Evilness in the fees - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Anon on November 23, 2017, 11:51:20 AM

It's only gonna get worse. The fees are rising every week. It's completely unsustainable and gonna end badly soon.

No it isn't and it won't.

The markets will readjust, over and over. The equilibrium points reached at what you see and will continue to see.

TechPriest

sr. member

Activity: 377

Merit: 282

Finis coronat opus

Quote from: Borilla on November 22, 2017, 08:23:34 PM

In short: if we increase the number of transactions per second then big miners could (and would) naturally mine smaller blocks (for a short time) till the transaction waiting line appears again so that fees increase.

They have interest in maintaining a constant waiting line.

Maybe they already do that now.

The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself: paying fees don't make transactions go faster, it just makes individual transactions pass infront of others. Nothing absolutely wrong here. But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong. Also it is only a short term profitable strategy as higher fees and higher profits will bring more miners and so then less profit. So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.

Yep, but this is real problem: without fees miners will not have incentives for mining and it will be better to mine empty blocks rather than full blocks.
More miners - better system. If someone don't want to mine your transactions, another will do that.

JayT22

member

Activity: 168

Merit: 10

Privacy is freedom!

im evading bitcoin fees with litecoin.i wont pay this huge fee anymore for my payouts and its a lot faster than a btc transaction.

J. Cooper

full member

Activity: 294

Merit: 125

Alea iacta est

Quote from: Kprawn on November 23, 2017, 12:23:45 PM

Quote from: mda on November 23, 2017, 10:55:23 AM

The fees aren't a problem but the lack of block space is. I have proposed a way to scale the bitcoin network on chain https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/split-bitcoin-2381234 , so far the development team is afraid to make radical moves. Meanwhile BCH and co. slowly but surely creep up https://coinmarketcap.com .

Doing something radical to counter Bitcoin Cash, will be more stupid now. Bitcoin Core has set a road map to work towards implementing the

Lightning Network as a total solution. A lot of us might not like the direction this is going in, but it is definitely a better solution than just

kicking the can down the road with constant Block size upgrades. Huh

What did you propose?

Bitcoin cash is only going up short term. Increasing block size is only a temporary fix to a bigger issue. I completely entrust the core team with the task to find and develop the best suitable solution for bitcoin's problem right now. They're working on LN and I expect it to come out somewhere late 2018 so by that time things should be looking a lot better. Let's not rush things just because some other altcoin is radically changing blocksizes. Bitcoin cash is still super new and unproven.

brontosaurus

sr. member

Activity: 441

Merit: 250

Quote from: Borilla on November 22, 2017, 08:23:34 PM

In short: if we increase the number of transactions per second then big miners could (and would) naturally mine smaller blocks (for a short time) till the transaction waiting line appears again so that fees increase.

They have interest in maintaining a constant waiting line.

Maybe they already do that now.

The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself: paying fees don't make transactions go faster, it just makes individual transactions pass infront of others. Nothing absolutely wrong here.

Got to agree with you on this matter. Considering the height of popularity and adoption bitcoin has gained it is quite obvious that there would be a good waiting line always present. Moreover, consider it or not but bitcoin is actually becoming much more centralized. Miners have realized the difficulty they are facing in mining new blocks. Therefore they are aiming at making more profits from fees structure.

Quote

But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong. Also it is only a short term profitable strategy as higher fees and higher profits will bring more miners and so then less profit. So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.

No! Its actually a long term benefit for them too considering that increasing the amount of miners today is absolutely too difficult. Bitcoin mining today requires a whole lot of effort than ever. Only a handful of established miners are able to tackle such issues. And they are picking up advantage of this very thing.

mda

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 13

Quote from: Kprawn on November 23, 2017, 12:23:45 PM

kicking the can down the road with constant Block size upgrades. Huh What did you propose?

Of course my proposal is radical but hopefully not stupid.
You can read a short explanation at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/split-bitcoin-2381234 .

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1073

Quote from: mda on November 23, 2017, 10:55:23 AM

The fees aren't a problem but the lack of block space is. I have proposed a way to scale the bitcoin network on chain https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/split-bitcoin-2381234 , so far the development team is afraid to make radical moves. Meanwhile BCH and co. slowly but surely creep up https://coinmarketcap.com .

Doing something radical to counter Bitcoin Cash, will be more stupid now. Bitcoin Core has set a road map to work towards implementing the

Lightning Network as a total solution. A lot of us might not like the direction this is going in, but it is definitely a better solution than just

kicking the can down the road with constant Block size upgrades. Huh

What did you propose?

Anon

jr. member

Activity: 53

Merit: 11

It's only gonna get worse. The fees are rising every week. It's completely unsustainable and gonna end badly soon.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 6108

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: Borilla on November 22, 2017, 08:23:34 PM

But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong.

Double edge sword.

Because while you deny tx in your blocks you also lose the tx fees.
Which the other miners will not, increasing their profits, adding more private miners to their pool with the incentive in earnings, gaining more hashrate, more blocks...you get the point.

Even if they try to form a cartel, there are a lot of miners who will switch to the pools that mine full blocks giving those the advantages.
And please don't start with the theory that wu has all the hashrate in the world.

mda

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 13

The fees aren't a problem but the lack of block space is. I have proposed a way to scale the bitcoin network on chain https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/split-bitcoin-2381234 , so far the development team is afraid to make radical moves. Meanwhile BCH and co. slowly but surely creep up https://coinmarketcap.com .

Colorblind

member

Activity: 392

Merit: 41

This text is irrelevant

Quote from: Borilla on November 22, 2017, 08:23:34 PM

In short: if we increase the number of transactions per second then big miners could (and would) naturally mine smaller blocks (for a short time) till the transaction waiting line appears again so that fees increase.

They have interest in maintaining a constant waiting line.

Maybe they already do that now.

The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself: paying fees don't make transactions go faster, it just makes individual transactions pass infront of others. Nothing absolutely wrong here. But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong. Also it is only a short term profitable strategy as higher fees and higher profits will bring more miners and so then less profit. So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.

I disagree with your logic. If there was a single miner he could do that, but miners are in competition and will always pick as much transactions as they can to collect their fees. Including less transactions will mean giving away free money to someone else, who will include it.

skaffen

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 100

There is an incentive to manipulate the total fee paid per block by miners sending money to themselves with a certain fee below the expected cutoff for inclusion in a block. That way it doesn't cost them anything to increase the total fee per block.

thr3

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 13

There is a cost to every transaction. Anything that promises you fee free is either a load of nonsense or you are being charged somewhere else. Look at it from a miner's perspective, for processing your transactions I will charge you a fee, I would preferably process transactions which are more profitable to me. Competition is a good thing because it typically drives prices lower not higher.

alexpayne

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Paying the higher fees than other will turn you into the high prioty of processing transaction. So it means your transaction will be finished faster than others one .

Borilla

jr. member

Activity: 83

Merit: 1

In short: if we increase the number of transactions per second then big miners could (and would) naturally mine smaller blocks (for a short time) till the transaction waiting line appears again so that fees increase.

They have interest in maintaining a constant waiting line.

Maybe they already do that now.

The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself***: paying fees don't make transactions go faster, it just makes individual transactions pass infront of others. Nothing absolutely wrong here. But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong. Also it is only a short term profitable strategy as higher fees and higher profits will bring more miners and so then less profit. So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.

***EDIT: The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself as it's done now. I'm not trying to say fees are evil

Topic: Evilness in the fees - page 2. (Read 1578 times)