Topic: Bitcoin Transfer Fees Will Go Up With Time - How Can This Affect BTC Market - page 2. (Read 2052 times)

I don't think its an issue if your sending 1 Bitcoin with transaction fee of 0.0002, its far less than 1% of the total value.

It's the small transactions that hurt. If you send 0.0004 Bitcoins you loose 50%!

The transaction fee is  increased for sure.

If btc fees become higher than paypal and bank fees a lot of people might be dissapointed by bitcoin and

sell their btc.This might affect the bitcoin price.
people always choose low fees!

though the quote above is speculative and concentrating more on a orgasmic fiat value the person hopes for..

here is some food for thought

if bitcoin was $600k. then the smallest measure (1sat) would be at cheapest $0.006cent used as a fee and about $0.60 as the minimal acceptable spend on a scenario where there is no bottlenecking and no need to worry about priority because everyone can transact in the very next block.

thus i would hope the sat tx fee decreases as the fiat price increases to counter each other, rather than the fee staying fixed at 0.0002

however in the preferred scenario of a sat tx fee moving down the decimals..
as soon as it starts to get busy. a tx fee becomes 2sat+ (1.2cents+ where an acceptable spend is $1.20+) which would eventually restart another upperclass/underclass debate on who deserves to use bitcoin as a open network with no middlemen, making developing countries treated as "spammers" again

some stupid people think bitcoin works top down(bitcoin make satoshi). and that adding an extra decimal would solve this. but bitcoin works bottom up (satoshi make bitcoin) so adding an extra decimal is the same as turning 21mill bitcoins into 210mill bitcoins
2100000000000000 sats = 21m bitcoin
21000000000000000 sats = 210m bitcoin
which is something that should NEVER be done as it would definitely affect peoples value perception (much like share dilutions/tulip mania)

but this is just speculative 'issues' that are not part of the current worries of today

things for today are the capacity and fee measure decrease to keep bitcoins utility as a no barrier financial tool for anyone to use

See my post above. Essentially, the blocksize is increasing, but only for tx signatures, not for tx data. Which is fine, as the signatures are at least more than half of the overall size of a transaction anyway.

You will choose the fee that you think is right for the urgency of your transactions. The difference will be that the amount of space available will multiply by 2-4x, depending on how many signatures you're using in each tx. So, for instance, if you're sending from 100's of different addresses in one transaction, you'll max out the new structure nicely. And because of the extra space, the expected fees will drop by 2-4x also. This is a more complex way of simply making the space bigger regardless of whether the data is just the tx part or it's signature. It's a compromise between straight blocksize increases and leaving things as they are.

What solution are you talking about? Do you have block size in mind?

If so I think increasing the block size can essentially solve part of the problem which is not really a problem since the fee amounts are not that high. But, yeah since there will be more transactions it means more fee.

And also the fees will be always a fixed amount based on the size in bytes and nothing else.

Great!

Do you know how it will work once the solutions have been implemented?

Will it be a fixed transaction fee or a percentage?

You're not the first to notice. Payment channels and responsible blocksize increases will play the biggest role in solving that problem. Both are in the works, the latter will take place sooner (sometime in the next few months)

I have just noticed a problem, I sent 0.0001 to my Electrum wallet. And the minimum transaction fee I was able to set to transfer it out of my wallet is 0.00002. That is 20% of the total sum I was transferring.

If Bitcoin does become mainstream worldwide and MOST* people use it every day. The value of 1x Bitcoin would have to increase 1000 fold. That would make 1BTC worth $600,000.00, and 0.0002 BTC worth $1,200.

If its then costs $1,200 to send 0.0000001 bitcoins that will make Bitcoin unusable?

validated by only customer and the merchant while offchain ...not the immutable network of thousands of users.
thus makes payment channels no different than a bank.
yes when it settles its then onchain. but thats supposedly weeks/months later that the transaction is truly immutable by being on the blockchain, allowing the funds to be spend (onchain) without middle men permission

now think about why bitcoin is so beautiful compared to banks. and why we should not think of payment channels as the only way to spend bitcoin(require middlemen signatures) and why we should not think of payment channels as the only way to store our hoards(middlemen multisig).

i already said payment channels have a niche market use for regular spenders (faucets, gamblers, day traders) but should not be considered the only way to use bitcoin. we still need onchain scaling for the real utility of bitcoin and why it was invented (no middle men permission)

so far bitcoin has already lost its beauty in developing countries due to fee's being over 1 hours wage in half a dozen countries. we dont need to now twist bitcoin into hubs of middlemen

But none of what you are saying refutes my description. All you did was explain different aspects of a specific system. Remember when Matt Corallo implemented the first payment channels in BitcoinJ? Those were not Lightning style channels.

