Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 2. (Read 88853 times)

And if I keep reading Loyce's opinion, I will lower it to 2-3 sats/vB. 

Fees at 6 sats/vB right now.

Fees at 6 sats/vB right now.

Feeling like stupid. I saw 2 sats per byte earlier but didnt consolidate.

There is a bump in Bitcoin transactions again, reaching 40 sat/vByte at the moment. Ordinal spammers occupied the network again, mempool is getting full of ordinals transactions.

The only thing that I like here is that too many spammers pay 100x and 1000x times more fees then necessary to get transaction confirmed. I hope their pockets will empty ASAP.

You mean 1.85 sat/vbyte

Which also means that transactions with 1.84 sat/vB

The sending address has 1,347,328 dust transactions, so I can't easily find the input used in this transaction, but let's assume the unconfirmed input paid 1.84 sat/vbyte (and let's assume the transaction size was similar). That means CPFP bumps it up to 1.85 sat/vbyte, while it lowers the effective fee rate on the new transaction (also to 1.85).

I can see that the fee rate is 1.86 sat/vB.
The effective fee rate was 1.85 sat/vB?
Mempool.space indicates that it must have been a CPFP.
But normally, a CPFP is used when someone want to bump the fee rate, not to decrease it.

A CPFP is used when, as in the name, a child transaction wants to pay for its parent. That does not necessarily mean to increase the effective fee rate. You might want to spend unconfirmed coins, but you not need to increase the over all (or effective) fee rate.

But normally, a CPFP is used when someone want to bump the fee rate, not to decrease it.

This article written by Jameson Lopp gives us some insights that is not new, but can be helpful for people who have never known about it.

I will disclose that within the last 8 hours, the transaction that I described in the above post did finally go through, so yeah it took right around 3 weeks and 2 days to go through, and I also noticed that I saw on mempool.space that there were some transactions around 1.7 sats per vbyte going through within later blocks. Hopefully, I learned my lesson... hahahaha..

Here's the thing: Coinbase, like many exchanges, is designed well enough that they batch their withdrawal transactions. This specific withdrawal transaction has 9 outputs, which saves a lot of block space and thus on-chain fees. With 9 outputs it's safe to assume that 1 was change back to Coinbase while the other 8 were customer initiated withdrawals. Naturally, this raises some questions for me.

0.00108976 BTC (fee I paid) ÷ 0.00279448 BTC (total fee) = 39%

Why am I paying 39% of a fee that is being split by 8 people?

What fees are the other 7 people paying to Coinbase?

If Coinbase charged all 8 of us 0.00108976 BTC but only paid a 0.00279448 BTC fee, that means they pocketed 0.0059236 BTC ($350 USD) from this one batch withdrawal.

Long story short, I think there's a strong case that I was egregiously overcharged for this withdrawal in not one but two different ways.

    My "fair share" of the batch transaction fee was less than a third of what I was charged (0.00034931 BTC rather than 0.00108976 BTC)
    The appropriate market rate for fees at the time was only 1% of what Coinbase was requiring. (7 satoshis per virtual byte rather than 778 satoshis per virtual byte)

It's particularly interesting to me that during this process Coinbase made $4 off of selling BTC to me but they may have pocketed $40 from my contribution to the withdrawal fee.

Within the last few days, I have a friend who "accidentally" submitted a transaction with around 1.9 sats per vbyte fees, and surely it is possible to go through, yet it also might not go through for months, if ever.