Topic: big transaction fee in Bitcoin , really down the future of btc ? - page 2. (Read 2277 times)

Whitepaper section 12: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

---

Note: This is somewhat different today due to e.g. Segwit on testnet.

yes it is because many users get mad on the high transaction fee. If this problem does not solved soon. It can be the reason to disappear or bring down in the near future.

IF that other person has multiple channels yes.. other wise there is no 'route'.
but remember to set up and close  a channel IS requiring onchain transactions

if its just A<>B
they all a and b can do is private trades to each other.. no one else....
as i shown in examples of other post, B would need to be more of a minihub, involving also connecting to C.. for a route to be possible for A to be able to pay C

this is also where the (hop/spoke/route) falls apart as it will cost people a payment fee per (hop spoke/route) to thank them for being part of the (hop/spoke/route)

what ends up happening is B may decide to be a bigger hub
A<>B
C<>B
D<>B
now A can pay D by only paying 1 hop fee to B
EG
A(0.0499)<>B(0.1501)
B(0.5)<>D(0.15)

then new users just contract/channel to B
E<>B
F<>B
and now A can pay E just via B, and only costing the 1 hop fee via B to get to E

---

last thing to add
in a hop method.. the average 'cost' is ~ 2-3 onchain transactions
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
C= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

in a hub of a,b,c,d method
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 3 in an 3halves out (4.5)
C= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

so imagining a onchain fee was still ~$2  (a=$3

so lets imagine A wanted or wished that on average their fee's only cost (on average) $0.02
even if each hop was $0.01.. even doing 300 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.02
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

if A only done lets say 10 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.34
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

Does it mean that if I want to transact in an LN network, I need to open only one payment channel with someone (say, a payment hub) and then I can make any number of transactions with anyone who is potentially reachable in this network (i.e. A->B->...->N), thereby completely bypassing the blockchain? If so, that, as to me, proves it pretty consistently that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has. If I got everything right, I open a payment channel, pay the network fee (which I would still have to pay anyway to make a transaction) and make as many transactions as I need and as fast as transactions propagate through the network. In other words, if opening a payment channel is essentially equal to making a regular transaction, then there is nothing to argue about

This is basically what the LN site claims

It's known as the quadratic issue. As fees in satoshi's double, and the price of BTC doubles, the fee in fiat terms goes up quadratically.

LN is a separate network
LN can only make payments to other people within LN (emphasis: people with LN channels)
this means you have to have a LN channel open, infact most will have to have more than one channel open if they want to do the (hop/route/spoke) method or have their single channel with a well established hub if they only want 1 channel
anyway lets explain the hop/spoke/route method.

EG
A(0.1)<>B(0.1)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)

now if A(0.1) wants to pay 0.05 to D.. and there was a 0.0001 payment fee

EG
A needs to pay B in the first channel...
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
B then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay C
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
C then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay D
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.05)<>D(0.15)

now if lts say E had no channel.. E could not be paid by anyone because he has no (channel/contract/route) to anyone else

hope this clarifies how LN works for the layman

---

now what you have to realise is that to set up these channels
A one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel
B two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
C two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
D one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel

so thats 6 onchain tx's to set up 4 channels
then to settle the channels at closing session
another 3 onchain tx's are needed..

thats 9 onchain tx's required for 4 parties to use LN........... (which requires ONCHAIN blockspace.. and costs ONCHAIN FEE'S)
yes while ln channels are active those 4 parties can do lots and lots of LN payments between each other.

but that does not mean that suddenly any new people (E) dont need a channel or more to be part of LN.

Is this all what you can come up with?

Are you now going to claim that the major issues that Bitcoin now faces are not high fees and slow confirmations? Are you now going to claim that it was not you who asserted that these are the issues that every coin is inexorably set to face eventually (if it gets as used as Bitcoin now is)? You know, you may call me an idiot as much as you please, but you have to come up with something more substantial if you want to actually prove your point. As to me, calling people names is not the proper way of doing that. Hope this helps

Instead of debating whether one solution will solve anything or not in the long term how about we adopt something even if its not the ideal one right now. The end result from lack of consensus is only going to be bitcoin losing its dominance and I fail to see how that helps any of us.

I'm a big fan of segwit and lightning but I'd rather see BU than no solution at all, everyone needs to dig deep and accept there must be a compromise or we all lose.

Which makes it worse considering that your whole knowledge is completely false.

Bullshit. Trying to make up excuses so that you don't look like an idiot.

On its own, LN solves nothing and requires block space (i.e. bigger blocks starting with Segwit) to enable a high number of users to use it. Now, I actually would prefer franky1 to pop in. His, often flawed but sometimes correct, views are much superior than your Utopian fantasies.

You should understand that I'm not of the type who can be so easily swayed

First of all, the issue you are describing now has nothing to do with what you have been claiming. This is not the problem that Bitcoin is facing now, i.e. high fees and slow confirmations. This is an entirely different story, even if it is true (and this is a big IF on its own). So you may want to think twice before calling someone an idiot and then think again (personally, I don't care, I just want you to check your reasoning first how well it adds up in and of itself). But this is in fact irrelevant, and you can discard this point altogether. What is of real value here is that Lightning Network is set to specifically address the issues mentioned, so it can't possibly encounter them if it is created to solve them in the first place ("capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network"). What are you arguing with?

