Topic: BTC low fee taking days (or more) - page 4. (Read 4829 times)
This is true and it is very annoying for me because back in the old days, Small fees or cheap fees doesn't affect the speed of transaction and it just takes a few minutes before bitcoin fully received in your account. I hope someday we can back in that experience where bitcoin fees are just very cheap and also fast.
Really missing those days when we used to play transaction transaction on blockchain just for fun because at that time transaction fees was too small and it didn't made sense on transction.
I always pick the lower fees and will wait only for 12 hours. I haven't tried relocating my bitcoin today so if it is just now I dont think it will happen mostly. I can try again tomorrow and see if this happens again. If not then there is someone curing this disease that is happening. I guess you have done a transaction while the spams are also doing it.
It's not about trying now or later, it's about the current unconfirmed transactions. That is the cause of all this. Since the current situation of bitcoins is that it is limited to its capabilities this happens. I also heard that there have been attacks on the blockchain that is causing the problems of so much unconfirmed transactions.
I always pick the lower fees and will wait only for 12 hours. I haven't tried relocating my bitcoin today so if it is just now I dont think it will happen mostly. I can try again tomorrow and see if this happens again. If not then there is someone curing this disease that is happening. I guess you have done a transaction while the spams are also doing it.
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
Bitcoins transaction fees don't have to do anything about its survival in this cryptocurrency world. This problem is just coming up when the block size reached its limit, which, can't process more transactions because its current size can't handle too much. By increasing the block size, the transaction would be fast again, though, the fees are going higher like the bitcoins price.
And I can't see anything bad about this transaction fee, though this is like a tax on the bitcoin world, in order to keep this world cycling, we need a money(fee) so that bitcoin would keep on cycling and surviving everyday, and without the fee, we can't process obviously any transactions and I know we don't want something like this.
pools DO NOT CARE about fee's!!
pools do not see fee's as a needed income, but as a bonus.
do not assume that its pools causing the issues.
pools dont need fee's for a couple decades so saying its ok to push the fee war today has nothing to do with helping pools 'security' and helping them 'survive' becaus right now the block reward is their income they can happily live on, and will continue to happily live on for decades..
we do not need to push the fee war today
It has been a real problem for bitcoin, the transaction is too slow and the fee is to expensive, if this keep on continue the user will used another coin to replace bitcoin, it is a terrible situation to wait for your transaction to confirm, something need to be done to fix this issue
you got a point there mate it will be an advantage for those alts developers who have direct access to their fiat exchange so people around that place will be able to take advantage instead of bitcoin they can exchange to alts and then exchange the alt to their fiat, as easy like that, better to find those alts that have this feature though.
there is no good way to fix these situations and indeed i also feel that conformations of transactions for bitcoin now took more longer but i think it would be fine and i don't mind about that however if we compare between bitcoin and fiat banks i think bitcoin transactions fees is still low and for me as long as the fees not higher that fiat banks i would not have problem
I hope segwit does get activated, but we are going to need bigger blocksizes and a rethink over transaction fee handling, otherwise Bitcoin is going to implode under its own mass.
segwit activating does not fix the issues it promises to fix.
pools using segwit nodes does not fix the issues it promises to fix.
users using segwit nodes does not fix the issues it promises to fix.
segwits 'fixes' only affect users using segwit KEYS.
the issue is that you have to move funds to a segwit public key. meaning that the transfer transaction is not a true sgwit transaction.
the only people that fully benefit from segwit are by those who are using segwit keys.
inshort segwit only has a benefit if 100% of people use segwit keys
using native keys is possible after activation. meaning malicious people can still do malicious things to blocks.
even funnier part is even though segwit has things like transaction 'filters' to stop certain things getting relayed. and also sets up the network where segwit nodes are centralised as upstream filters(gmaxwells own buzzwords) including having the fibre network as the centralised ring-fence gatekeeper of the pools.. segwit opens up a new attack vector.
a malicious user can actually run a segwit node. and perform NEW attack vector. simply manually copy a unconfirmed segwit tx from a segwit node mempool and paste it into a native(old) node and mess with the segwit transaction.
segwits 'promises' are empty gestures.
