Topic: As Satoshi Nakamoto Predicted, Dynamic Fees For Transactions Take Root (Read 982 times)

Well, one of the problems of bitcoin is that it is way too secure. Way more than needed. Which in turn makes it an environmental nightmare. I wish I would find the links again where a study was made. The bitcoin network was 100 times more secure than needed. And one normal bitcoin transaction would eat the energy that 1.75 average US households need per day. Bigger transactions even more.

So the solution for me is that we need miners to go out of bitcoin. I don't have a problem when the block halving leads to 50% of the hashrate going out of the network. We would still be safe way way more than needed. Though it would mean on the other side that the remaining miners would earn the same they earned before they block halving. In fact more than that because the fees did not halve.

Why rebroadcast? If a transaction does not make it into the chain in 3 days then how usefull will that transaction be at all? Would you wait a week or a month for a transaction? No, you would pay the higher fee. And there we are. At around $0.10 per normal transaction now, I think. You realize that we soon weel be beaten by paypal? The average user on the street is already hard to convince of bitcoin. "And why should I use bitcoin?" Well... because it is cool and somewhat anonymous but you have to pay more than a paypal transaction. Surely not many will bother to check out bitcoin anymore.

That's the way to kill bitcoin. Security is surely not our problem. Mining is so rewarding that the market decided we can be 100 times more safe than needed. Market will find a new decision like satoshi predicted with his wise move of block halving...

these dynamic fees are good for people who want their transactions to be included in the following block without further waiting .
but I will not use it because I do not see any point in paying high fees in rush hours while I can wait some more time.
I sent recently a tx with less than 500satoshi as fees and it get included in the following block without waiting.

Hence "rebroadcast"


And with subsidy being halved again (with more to come), fees need to replace subsidy. I've never once sent a free transaction. Just pay the damn fee, .00005-.0002, a few cents, geez.



Personally I don't care about cheap transactions. I am quite sure they will exist, preferably on things like LN. I certainly don't want to give up any security so people can have their cake and eat it too. You either pay for the damn security, or the system goes to shit.

I had a hack in my very first wallet, i was naive and never knew much.

I had some transactions come through, so I thought I would send it on to my new wallet.

Blockchain was telling me i had not enough satoshis to include fee, i tried sending without but same result.

Anyhow as I was trying to send again at a later time in the day, with same results the hacker took my balance?

Now, how did that happen? no fees? just stole it.

I asked Zendesk previously could they send it on...... NO
But obviously could have intervened if they wanted, the hacker done ok though.
No fees for hackers how did they do that?

Not anymore. If you did not make it into a block after 3 days then the new node versions are designed to drop that transaction from mempool.

I actually did not try to send a free transaction in a long time since it only means trouble nowadays. I did so for a long time and it was fine since fees were not a big part of the miners reward anyway.

It really is important that bitcoin transactions work with a low fee. Bitcoin really has not a alot of advantages over other payment systems. So losing that means losing part of adoption...

Keep rebroadcasting with no fees. It's entirely possible it will be relayed someday.

Exactly. I think most users claiming we need to keep 1MB blocks don't even realize that effect. The fees will not rise slowly and linearly. Once the real figth for the space begins the transaction fees will grow exponentially.

Well, there are some that realize that and still want it. They are either miners that have a short view on the future, because they bury their future that way, or they are people that want something like "survival of the fittest". Seeing bitcoins future as a high value transportation system and feel like only superiour "in their mind a rich person is superiour above the pleps" people should use bitcoin.

I want a way to consolidate many small pieces of Bitcoin together into larger ones (to avoid having to use larger transactions later).  I want to do this for free (or really low cost) even if it takes many days to go through.  Once my wallet is defragmented then I can use smaller transactions when I need them.

Until the capacity (not necessarily just by block size)  is increased (hurry please), higher fees are the only choice for getting transactions through (during high traffic periods).

Here's a problem with dynamic fee calculations; they are only valid at a moment in time.  Once the transaction is launched, if there's a burst of transactions then the fee might be too small.

This is a Blockchain.info initiative and not a Blockchain change in the protocol. I like the idea that the wallet provider manage the fee for the user, making it truly user-friendly. The

user still have the option to chose, right? Why do you have to pay a huge fee, in times when there are less congestion? The average user will not even know when there are

congestion or stress tests being done, and that they need to up the fees to get it to confirm. The only thing they want, is a fast tx confirmation time and the lowest fee possible.

fees are not an essential income stream for miners for years/decades. so please dont think its critical to raise the price any time soon, the negative repercussions of that outweigh the misconceived benefit

Agree, and besides this fee are only minimal and the processing by miners requires their computers power/electricity too.as thier systems goes online, they also incur expenses, I think its also fair for them.

