Topic: bitcoin transactions costs in the future - page 5. (Read 1716 times)
For me, bitcoin transactions costs in the future will be faster if you paid a much more substantial amount to make your transactions faster. Yes, it is still the same this days, but if you are comparing the operations costs if you are using some renewable energy, you still need to calculate your ROI to make it lesser value if you want. Also, in business, you want to make a profit right, and these days, no one will work for free, especially if they know how much you earn. But the transaction price will always be depending on the current value of the bitcoin.
My point is that I don't expect the rising of transaction fees in the next several years.
You have a point because last 2017, the fees increased due to the network spam and that led everyone to be pissed off by just sending $5, everyone has to pay for more than that.But I think that after just a couple of years, a lot has changed and we may not experience it by next year but who knows?
The source of future transactions
One of the biggest critics made to bitcoin so far are the expensive costs that a transaction can reach when the network is overloaded. However on long run, specialists and enthusiasts defend it's not a problem, as the hardwares, responsible for the mining operation are evolving, getting more powerful to process the transactions faster and with less effort. What doesn't change is the fact that miners have to earn money from this operation anyway, as electricity isn't for free and their equipments are expensive.
So I would like to add a possibility: if the necessary energy to move the mining activity was supplied *for free*, could btc transactions be executed for free as well? As the world is evolving, renewable sources of energy are becoming even more popular and sustainable (taking our daily needs in consideration). Elon Musk's Tesla has already made a 100mw battery, and the conclusion is that it's paid back in 20 months, an incredible economy compared to the expensive electricity we use yet.
Now think if a solar energy farm with a battery like that were used to create bitcoin transactions. It's an infinite and free source or energy, right? At least after the investment is paid back. My doubt is how miners could return the fees to the transaction senders in this case. Would it be possible? Would you like to add any thoughts?
Tesla 100mw battery in South Australia
If all miners are using renewable energy, then that would mean lower transactions fee. I don't know if I'm correct or wrong but in a simple thinking it would be better to use renewable energy to mine to preserve mother Earth.
Since the block reward is 12.5 BTC currently, the main source of miners' income is block rewards and not the transaction fees. Yes, miners would rather include the txs with the highest satoshis/byte ratio because you are getting additional $1k+ per block due to this policy, but overall the $100k current block reward is enough to include even the txs with lowest fees possible. And in May 2020, when halving occurs, it is pretty much possible that the USD price of BTC will be at least 2 times higher than it is today, and thus we will have a similar situation. My point is that I don't expect the rising of transaction fees in the next several years.
I personally would love a bitcoin with staking involved, I know it won't be profitable for small investors like me but neither is mining so at least if rich are getting richer let me pay less transaction fee for it.
Staking adds more problems than it solves. I have never really liked the idea of using coins as voting or power mechanism. We have seen a few exchanges already abuse their role as custodian by staking people's coins.If you want low fees, use LN. The fees are either 0 or a few satoshis at most depending on the number of hops. The more people signal that they are ready to use LN, the more incentive exchanges have to actually start supporting it.
Instant and near free transactions, who doesn't want that? It will also end the complaining of people to a larger degree.
By the development of technologies the expenses for the miners will get decreases over the years so you no need to worry about the charges on future but the value of Bitcoin transaction fee might be high in future due to the increase in the value of Bitcoin prices against dollar value.
I think the easiest way to drop the rates would be staking, with staking at least we are going to get rid of most of the machines which would help people mine via their richness (not fair I know) and there would be less transactions.
~
I personally would love a bitcoin with staking involved, I know it won't be profitable for small investors like me but neither is mining so at least if rich are getting richer let me pay less transaction fee for it.
~
I personally would love a bitcoin with staking involved, I know it won't be profitable for small investors like me but neither is mining so at least if rich are getting richer let me pay less transaction fee for it.
Staking will not make the bitcoin blocks bigger or faster.
PoS, PoW, Pooh
the network will have the same capacity.And so there will be no small fees for you either.
electricity that uses solar panel power does provide a lot of benefits because the energy produced can be used for mining or other activities, but the most terrible threat is when bitcoin has reached the maximum production limit which means that it can't be mining anymore, mining equipment not used to mine bitcoin anymore.
You still need mining to solve blocks even if the reward drops to zero.
With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.
i don't follow your logic. how does this equate to free bitcoin transactions?People think that if you have more miners you process more transactions and mine more bitcoin, or that the fees are imposed by the miners to cover electricity costs.
I'm pretty sure 90% of the forum doesn't have a clue how mining, miners, nodes, and blocks work.
I think the easiest way to drop the rates would be staking, with staking at least we are going to get rid of most of the machines which would help people mine via their richness (not fair I know) and there would be less transactions. So the question is will you be willing to let rich people become richer in bitcoin world as well (after they did that in our current monetary system anyway) and just pay less fee's on your transactions or do you want business operators (not like they are poor neither) control the mining and pay more transaction fee's.
I personally would love a bitcoin with staking involved, I know it won't be profitable for small investors like me but neither is mining so at least if rich are getting richer let me pay less transaction fee for it.
I personally would love a bitcoin with staking involved, I know it won't be profitable for small investors like me but neither is mining so at least if rich are getting richer let me pay less transaction fee for it.
