Excessive Bitcoin fees - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Richbased

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 253

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 01:40:27 PM

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

Your questions are quite contradictory but however, it's not only large institutions that can afford the use of Bitcoin Blockchain due to high transactions fees because there are also individuals that have high amount of Bitcoins and wouldn't care about the transaction fees inasmuch as the system is decentralized.

Bitcoin was invented to be a decentralized currency so I don't see any reason or whatsoever that would tend to change the decentralized nature of Bitcoin regardless of high transactions fees or congestion in the mempool and moreover, recently we can vividly see that there have been a reduction in the congestion and transactions fees also reduced as well so hopefully with time everything is gonna normalize.

It is obvious that these congestion in mempool and high transactions fees have been a reoccurrence in the crypto industry and afterwards returns back to normalcy so it shouldn't cause a panic in anyway as the system would be restored by it's developers .

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3094

Merit: 929

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 01:40:27 PM

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

High transaction fees means bigger revenue and profits for the miners, so more miners will start mining BTC and the hashrate will get adjusted to another level. On the other hand, ridiculously high transaction fees will scare away many BTC investors and traders, therefore the demand for BTC will drop, which means that the BTC price will also drop. This will eventually lead to lower transaction fees. The market always finds ways to regulate itself. The level of decentralization of the BTC network doesn't depend of the number of users and companies, that are sending and receiving BTC. It depends on the number of active miners and nodes. However, I might be wrong about this, because I'm not a blockchain expert. Grin

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: Bobrox on February 13, 2024, 12:11:54 AM

The main problem when sending bitcoin with difference kinds of wallet are excessive Bitcoin fees, for small transaction will get difficult choose they have paid over $3 to $5 and some time could be large amount of fees have to sent.

imagine any auction
where bidding starts at $1
in any scenario of competitive bids. imagine if the auction house incremented the next bid by $5, with 10 SEPARATE bids the price hits $51
now imagine if the auction house incremented the next bid by $0.10 with 10 separate bids the price hits $2

lowering the increment bidders have to fight over, allows more opportunity of priority without the fee going 50x

..
most wallets are based on core underlying code so follow their defaults. so first port-of-call is to get core to sort themselves out, then the rest will follow

moonie

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 13

Quote from: Bobrox on February 13, 2024, 12:11:54 AM

The main problem when sending bitcoin with difference kinds of wallet are excessive Bitcoin fees, for small transaction will get difficult choose they have paid over $3 to $5 and some time could be large amount of fees have to sent. I think sending small fund of bitcoin as transaction is not friendly for user want to sent little amount of bitcoin but worth for huge amount of bitcoin.
Get possibilities increasing large fees bitcoin transaction in the future when bitcoin raise to higher price make small fund transaction not really worth when adopting bitcoin as payment transaction. Get exceptional if have or support with lightening network without take any fees transaction yet and likely is most worth way for sending bitcoin.

I agree, I'm sorry that the bitcoin experience hasn't improved

Quote from: franky1 on February 13, 2024, 12:10:45 AM

Quote from: moonie on February 13, 2024, 12:02:03 AM

Quote from: franky1 on February 12, 2024, 03:15:30 PM

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

Sure, it sounds reasonable to me for base fee to adjust in order to reflect increasingly valuable satoshis.
In fact, your account makes me think... what if devs conspire to keep base fee high in exchange for kickbacks from miners?

they dont get kickback from miners, because if they could they would have in last 15 years..
their kickback is make bitcoin expensive and annoying to promote the sandbox unfinished subnetworks that facilitate middlemen fee's for routed payments between institutions that sponsor them
(look into river financial hosting alot of the LN liquidity and sponsoring core devs as one of many examples, DCG previously)

this sounds like it could be an equally big issue of developer incentive misalignment

Bobrox

sr. member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 262

The main problem when sending bitcoin with difference kinds of wallet are excessive Bitcoin fees, for small transaction will get difficult choose they have paid over $3 to $5 and some time could be large amount of fees have to sent. I think sending small fund of bitcoin as transaction is not friendly for user want to sent little amount of bitcoin but worth for huge amount of bitcoin.
Get possibilities increasing large fees bitcoin transaction in the future when bitcoin raise to higher price make small fund transaction not really worth when adopting bitcoin as payment transaction. Get exceptional if have or support with lightening network without take any fees transaction yet and likely is most worth way for sending bitcoin.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: moonie on February 13, 2024, 12:02:03 AM