Fee increases are just a form of rationing by price. With full blocks it just means a lucky few get included, and everyone else should take a hike, or go use an alt!

Dynamic fee is the way to go, been using it in electrum from sometime now, transactions get accepted normally during next 2 blocks which is what I want, but still if there is a transaction which is very important, I add extra fee manually.

the problem is fee's cure NOTHING

if there are 3000 people wanting to transact every 10 minutes but a block only has a capacity average of 2000 transactions, then:

even if all 3000 people paid $0.40 a transaction. its still only 66% chance of getting accepted in the first 10 minutes.
even if all 3000 people paid $4.00 a transaction. its still only 66% chance of getting accepted in the first 10 minutes.
even if all 3000 people paid $400 a transaction. its still only 66% chance of getting accepted in the first 10 minutes.

fees promise nothing and guarantee even less

increasing the fee does not allow more users to use bitcoin independently... nor does it promise prompt confirmations.
instead. if a transaction needs $1+ people will start using centralized services which would combine 100 inputs to make it cost the user only 1 cent by sharing the transaction(combining input-outputs). which results in only allowing 200 of these larger bloated transactions.

which funnily enough the blockstreamers scream about the processing time of validating large transactions.

secondly if miners want $1 a tx.. (making $2k for independant traditional transactions) by using ofchain solutions to save users money. ends up with 200 or less transactions ($200 or less per block). thus making the fee rise and rise and rise... making it less and less cheap to independantly send a transaction

so increasing the fee causes more centralized services such as coinbase being used as a store of bitcoin where people become part of a large transaction that requires more validation time.

the whole validation time the blockstreamers cry about are not about traditional independent transactions on a higher blocksize. but instead their assumption that by increasing the fee and keeping the blocksize low people are inclined to use offchain solutions that settle eventually onchain.. forcing bloated transactions that cause more validation time. they fully know that they want people to move offchain. and increasing the fee is helping them achieve this. within a decade, no one will want to send a transaction independently due to costs. forced by offchain solutions

even things like LN is going to make less transactions, but each transaction have hundreds of inputs and outputs.

because if people are storing their coins in LN or a sidechain or a service like coinbase to utilise lower fee's.. then they are less inclined to run a full node because they have no need to store or use their own private key independantly

the cure to maintain decentralization and promote node distribution while also keeping validation times of txs low.. is actually to increase capacity to allow more people to transact independently. not the fee.

bitcoin can work on a raspberry pi. and even a basic home desktop computer you can buy in 2016 for under $400 is atleast 4 times faster in every way. so the whole "datacentre" doomsday is wrong on many fronts, yet the offchain 'solutions' is a bigger threat to node distribution and also increasing validation time increases, along with forcing the fee's to be astonishingly high in the next decade (long before they are actually needed as a main miner income)

Electrum wallet always adjust my fees to be the best for the amount I am sending, so they have always been dynamic so far if this is what you mean by this article. I have seen fees of over 0.0005 BTC sometimes in Electrum.

This is in regards to blockchain.info since few others, already have this since before. I think it's the right move that could give assurance of our transactions being included on the next block. The only problem I'm seeing is, some still ignore the fees or rather send payments lower than it should be as a standard fee, so it would have been good if a measuring system would have been implemented in blockchain.info, before anyone making any transactions go through and tell them if the fee is enough (like an error) or not before they click send button again.
On a normal day that has less pending transactions, a 0.0001 would surely do for most transactions but it would be good to use 30 Satoshi per byte (at least) for normal confirmation and 60 Satoshi for faster confirmation.

Well, you see the difference between "take longer" and "would not get into a block"?

Besides, I think most of those claiming we don't need to have more transactions think that the fees will slowly rise. In fact they will rise potentially when the amount of transactions is nearly fixed and transactions still rise. We will have paypal fees in no time. Which means bitcoin loses two of its advantages. It becomes expensive, slow or unuseable because it makes no sense to use a payment system where you have to guess if your transaction maybe will go through. That's simply destroying bitcoin.

I just check the mempool to see if it's backed up. If not, 0.0001 is fine. If there is more than 4-5k transactions pending, 0.0002 has always sufficed. I consider this incredibly cheap, to be honest. I'm sure there's still plenty of spam (hence the cheap fees) but I think these are just good signs that there is real demand to use bitcoin.

Same here, I am not using it and don't need it. I nowadays include a fee of minimum 0.0002BTC for each transaction that I send. It works perfectly fine as my transactions mostly get included in the next block.