How to fix it? It happened to me right now.

Too much maths involved, I already feel dizzy! 😓
I have encountered those errors yesterday and today. I jut wait out few minutes and then I should be good again.

Thank you for posting this, I have seen multiple posts about this recently and it happened to me a few times yesterday as well. Finding information about it was not easy, every post I found regarding this was unsure of why it was happening! I'm glad there seems to be an easy solution!

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/179/679/d95.jpg 

This is how I feel...

good

Hmmm blood and guts from within the belly of the beast. 
I'm sure I don't *really* know what all this means...
but I'll take your word for it.

RS/UV/already following ;)
I <3 smart people!

<p>I have been tracking and posting the "Maximum Virtual Bandwidth(MVP)" for weeks</p>  
<p>just did a quick look through the last days and I see a interesting change starting  2 days ago</p>

MVB kept at  <b> 5.986734968066277e+18 </b>  for weeks until at least this post 
https://steemit.com/develop/@elautomatico/maximum-virtual-bandwith-at-2241
<p>But next data taken  4 hours later records <b>MVB=1.585446912e+18</b>
https://steemit.com/steem/@elautomatico/maximum-virtual-bandwith-at-0347
<p>Which is 4 times lower,since then MVB has been bouncing between 1.5 and 4.5</p>
<p>Not sure what it means , but something changed...</p>

One comment/correction to this: *"But this formula delivers a double blow because if the total SP is rising due to excessive self-voting (self-mining)"*

The SP does not rise faster due self-voting/mining, but instead due to things like: choosing between 50/50% or 100% power up, or powering up intentionally, which is at anyone's discretion.

But I give you the props due just looking at it and exposing. =)

In my view, another way to resolve this is either adjusting the blockchain coin cap, or/and by increasing the block size (which eventually will have to happen).

Hi @rycharde, I think your concern is somehow being addressed:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/1257

Thank you very much for your help 
I was really wondering why is it happening 
Keep it up

Some know where we can show our bandwith !! thanks

Thank you! I looked and looked and if you (whoever is reading this article)  just click on the steemd link in the article, look in the upper right hand corner and you will see a green bar that tells you how much bandwidth you have. 

THANKS for this article!

Thank you for the information .<3

Good to know thanks. I would upvote the article but I read somewhere that upvotes are only paid for the first seven days of curaton. Is that correct?

so does that mean it's has nothing to do with the current value of steem?  and everything to do with an influx of new users complicating old code?

The formula seems to be there to balance bandwidth share among  everybody. Would this kind of thing happen in a bit torrent procedure as well? In my head, I like to compare Steemit to bit torrent and Bitcoin. 
.
Bit torrent has seeds and Steemit has Witnesses (dedicated servers).
.
More Bit torrent seeds means faster downloads.
.
Less seeds means slower downloading.
.
Therefore, too many people on Steemit, by that logic, would result not in a limit but simply in a slower transaction speed in posting, voting, and everything that you want to do on Steemit and in Steemit. If Steemit wants, they can make Steemit go slow like Bit Torrent goes slow when there is a lot of more traffic than usual.

Agreed, it seems we are limited by the average. That seems to be how things are for this Steem blockchain. I'm mostly on the Steem It platform (http://Steemit.com) of the Steem blockchain. So, this is how Steem did and/or is still doing things. I understand this to an extent or maybe completely.
#
We could debate on whether or not Steem should limit bandwidth, usage, transactions, posting, commenting, voting, sharing, resteeming, upvoting, and everything. Some people may want Steem to have less limits, or maybe no limits, like Facebook maybe. But Facebook has limits, too, as far as I can see. Social networks seem to have limits. I have seen limits on Twitter, Facebook, and maybe YouTube.
#
The difference is that Facebook may not always tell you what their limit algorithm system or whatever like Steem seems to have according to what I have read from posts like this which stems from white papers and stuff. So, I like to know what the rules and limits and systems and the requirements and the contracts and expectations are and that seems to be what is good about some decentralized cryptocurrencies, some blockchain networks, like Steem for example, when they are maybe transparent, direct, real enough.
#
But is the bandwidth limit of Steem something more related, maybe, to like capitalism or to communism or to a mix of both or to neither or to what? At first, I was thinking maybe communism in some ways. But now I am thinking maybe this limit is more a product of capitalism in a good kind of way more so. I am trying to justify this limit thing in my head. I am trying to be ok with it. I do not like it when I am at the limit. But money talks and websites and bandwidth are or might be expensive to some extent maybe or something and therefore we got to have systems in place to balance those things out or something. As Steem grows and competes more with Facebook, then maybe the average will grow to a higher bandwidth ceiling limit thing maybe I hope. That is what I am hoping. It seems that your bandwidth grows as your SP grows to some extent. That is part of the formula that determines the bandwidth limits (averages).

Cool find. Thanks for doing the research for us. I don't think I could have ever figured all that out, amazing job!

Thanks for your share this post, this post very insteresting.. :)

Well, why it happens to me for like 30sec? 

And I can post ...

Weird... Anyway I upvoted and ty for helping  others solve this "mystery"

![giphy (63).gif](https://steemitimages.com/DQmQCogRXtMnrCBN2fJuP5qqPqyoBwvwYHPooGcyr464KvN/giphy%20(63).gif)

Of course the bandwidth limits are hit due to dropping reserve rate (what else could it be, after all). The core question then is why exactly the reserve rate is dropping which you did not mention, so let me add a bit to your explanation.

Imagine the situation where there are a total of 1000 Steem users total each with 1 SP on their account. Suppose the total network bandwidth is 200 posts per day. 

If everone wanted to post, each SP would be entitled to just 0.2 posts a day - this would correspond to a reserve rate of 1 and be overall quite inconvenient.

Suppose that initially just five users are posting two times a day, hence the network only sees 10 posts a day. This 20 times lower than its actual throughput, so the network adjusts the reserve rate to 20 and every SP becomes entitled to 0.2*20=4 posts a day. So far, so good, the limits are above average use for everyone.

Now, suppose that June 2017 comes and a horde of newcomers floods in. Let's say, 30 newcomers each with SP=0.05 join the club. A typical newcomer  is eager to start posting daily right after registration and given the original rate it can do so (0.05 * 30 = 1.5 posts per day). However, as soon as 40 daily post attempts onto a 200 ppd bandwidth arrive, the network scales the reserve rate down from 20 to 200/40=5, which means each SP becomes entitled to just about 1 post a day - this is uncomfortable for the old users who needed 2 posts per day, and useless for the new ones, who now have a 0.2 post per day limit.

Note that nowhere along the way there was actually even a risk of going over the bandwidth - 40 posts per day would perfectly fit through the system, yet everyone still suffers.

Why? Because the posting intensity is, in reality, disproportional with the user's SP holdings, while in the bandwidth model it is.

If you think of it, this is a conceptual flaw in the system. Instead of allocating bandwidth preferentially to SP owners it, in fact, it should be given to active creators of valuable content, who are often different people. The rate limiting idea is meant to stop spam, yet it treats all content equally, and from this perspective a bunch of valuable posts from newcomers are indistinguishable from spam. 

Instead, it should take the upvotes and reputation into account. Wouldn't it make sense if a whale with low upvote, no reputation and not much network use would be allocated less bandwidth than a valuable contributor, even if the latter has 0.01 SP. 
After all, collaborative filtering can usually filter spam much better than capital requirements. On the contrary, the current system allows a whale to spam as much as they want, regardless of content quality.

In addition, the whole voting-bot and various lottery nonsense only makes things worse, as a lot of bandwidth is spent on non-content-related stuff.