segwits removal of reactive fee's , removal of priority, addition of average fee, addition of fee filters has ruined their 'discount' bribe people thought they would get. because it just makes using segwit slightly cheaper than now because the fee's are rising so fast that the discount is not going to cause much savings for long for instance if at activation the "average fee" is $1.. then at best the discount brings it to 25cents. which we all know was an average fee just weeks ago. not years ago.
the removals of reactive fee's, and adding 'average fee' along with all the min fee filters. are aggressively pushing fee's up even during times of low demand
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
It's really annoying that when you need those bitcoins immediately. But those transaction that aren't confirmed yet are experiencing traffic in the network and we know that there are thousands of transactions everyday and miners are also having hard time to confirm first those who are paying fees. But if you're paying fee, it will be confirmed after a few seconds.
On my wallet it has a slider for the fees. I put it up to about the 40% mark but it still says low fee with a ! next to it. Still not confirmed. Higher fees make bitcoin unusable as a currency, slow confirmations and double spending as well.
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
It's really annoying that when you need those bitcoins immediately. But those transaction that aren't confirmed yet are experiencing traffic in the network and we know that there are thousands of transactions everyday and miners are also having hard time to confirm first those who are paying fees. But if you're paying fee, it will be confirmed after a few seconds.
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
I think it is really relevant that transaction right now are taking long to process because of he highly demand a commodity is you will surely need to put a higher fee if you don't want any transaction to take long, I had an experience once, and I think that right now my wallet don't have problems like these anymore!
Last time I looked, core wallet was indicating 1.2mBTC/kB for 25 confirms estimate. This is bad news for anyone who uses coin control to combine smaller UTXO's in to bigger ones. This is bad news for people who do not use coin control, who probably don't know how many UTXO's they have for their BTC through small change amounts, or earlier small pool payments. These people could be in for a big shock of they try to spend their BTC, since the fees could now take a large chuck of their holdings, or even worse mean all they really have is no BTC at all.
This is not a problem yet for big BTC holders, but I didn't think the design purpose was to make BTC exclusive to the few.
The problem is the current fee/block structure. If the block size is kept low, fees will spiral to infinity. If the block size is infinite, fees will fall to zero, meaning the block chain will stop once the miners have no incentive.
The solution in my mind is to have excess space in blocks so that they aren't simply filled up in one go. Higher fees should provide faster confirms over low ones, so low fee transactions should be artificially held back. There also needs to be a transaction value weighting applied to the fee to allow for small value transactions despite the space they use up. The problem of dust needs to be dealt with, or there will be less spendable BTC. Backlogs and dust combinations could be dealt with in the excess block space.
Miners should be given one protocol so that they cannot greedily pick which transaction should be included. Fair play for all.
I hope segwit does get activated, but we are going to need bigger blocksizes and a rethink over transaction fee handling, otherwise Bitcoin is going to implode under its own mass.
This is not a problem yet for big BTC holders, but I didn't think the design purpose was to make BTC exclusive to the few.
The problem is the current fee/block structure. If the block size is kept low, fees will spiral to infinity. If the block size is infinite, fees will fall to zero, meaning the block chain will stop once the miners have no incentive.
The solution in my mind is to have excess space in blocks so that they aren't simply filled up in one go. Higher fees should provide faster confirms over low ones, so low fee transactions should be artificially held back. There also needs to be a transaction value weighting applied to the fee to allow for small value transactions despite the space they use up. The problem of dust needs to be dealt with, or there will be less spendable BTC. Backlogs and dust combinations could be dealt with in the excess block space.
Miners should be given one protocol so that they cannot greedily pick which transaction should be included. Fair play for all.
I hope segwit does get activated, but we are going to need bigger blocksizes and a rethink over transaction fee handling, otherwise Bitcoin is going to implode under its own mass.
It has been a real problem for bitcoin, the transaction is too slow and the fee is to expensive, if this keep on continue the user will used another coin to replace bitcoin, it is a terrible situation to wait for your transaction to confirm, something need to be done to fix this issue
It's been terrible and the least said about the delayed confirmations the better. It's driving me crazy and I hope for a change some time soon if indeed BU or segwit will be approved.
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
I my self facing problems every week during sell the bitcoin . The traders are not releasing money before single confirmation because they are saying that what will happen if the transaction got reversed , which is a necessary thing to think for a trader .