Quote from: franky1 on February 12, 2024, 03:15:30 PM

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

Sure, it sounds reasonable to me for base fee to adjust in order to reflect increasingly valuable satoshis.
In fact, your account makes me think... what if devs conspire to keep base fee high in exchange for kickbacks from miners?

they dont get kickback from miners, because if they could they would have in last 15 years..
their kickback is make bitcoin expensive and annoying to promote the sandbox unfinished subnetworks that facilitate middlemen fee's for routed payments between institutions that sponsor them
(look into river financial hosting alot of the LN liquidity and sponsoring core devs as one of many examples, DCG previously)

moonie

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 13

Quote from: franky1 on February 12, 2024, 03:15:30 PM

Quote from: lombok on February 12, 2024, 03:06:17 PM

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

bitcoin devs knew of the exploit that would allow junk into the blockchain in 2016 when they were designing changes to bitcoin.. they ignored the problem
bitcoin devs knew of the exploit when it started to be abused in 2023(ordinals).. they ignored the problem

bitcoin since 2016 has multiplied from $1k to $70k yet they didnt put in fee bump, dust, fee rate changes to effectivelly allow fee's to even be 10x less to stay within reasonable range
instead they changed fee bump from 1sat/byte(1000sat/kb) to 5sat/byte (5000sat/kb) in 2017
they should have in those years changed to 100sat/kb(1sat/10byte)

so if you are waiting for devs to do something. you have already been waiting 7 years.. so.. when?

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

Sure, it sounds reasonable to me for base fee to adjust in order to reflect increasingly valuable satoshis.
In fact, your account makes me think... what if devs conspire to keep base fee high in exchange for kickbacks from miners?

Myleschetty

member

Activity: 1165

Merit: 78

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 01:40:27 PM

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

This won't centralize the network. It will create some level of security for the network if we look at the bright side of it, not the high transaction fee.
Having said that, there are alternative means already created to fend off huge transaction fees which LN is one of them, and it will be nice to adopt the use of it.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: lombok on February 12, 2024, 03:06:17 PM

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

bitcoin devs knew of the exploit that would allow junk into the blockchain in 2016 when they were designing changes to bitcoin.. they ignored the problem
bitcoin devs knew of the exploit when it started to be abused in 2023(ordinals).. they ignored the problem

bitcoin since 2016 has multiplied from $1k to $70k yet they didnt put in fee bump, dust, fee rate changes to effectivelly allow fee's to even be 10x less to stay within reasonable range
instead they changed fee bump from 1sat/byte(1000sat/kb) to 5sat/byte (5000sat/kb) in 2017
they should have in those years changed to 100sat/kb(1sat/10byte)

so if you are waiting for devs to do something. you have already been waiting 7 years.. so.. when?

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

lombok

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 326

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

moonie

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 13

Indeed, no single currency unites us atm. But crypto could. Thanks for coming around mate.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 02:39:29 PM

What if we wanted to give 100sat to every one of the 5.3B networked people on the planet and jumpstart a new global economy? I guess we couldn't, at least not with Bitcoin as is... that should be the goal tho

no single currency in the world operates for all working age adults
USD only works for 250m
Yuan only works for 1b
pound only works for 40m

bitcoin is not supposed to replace all the world fiats, for one currency
bitcoin is not suppose to be for people to use bitcoin for every real life purchase..
its suppose to be a secondary choice to offer an option alongside fiat.
but yes it should be more open compared to the current "wait/be patient/use just once a year to avoid congestion" proposition people are trying to push

bolshojkush

sr. member

Activity: 784

Merit: 256

Binance #Smart World Global Token

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 01:40:27 PM

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

It's very simple, there will be a massive outflow of capital into other cryptocurrencies and bitcoin will cease to be No. 1.

moonie

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 13

What if we wanted to give 100sat to every one of the 5.3B networked people on the planet and jumpstart a new global economy? I guess we couldn't, at least not with Bitcoin as is... that should be the goal tho

Haunebu

hero member

Activity: 3178

Merit: 977

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

BTC is already centralised to a certain extent though it's still largely decentralised thankfully. Ordinals and bullish behaviour are forcing fees to move upwards again and again which is something that everyone have already gotten used to at this point.

The silver lining here is that fees drastically drop in a short period of time based on what I observed.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: Mia Chloe on February 12, 2024, 02:21:12 PM

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

your under the premiss that miners are poor unless they have fee's. for decades fee's were not the salary, fee's were the bonus
we are a long time away from the flippening where fee's become the salary and rewards are a minor bonus

miners are not in poverty without fee's. they were not poor when the reward was
a. 6.25btc at $15k($93,750), december 2022
nor poor at
b. 6.25 at $50k($312,500), today

the hashrate at (a) was ~250exa
the hashrate at (b) is ~600exa

the hashrate has 2.4x between (a)->(b) meaning the $15k rate feels like $36k rate today.. yet prices are $50k and thats before even considering fees

at the halving even $64k at this hashrate will be the same as the feeling of the 2022 low..
.. and yes the spot market is what helps the miners. we are a long time away from needing fee's to supplement miners. they are not poor and the spot market is not broke

moonie

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 13

Quote from: BitMaxz on February 12, 2024, 02:13:06 PM

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 02:00:33 PM

I recall this same thing happened in 2017, so it appears to be a recurring issue. What about people with only small portions of bitcoin, that end up being stuck, because transaction fee exceeds total value?

Well, there are some people here who had this issue before who are stuck on sending BTC to other wallets or exchanges due to the fee exceeding the total amount of BTC.
What they can only do is wait for the network to become less congested and fees drop suggested by mempool.space there is nothing we can do about this issue.

However, if you still insist on making a transaction while the network is congested you can try to make a transaction with low fees and accelerate it using Viabtc accelerator just make sure that transaction doesn't exceed the 0.5 KB size so that you can submit it to the free accelerator.

I'd argue that the blockchain is not exactly congested, but rather, it is constrained. We should be able to do better than to tell people not to use Bitcoin when others are using Bitcoin too, moving money is the whole point of the network.

I have used ViaBTC in the past, but honestly, it's just a work-around...the core issue remains unaddressed.

Quote from: Mia Chloe on February 12, 2024, 02:21:12 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

"Some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation"

This is exactly the type of centralization I'm voicing concern about. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest if CEX's use in-house mining pools to add their own txs to the blockchain? What happens when these exchanges form a consortia? This work-around doesn't seem to lead us down a sustainable path...

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

I know how Bitcoin works, thank you. Selfish mining already grants a disproportionate advantage to miners controlling just 25% of hash-rate (they can make up to 1/3 of blocks). Imagine what happens when the exchanges and miners band together; you've just taken the scenic route to recreating the problems with our existing banking system.

Mia Chloe

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 560

Crypto Casino and Sportsbook

Quote from: ?? on ??

"Some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation"

This is exactly the type of centralization I'm voicing concern about. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest if CEX's use in-house mining pools to add their own txs to the blockchain? What happens when these exchanges form a consortia? This work-around doesn't seem to lead us down a sustainable path...

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: Charles-Tim on February 12, 2024, 01:57:05 PM

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 01:40:27 PM

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

I guess bitcoin developers will not let it get to that point. Also there are layer 2 solutions like lightning network and liquid network. Bitcoin network to become centralized has nothing to do with the transaction fee. You can hold small amount using lightning network or liquid network and hold huge amount on the blockchain.

to use LN means abandon using the bitcoin network regularly..
most LN users do not care for bitcoin when they are playing on the other network.. because they are not using it daily so dont monitor it..
so LN actually causes more centralisation due to abandonment of using bitcoin

most LN users are not carrying their laptops/desktops around with them when buying small things. they use phone apps. thus not even full nodes.
most LN users use phone apps. thus using central hub inbound balance/rented channels, thus not even sole control/ownership of funds

anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

BitMaxz

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 3095

BTC price road to $80k

Quote from: moonie on February 12, 2024, 02:00:33 PM

I recall this same thing happened in 2017, so it appears to be a recurring issue. What about people with only small portions of bitcoin, that end up being stuck, because transaction fee exceeds total value?

Well, there are some people here who had this issue before who are stuck on sending BTC to other wallets or exchanges due to the fee exceeding the total amount of BTC.
What they can only do is wait for the network to become less congested and fees drop suggested by mempool.space there is nothing we can do about this issue.

However, if you still insist on making a transaction while the network is congested you can try to make a transaction with low fees and accelerate it using Viabtc accelerator just make sure that transaction doesn't exceed the 0.5 KB size so that you can submit it to the free accelerator.

Topic: Excessive Bitcoin fees - page 6. (Read 1433 times)