How low transactions fees could go? | Bitcointalksearch.org

bitcoinisbest

hero member

Activity: 1218

Merit: 557

Quote from: BunnyToken on March 02, 2018, 06:14:03 AM

it's not good idea to set low transaction fee,, you can wait long time to receive money.

This was the case last month when the bitcoin unconfirmed transaction where huge and where continuously rising . thus if you set a low rate means for days or even for a weeks the transaction would have remained unconfirmed. But now this case is not more as many have started using the segwit address and thus the pressure has reduced a lot on blockchain too. So now you just have to pay very minimum fee for transfer.

bitbunnny

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1068

WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Crypto Casino

I beleive that depends on miners are how far, or better to say low, are they willing to go.
Remember that not so long ago we almost had some kind of war between users and miners because of extremly high fees.
Also, the number of transactions is important to calculate fees.
At the moment transactions fees are realy low and I don't think there is much space for further reduction.

Heisenberg_Hunter

legendary

Activity: 1586

Merit: 1280

Heisenberg Design Services

Transaction fees could reach as low as 0.5sat/byte but who will accept it and include them in block. If a miner doesn't get any incentive for the work he does, then why should he include your transaction in the block. Once if LN strikes, fees could get lower as the transactions could occur off-chain.

Very few people or only people connected with crypto know about the segwits and their uses, how does it work etc, which indicates that people just uses ordinary address and pays for the fees unless these segwits become so popular and ordinary people adopt to segwit.
Fees will never become lower unless people adopt themselves to segwits, LN and other new technologies which takes place in the btc world.

Boximuss

newbie

Activity: 94

Merit: 0

with the low fee, it could take weeks

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2509

Quote from: BunnyToken on March 02, 2018, 06:14:03 AM

it's not good idea to set low transaction fee,, you can wait long time to receive money.

Actually the mempool is kind of 'empty' at the moment. You can view it here: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,24h.
Currently transactions with a fee as low as 10 sat/B get confirmed in the next block.

Even fees with a fee of 1 sat/B are getting confirmed within a few hours max currently.

Quote from: boy130 on March 02, 2018, 06:27:40 AM

we will start seeing fees approach the minimum even for high size transactions.

The fee is usually measured in [sat/B] (satoshi per byte).
The actual fee for a transaction is then dependend on the size. But the fee rate (sat/B) is the same for small and big transactions.

To be honestly, i don't think fees can go much lower than currently. With the LN getting developed and also used/accepted we will see a growth of bitcoin usage in general.
Together with the LN i think fees will kinda stay at the same level. In the long term, of course, fees should rise again. Even with closing channels only once per week (or month).
The increased adoption will drive the fees higher again.. but i don't think we should reach the fee level of a few months ago (1000+ sat/B) again.
At least not if there is no spam attack. SegWit + LN are awesome regarding short-/midterm scaling.

boy130

sr. member

Activity: 616

Merit: 263

The fees can go as low as the miners will allow, if there's a reduction in competition then miners will start accepting low fees, the absolute minimum would be 1sat/byte, but I do believe it is possible to send a transaction without a fee, though I doubt it would be confirmed as there is no benefit for the miners. Once the lightning network starts on the main net, we will start seeing fees approach the minimum even for high size transactions.

BunnyToken

copper member

Activity: 127

Merit: 0

it's not good idea to set low transaction fee,, you can wait long time to receive money.

nicosey

full member

Activity: 347

Merit: 109

Doesn't this all create perverse incentives for the miners?

Scotshield

newbie

Activity: 44

Merit: 0

This is a complex issue for setting a fee. It has to take into account a whole series of issues such as: quantity of daily transactions, maintenance cost per day and cost to exchange continue to work (cost of technology and labor). If there is someone financing everything back, it may not have a fee. However, the smaller the exchange, the more likely its rate is, or it will not be able to sustain itself.

Wipro

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 512

Quote from: MadGamer on February 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

I believe 1 satoshi/byte is the lowest fee/unit to use. If that's indeed the case and we didn't even reach reach 20% SegWit transactions - according to SegWit.party, transactions are currently going with 1sat/byte (after a few blocks). If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

As of now for each transaction you need 8sat/byte and moreover you need to know that mem pool is almost empty so transaction fee will into be issue in this time. However, keep the mentioned of mine would be right option for you to transaction confirmed.

Your transaction need to complete with in 2 blocks at least if you do not have 8 sat also in your transaction for byte it will not confirmed with in 1 hour too.

RNC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Abrham90210 on March 01, 2018, 05:09:49 AM

Last time i used it it was about 0.84$ since i was new to this forum i only had like 8$ maybe when bitcoin rises the fee may lower a bit

if you was use to buying a glass of water at $0.05 a cup but then the sun came out and the price went to $50.00 per cup then
would you ever forget ?

This is the problem the miners face now they have proven not to be trustworthy and since those crazy days the price
of the coin has been on a downwards slope ever since because the damage has been done and is far from forgotten.

Abrham90210

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Last time i used it it was about 0.84$ since i was new to this forum i only had like 8$ maybe when bitcoin rises the fee may lower a bit

Thirdspace

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 738

Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com

Quote from: jtipt on February 28, 2018, 10:21:46 PM

No, I'm pretty sure it was 0.65 sat/byte. I saw the transaction in a post on r/Bitcoin, can't seem to find it now :l

Edit:
Found it! https://blockchain.info/en/tx/748a9298545c0e120b99abafcdb0ac149dba4c637000926ab6493cabcdf05af0

Code:

Height 510400 (Main Chain) Size 1,208,921 Bytes
Timestamp 2018-02-22 12:06:35 Stripped Size 892,244 Bytes
Relayed By AntPool Tx Count 472

thanks for the info, saved my time searching it Grin

that block was mined by AntPool and has dust output 0.00001752 BTC (no dust amount restriction?)
too bad there is no web interface to directly push tx to AntPool node. anyone know how?
or has anyone succeeded pushing/broadcasting 0 fee tx recently (to any node)?

jtipt

hero member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 529

Quote from: shield132 on February 28, 2018, 04:24:04 PM

Quote from: Thirdspace on February 28, 2018, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: jtipt on February 28, 2018, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: jmiro1 on February 27, 2018, 01:13:42 PM

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy

if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue

I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.

No, I'm pretty sure it was 0.65 sat/byte. I saw the transaction in a post on r/Bitcoin, can't seem to find it now :l

Edit:
Found it! https://blockchain.info/en/tx/748a9298545c0e120b99abafcdb0ac149dba4c637000926ab6493cabcdf05af0

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: ahmad21 on February 27, 2018, 02:23:30 PM

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.

10 minutes is actually pretty quick. It takes 3 days/72 hours minimum in my country for a credit card/debit card transaction to get confirmed (for fraud protection purposes). I think international ones would take even longer.
So an hour for a transaction to go through is actually pretty good!

Quote from: Spendulus on February 28, 2018, 06:12:36 PM

Hey, but why don't we think about the negatives instead of the positives?

Negative transaction fees!

Just think - miners pay users! What a wonderful world that would be.

Just think it out logically. Fees going down is good. So, fees going down a lot more is good. Therefore, negative fees are the best!

<<>>

It'd definitely make bitcoins adoption increase if every week, a big pool gave 1 bitcoin to a random address in a lottery (or maybe a chance to enter to get your total transaction fees paid back to you). It's obviously not going to happen since the large miners are too intent on centralising the Bitcoins network (and take over the world! - or at least pump dump it until they get bored of getting money).

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: ahmad21 on February 27, 2018, 02:23:30 PM

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.

Hey, but why don't we think about the negatives instead of the positives?

Negative transaction fees!

Just think - miners pay users! What a wonderful world that would be.

Just think it out logically. Fees going down is good. So, fees going down a lot more is good. Therefore, negative fees are the best!

<<>>

BitMaxz

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 3253

Happy New year 🤗

Quote from: shield132 on February 28, 2018, 04:24:04 PM

Quote from: Thirdspace on February 28, 2018, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: jtipt on February 28, 2018, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: jmiro1 on February 27, 2018, 01:13:42 PM

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy

if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue

I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.

Before this could be possible but right now its impossible to happen. Before when i was new in bitcoin honestly i tried not to pay the miners fee using electrum before i think almost 2 years ago but the transaction sent and confirmed. But right now even these days the fees drop a lot i think miners always set their miner to accept higher miner fees.
More likely your transaction can be stuck or rejected by mempool. That's why they are doing double spend or "Child Pays For Parent"
And increase the miners fee just to confirm your first stuck transaction.. So i think there's no miners fee these days.. unless if you are the miner and confirm your own transaction..

shield132

hero member

Activity: 2492

Merit: 960

Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever

Quote from: Thirdspace on February 28, 2018, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: jtipt on February 28, 2018, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: jmiro1 on February 27, 2018, 01:13:42 PM

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy

if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue

I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.