Given the price of large and more efficient panels needed to power a mining hardware that consumes a lot of energy, a small scale or medium scale miner might not have the amount of money to buy those. And it will take a longer time for that investment to return. Also, when the price dumps, it is another loss for the miner. Another is the halving of generated bitcoins for every block, there will be lesser and lesser bitcoin produced in the future. It's not that easy to start with buying a pricey solar panel.
electricity that uses solar panel power does provide a lot of benefits because the energy produced can be used for mining or other activities, but the most terrible threat is when bitcoin has reached the maximum production limit which means that it can't be mining anymore, mining equipment not used to mine bitcoin anymore.
Given the price of large and more efficient panels needed to power a mining hardware that consumes a lot of energy, a small scale or medium scale miner might not have the amount of money to buy those. And it will take a longer time for that investment to return. Also, when the price dumps, it is another loss for the miner. Another is the halving of generated bitcoins for every block, there will be lesser and lesser bitcoin produced in the future. It's not that easy to start with buying a pricey solar panel.
~
One of the biggest critics made to bitcoin so far are the expensive costs that a transaction can reach when the network is overloaded. However on long run, specialists and enthusiasts defend it's not a problem, as the hardwares, responsible for the mining operation are evolving, getting more powerful to process the transactions faster and with less effort.
~
One of the biggest critics made to bitcoin so far are the expensive costs that a transaction can reach when the network is overloaded. However on long run, specialists and enthusiasts defend it's not a problem, as the hardwares, responsible for the mining operation are evolving, getting more powerful to process the transactions faster and with less effort.
~
I think it's worth pointing out that processing the transactions is not what requires a lot of energy resources. All the transactions put in a block can be processed by any node in a fraction of a second without spending any significant resources. What requires energy is proving to the network of nodes that it's your node that deserves the block reward with all the transaction fees included. I mean, mining tools are not evolving in order "to process the transactions faster and with less effort". They are evolving to solve the computationally difficult problem, namely that the SHA-256 hash of a block's header(hash of the previous block, version, difficulty target, timestamp, Merkle root, and nonce) was lower than or equal to the network target.
I understand that many people here know this without my explanation, but judging by some replies and by the OP article itself, I thought it needed some clarification.
With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.
i don't follow your logic. how does this equate to free bitcoin transactions?
in my mind, the days of free transactions are over. it doesn't look like block size will be increased any time soon. that means as users increase, fees are gonna increase as well. it has nothing to do with the hash rate or the energy sources miners are using.
Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.
For this example if we look at exchanges they become to greedy in this process. Most take to much if we send BTC but in conversion to ETH then this could be interesting. We spend something for transaction but eventually if we then this ETH convert to bitcoin again we could ended in same thing. Thing that small amount are the ones that are used most in this but when sending bigger amount think that nobody dont look into this with reason.
Once bitcoin is generally adopted and being used by major industries to execute trade and transactions the price wil be low as most merchants strife to integrate bitcon in their transaction process
I think it will be definitely very low when the Bitcoin demand increases then there is lots of options available to transact the Bitcoin into different types so at that time it gives the free transaction method will be very useful for everyone to get connected with Bitcoin very easily.
When market demand for bitcoin increases and prices also increase. fees certainly follow up because prices have increased. the reduction in the fee itself will also be a problem because the longer we have to wait for bitcoin to enter. We can move to clean afterwards but nuclear is technically "clean" energy as long as nothing bad happens. The only reason why it is not like is the risk of leakage and something like Chernobyl to happen.
You seem rather optimistic about something we shouldn't be so optimistic about. Nuclear waste isn't going to miraculously vanish. It's a concern for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years after.With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.
I doubt it, but even if so, Bitcoin mining isn't happening in one centralized spot that you can provide energy for from one single nuclear plant. You need a lot of these nuclear plants around the world the way mining is distributed.Things aren't as easy as they may seem when it comes to energy consumption. You can't possibly pool the entire network together with one energy source. It makes you an easy target for governments too.
In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.
Yes, most of the people are concerned about the fee, definitely, there will be a high fee if the price of Bitcoin start increasing automatically the price of the transaction will surely increase. Yes, even exchanges will charge the same fee but the value of the transaction will fee will be high corresponding with the $.
Using solar energy as energy for miners costs more or less like making 3-5 tools for mining. of course profits will come but you have to be more patient because the cost of making solar energy is very expensive. When usually ROI without solar energy comes within 6-8 months, then using the solar energy should be take 16-32 months.
absolutely right, this will cost a lot and of course there will be results as well. but for as long as it really has to be considered
Using solar energy as energy for miners costs more or less like making 3-5 tools for mining. of course profits will come but you have to be more patient because the cost of making solar energy is very expensive. When usually ROI without solar energy comes within 6-8 months, then using the solar energy should be take 16-32 months.
~
Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.
ralle14 has already given an answer on this but the thing is a bit more complicated.
For larger amounts it makes no sense, over 1000$ the minimum fee for a small trader would be 2$ so it would really make no point paying withdraw and tx fee for the shitcoin.
However for smaller amounts, like 100$ if you benefit from 0.05% exchange fee and the shitcoin you're dealing is really cheap to transfer then you might do it cheaper than a simple BTC<>BTC transfer.
It will always be about how much will a btc transactions cost.
At 30sat/b this makes no sense whatsoever, but at 200sat/b when you try to transfer 25$ it might.
I do not remember where I read it but if we had like 200 nuclear plants all over the world then we could have enough energy to cover all energy need ever.
There are ~500 nuclear powerplants already in the world and they only produce 10% of the energy we consume.
Jump to: