n^2) signature checking bug could be fixed for non-segregated witness inputs, optionally.Definitions: “Network characteristic byte” is the most significant byte of the nVersion field of a transaction.It is interpreted as a bit vector, and denotes up to 8 networks sharing a common history.

“Masked version” is the transaction nVersion with the network characteristic byte masked.“Existing network” is the Bitcoin network with existing rules, before a hardfork.“New network” is the Bitcoin network with hardfork rules.(In the case of DAO hardfork, Ethereum Classic is the existing network, and the now called Ethereum is the new network) “Existing network characteristic bit” is the lowest bit of network characteristic byte “New network characteristic bit” is the second lowest bit of network characteristic byte Rules in new network: 1.If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the new network characteristic bit is not set, this transaction is invalid in the new network.If the network characteristic byte is zero, go to 4 3.If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the new network characteristic bit is set, go to 4, regardless of the status of the other bits.If the masked version is 2 or below, the new network must verify the transaction with the existing script rules.

If the masked version is 3 or above, the new network must verify the signatures with a new SignatureHash algorithm (hardfork).Segwit and non-segwit txs will use the same algorithm.It is same as BIP143, except that 0x2000000 is added to the nHashType before the hash is calculated.Rules in the existing network: 6.No consensus rule changes is made in the existing network.If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the existing network characteristic bit is not set, this transaction is not relayed nor mined by default (no change) 8.If the network characteristic byte is zero, no change 9.If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the existing network characteristic bit is set, the masked version is used to determine whether a transaction should be mined or relayed (policy change) 10.Wallet may provide an option for setting the existing network characteristic bit.Rationales (by rule number): 1.This makes sure transactions with only existing network characteristic bit set is invalid in the new network (opt-in anti-replay for existing network transactions on the new network, objective A) 2+4.

This makes sure time-locked transactions made before this proposals are valid in the new network (objective B) 2+5.This makes sure transactions made specifically for the new network are invalid in the existing network (anti-replay for new network transactions on the old network); also fixing the O(n^2) bug (objectives A and D) 3.This is to prepare for the next hardfork from the new network (objective A) 6, 7, 8.These minimise the change to the existing network (objective C) 9, 10.These are not strictly needed until a hardfork is really anticipated.Without a significant portion of the network and miners implement this policy, however, no one should create such transactions.(objective A) Limitations: * It is not possible to protect transactions made before the proposal.To avoid a replay of such transactions, users should first spend at least a relevant UTXO on the new network so the replay transaction would be invalidated.* It is up to the designer of a hardfork to decide whether this proposal is respected.