Thirdspace

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 738

Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com

Quote from: jtipt on February 28, 2018, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: jmiro1 on February 27, 2018, 01:13:42 PM

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy

if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue

alia

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 115

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)

One sat/byte is not the minimum. Whole numbers are a concept that the blockchain doesn't really approve of.

jtipt

hero member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 529

Quote from: jmiro1 on February 27, 2018, 01:13:42 PM

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

Quote from: J_CCreate on February 28, 2018, 04:10:20 AM

If Lightning will be implemented, the fees will be extremely low. Even lower than it is now.

off chain transactions will help with the fees but they aren't a viable option to transact huge amount, AFAIK a lighting channel has a limit of maximum BTC as well as a transaction also has a maximum limit for now.
Because of this larger amounts of BTC will still be transacted on chain and eventually the fess can increase.

J_CCreate

copper member

Activity: 224

Merit: 0

If Lightning will be implemented, the fees will be extremely low. Even lower than it is now.

Thirdspace

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 738

Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com

Quote from: MadGamer on February 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

I believe 1 satoshi/byte is the lowest fee/unit to use.

well we used to be able to send with 0 fee Grin

but those days is over, I think all miners only accept min 1s/B fee now.

Quote from: HeRetiK on February 27, 2018, 09:24:33 AM

Quote from: MadGamer on February 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Because it won't stay that way and the transaction count that needs to be handled is only going to grow.

Quote from: ahmad21 on February 27, 2018, 02:23:30 PM

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once.

the scaling problems will never disappear as easy as that.
I agree with HeRetiK the transaction counts will only grow with time
it just that in time like this, for whatever reasons there are only small number of transactions being made
the more users joining the network, the more bitcoin adoptions, the more frequent users make payments and so on
thus more transactions will be made... therefore the scaling problems will always exist when bitcoin usage increases

"If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum"
when we are at 100% segwit txs, min fees reached and low tx counts, that means the network is at lowest level of scaling problems
what happen if 100% segwit transactions but the number of transactions multiplied 10x times
because there 5x new users and each make 2 transactions constantly every day? network load will increase drastically!
then there will be competition for transactions inclusion in block followed by increase of transaction fee
you need to take in the # of transactions and bitcoin popularity when talking about scaling problems

ahmad21

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 271

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.

jmiro1

member

Activity: 235

Merit: 11

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.

13abyknight

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: MadGamer on February 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Transaction size is also a major factor contributing towards transaction fees. With multiple inputs and outputs in a single transaction, the transaction obviously shoots up in size, and if optimal fees would be like it was a month ago, (>500 satoshis/byte) problematic times of long confirmation times would come back sooner or later. Since nobody wishes to live those nightmares again, proposals to decrease transaction size should be considered even amidst presence of Segwit and Lightning Network.

krishnapramod

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1079

Why would there be any need is based on the assumption that the transactional volume wouldn't increase in future. If right now, Bitcoin network had the transactional demand as in December and with 20% Segwit adoption, the fees wouldn't be anywhere near 1 Sat/byte. Segwit is just the first step towards implementing a lot of scalability innovations. Schnorr signatures is a scability implementation while confidential transactions/Bulletproofs is privacy-centric.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3192

Merit: 2248

Top-tier crypto casino and sportsbook

Quote from: MadGamer on February 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Because it won't stay that way and the transaction count that needs to be handled is only going to grow.

Even with off-chain 2nd layer scaling solutions in place we need to utilize what little blockchain space we have as best as we can. Apart from improving Bitcoin's scalability both approaches would also help improve Bitcoin's privacy -- Schnorr signatures are beneficial for CoinJoin and Bulletproofs allows sending hidden transaction amounts.

MadGamer

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1031

I believe 1 satoshi/byte is the lowest fee/unit to use. If that's indeed the case and we didn't even reach reach 20% SegWit transactions - according to SegWit.party, transactions are currently going with 1sat/byte (after a few blocks). If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Topic: How low transactions fees could go? (Read 455 times)