Are you desperately wanting me to call you an idiot? I can't hold it much longer with these idiotic statements. I would really appreciate learning from someone with superior knowledge, but you are not such an individual.

This post is absolute false garbage that is built upon your skewed and extremely elementary understanding of LN. I asked you for a calculation and you've provided to create that one because you don't know how to calculate it, because you do not understand it. LN alone is NOT ENOUGH for "never encounter the issues". This is every written in the whitepaper, which you have not read.

---

How to use LN ELI3 (&& tl;dr)
1) You open a payment channel. This takes up space on the blockchain.
2) You transact 'n' times with other parties. This data does not space on the blockchain.
3) You close a payment channel and the funds settle. This takes up space on the blockchain.
Examples:
1) Opening a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/8ab2d0600d324967f1758f9ed9ad90946ba4e4cab9d4211d2fe4a8df1e50b5c6.
2) ...no data.. irrelevant.
3) Closing a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/e0406d03eece0f82e11756b290ec2db2c0f62c020548a6364bf785979df6fd0e

180 bytes * 10 000 000 open channels = 1.8 GBs to open to open 10 million channels only ONCE. Then you need another 1.8 GBs to close these 10 million channels. What happens between the opening and closing channels is irrelevant to my point. In Bitcoin (without Segwit factored in), it would take: ~12.5 days worth of blocks to only open 10 million channels once and this assumes that there are zero transactions of any kind.

If you think that you will open 1 channel and use it forever or for extremely long periods of time, then your understanding is even more greatly flawed. If you plan on locking all your funds into LN, I wish you good luck as you will need it.

---

For those complaining about fees, i.e. actually posting worthless garbage for their signature money. ETH fees are already above $1:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-eth.html

i think nothing can take down bitcoin...neither this big fee for transactions...

Yes, this is one of issue important Bitcoin need fixed soon!
Look the defaut fee setting in my electrum wallet, every month the price Bitcoin highest more and the fee raised up too, from 100 sat/byte is best choice in January-2017, now the fee is 700 sat/byte if want confirm with next block

i hope when time cimes that btc can be able to perform well and can use efficiently when its value really grows and when massive adoption happens.

It is possible that the number of transaction per day will decrease because of the increasing transaction fees needed. That is especially for those who cannot afford to compromise and pay higher fee. With this in mind, there will be less micro transactions in the blockchain.

People might lean to alts just to lessen the fee needed. They will just do that to lessen their fee but they will convert it back to Bitcoin so Bitcoin is still the dominating crypto currency.

There are various solution for these issues, we have the Segwit that shall happen on August. However, its end result is still uncertain so no one really knows if this is a solution or another problem.

I'm curious if you understand how that invalidates your whole point

If they don't show up on the blockchain, it essentially means that these transactions can make up the bulk of all transactions, and thus it is reasonable to claim that Litecoin will never encounter the issues that Bitcoin now faces. In other words, as soon as it starts to feel the pressure (Bitcoin style), more and more payment channels will spring up, thereby effectively removing the overhead. If you need just 1 payment channel to embrace 1,000 separate transactions, that's pretty much it. Litecoin may in fact encounter a lot of other issues (I don't really know), but this is certainly not what you have been claiming, right? I may not understand the gory details behind LN mechanics, but all I need to know is that it allows to massively move transactions off chain in a systemic way

I think there's a huge impact of this problem to bitcoin. Who would want to transfer funds with huge fee? Theres are a lot of altcoins out there which is more faster and more cheaper than bitcoin. We have no choice but to find alternative way to transfer funds with ease and cheaper.

Definitely we are going to force to use alternative way to tranfer funds with cheper fees.

Depending what you are doing but 4 hours in not an acceptable time frame. When you say "if they accelerate it" are you talking about service like ViaBTC tool? Then there is nothing funny to use bitcoin is we have to use an external tool to get a decent confirmation time. It's like telling to your bank I you want you can use my laptop power to make the bank transfer faster. I dont know any other tool than ViaBTC, but once or twice i tried to see and always busy because their hourly limit was reached. If on the top of that such tool are always busy that you can't use, it is very very less funny

What makes it so impossible for people to wait like 4 hours for a certain Bitcoin transaction to receive a confirmation? I guess that people don't really know that they can spend Bitcoin with a very low transaction like 0.0001 BTC and have their transaction confirmed within 4 hours if they accelerate it.

Maybe people don't really send Bitcoin other than just paying someone money, I am sure if they do a few test transaction spending then they would see that they can send payments with a small fee.

   Big fees for big transactions are ok, but for us ordinary people it`s unreal to pay $4 fee for $10-15 transaction. High fees will make people think about sending bitcoin anywhere, I don`t understand how blockchain technology works, but when I need to pay a lot just to send my money from one to other place that I understand very good.
   If bitcoin technology is here to make a better world, why would we pay so big fees? How is that helping us, this is making bit[Suspicious link removed]d just for rich people.