Lightning payments literally will be getting validated pre-chain, just like standard transactions, just as I said. And you can't deny it, it's a fact.

The transaction fee is still small but it will increase for sure.

If btc fees become higher than paypal fees a lot of people might be dissapointed by bitcoin and

sell their btc.This might affect the bitcoin price.

The advantage with Blockchain.info is that you can set the transaction fee as per your wish. A few days back, I had to transfer BTC0.07 to one of my wallets. There was a lot of dust, and the default tx fee was showing as BTC0.01, which was around 15% of the total value of that transaction. I went to "custom" tab, and changed the tx fee to BTC0.0002. It took some time for the transaction to get confirmed, but eventually it went through.

wrong on so many levels

payment channels (lightening network) are multisigs.

say you want to spend funds regularly with a merchant.
you set up a multisig with the merchant, by both sides giving a public key to create a multisig address. they doublecheck the multisig is correct and matches to the same 3Bl4ahBlahBlahBlahBlah address before funding it.

both sides put funds in and lock them for X blocks (onchain)
onchain shows 2 deposits
eg person 1btc, merchant 1btc making so both sides have collateral and incentive to not mess around, because they both have something to lose

now without broadcasting to the network(offchain) person and merchant agree on who owes what amount of the funds in the multisig to each other and both sign the transaction (but dont transmit it onchain). it just sits in each others individual mempool, not random nodes.
making it a private transaction at this point
day 0 both parties agree merchant gets 0.1btc person gets 0.1btc, both sign
EG

the first day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys a coffee merchant gets 0.11 person gets 0.09, both sign
the next day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys another coffee merchant 0.12 person gets 0.08, both sign
the next day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys another coffee merchant 0.13 person gets 0.07, both sign
and so on and so on.. untill the locktime has expired and both sides decide its time to settle the transaction by closing the channel and broadcast the most upto date transaction ONCHAIN.

carlton. please research harder

payment channels can be useful. but we should not rely on them for every transaction. just the ones where you would regularly spend and happy to and X funds over upfront so you dont have 10mins+ at the cashiers aisle.
signing the transaction of who owes what is a split second activity. thus allowing fast "spending"
the reasons we should not rely on merchants holding all the coin is that places like walmart and starbucks could become the new banks, by being the middleman required to authorise payments with people begging those middle men permission(to close channel) to pull out money to spend elsewhere..

we still need onchain scaling too, otherwise bitcoin becomes middlemen controlled by hub hoarding all the coins and we needing their signature to move our money

With transaction fee's being high I think that it will lead to big players creating more online wallet websites that will pay the transaction fee's for the regular people.

yep.


yep.

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

"Off-chain" implies the blockchain is never involved, which in the case of centralised wallet providers like Coinbase and Xapo is true, those kind of wallets don't give users direct access, and so Coinbase can just adjust their own internal ledger to represent a transaction (verified by humans, not the blockchain...). Payment channels are more like a stratification of how and when transactions are committed to the blockchain.

I think the fee is good 0.0002 BTC

There are different opinions on what this means, but I believe all Bitcoin users generally agree with you. But there are some things to consider. Increasing throughput increases bandwidth usage for nodes. If we force increased throughput on all nodes, some will drop off the network. At high enough levels, you start pricing out entire regions of people, because they don't have access to enough bandwidth, let alone affording it. One of the biggest reasons we seek scaling mechanisms that are backward compatible is to retain nodes on the network as we allow for more capacity. It's to avoid pricing out groups of users -- and regions -- from running nodes.

Personally, I've changed my spending habits a lot over the last year or so....batching payments, considering the urgency of payments in regards to fees, etc. At the end of the day, we're paying 5 cents, 17 cents....that's a pittance compared to the actual cost of a confirmed transactions, once we consider mining costs.

Capacity increases are coming via Segwit (and further optimizations that it enables) but the real solution is payment channels. The fact is that the base protocol is a broadcast network. It doesn't scale. You can only optimize it so much before letting throughput run unmitigated---pricing people (and regions) out of running nodes, and centralizing hash power due to latencies. We need non-bandwidth scaling. Haters gonna hate, but if you want Visa-scale payments, it's never going to happen on-chain.

It's not a problem and will not affecting the market because a bitcoins is realized about the increasing fee and that is just a little fee if you wanna for sending more than $50. and will not giving any effect for he bitcoin market.

Fees go up because block are full. So fees tie neatly to the block size debate. BTC developers already work on implementing various solutions such as segwit or groundwork for enabling lightning network to address the problem.

As a result, it is only a matter of time until fees will go down somewhat. Market are expecting this already which is why the BTC price will not be affected much at all.