Well here I will say pay a sufficient amount that is suggested by the wallet to keep himself away from the reverse of the transaction .
At the moment paying high fees is the only option to get faster transaction confirmation and I have seen that some members some members are recommending to use ViaBTC transaction accelerator to boost the confirmation period but unfortunately, it seems that everyone is using it to get faster confirmation and thus most of the times ViaBTC transaction accelerator tool refuses further requests due to overaload of the requests.
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
blockchain probably getting flooded again
It's already flooded since a month ago. With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
Bitcoins transaction fees don't have to do anything about its survival in this cryptocurrency world. This problem is just coming up when the block size reached its limit, which, can't process more transactions because its current size can't handle too much. By increasing the block size, the transaction would be fast again, though, the fees are going higher like the bitcoins price.
And I can't see anything bad about this transaction fee, though this is like a tax on the bitcoin world, in order to keep this world cycling, we need a money(fee) so that bitcoin would keep on cycling and surviving everyday, and without the fee, we can't process obviously any transactions and I know we don't want something like this.
pools DO NOT CARE about fee's!!
pools do not see fee's as a needed income, but as a bonus.
do not assume that its pools causing the issues.
pools dont need fee's for a couple decades so saying its ok to push the fee war today has nothing to do with helping pools 'security' and helping them 'survive' becaus right now the block reward is their income they can happily live on, and will continue to happily live on for decades..
we do not need to push the fee war today
With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.
Bitcoins transaction fees don't have to do anything about its survival in this cryptocurrency world. This problem is just coming up when the block size reached its limit, which, can't process more transactions because its current size can't handle too much. By increasing the block size, the transaction would be fast again, though, the fees are going higher like the bitcoins price.
And I can't see anything bad about this transaction fee, though this is like a tax on the bitcoin world, in order to keep this world cycling, we need a money(fee) so that bitcoin would keep on cycling and surviving everyday, and without the fee, we can't process obviously any transactions and I know we don't want something like this.
the problem with cores idea of fee's is not controlled by code..
kind of funny that devs removed code rules.. yes version 0.14 has totally removed the priority mechanism.
yes the priority mechanism wasnt any good as it just favoured the rich more then the poor in its formulae. but they never bothered to actually be real devs and envision a new formulae that actually does help solve the issues that causes the problems and also havnt been code devs to treat people more fairly rather then act like banker economists that punishing the innocent aswell as the malicious with the stupid 'just pay more' empty minded mindset..
so to save me re-writing what i have already wrote
the other problem recently is that core changed the fee calculations by miners from being reactive to demand.. to be done using an average estimator, which is proved by math to be biased to increase even during low demand. this needs to go back to reactive
kind of funny that devs removed code rules.. yes version 0.14 has totally removed the priority mechanism.
yes the priority mechanism wasnt any good as it just favoured the rich more then the poor in its formulae. but they never bothered to actually be real devs and envision a new formulae that actually does help solve the issues that causes the problems and also havnt been code devs to treat people more fairly rather then act like banker economists that punishing the innocent aswell as the malicious with the stupid 'just pay more' empty minded mindset..
so to save me re-writing what i have already wrote
we should think about changing something real simple.
the tx priority formulae to actually solve things like bloat/respend spam. where by the more bloated (tx bytes) and the more frequent (tx age) a spend is made. the more it costs.
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)
so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.
lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.
and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx
here is one example
as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price
yes its not perfect. but atleast lets think about using CODE to choose whats acceptable. rather than playing bankers economic value games of rich guys always win, or the bankers ecomonic games of 'just pay more.. that way we are no longer pushing the third world countries out of using bitcoins mainnet.
the tx priority formulae to actually solve things like bloat/respend spam. where by the more bloated (tx bytes) and the more frequent (tx age) a spend is made. the more it costs.
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)
so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.
lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.
and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx
here is one example
as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price
yes its not perfect. but atleast lets think about using CODE to choose whats acceptable. rather than playing bankers economic value games of rich guys always win, or the bankers ecomonic games of 'just pay more.. that way we are no longer pushing the third world countries out of using bitcoins mainnet.
the other problem recently is that core changed the fee calculations by miners from being reactive to demand.. to be done using an average estimator, which is proved by math to be biased to increase even during low demand. this needs to go back to reactive
Jump to: