Topic: I think we are greedy - page 6. (Read 5797 times)

I feel that greed has emerged from the two groups you wrote, I think current state of the transaction is just a game to increase cost of sending transactions every day around the world according to their wishes. On the other hand I also see a tendency to divert user attention to altcoin to set a higher bitcoin standard than altcoin exchange results.

Even when I don't have any issue with paying high fees since its proportional to the increase in the price of bitcoin and we are happy about that, then we should also not be unhappy about the transaction fees but the issue is the delay in the confirmation time couple with transaction fees being recommended by the wallet provider then it take days which I think its not too much to ask.

I think that the fees are ridiculously high because of the greedy exchange platform owners,not
because of bitcoin or btc price.
You shouldn`t blame bitcoin for this.

Of course we are after all we're all humans, even before price increases from $1200 to $2000 fees were doubled from 120sats/B to 240sats/B.

I have no idea how far miners will go, because as users are joining crypto every day fees will go up not because miners are greedy but because they have no other choice than including the highest paying fees transactions.

Bitcoin has another 100 years to be dependent on fees only so I see no reason to start this fee incentive thing now.

Will any of you pay a fee of 800sats/B one month from now?

well from a quick look at you, i can see you are using Coinbase as your bitcoin wallet, specially when you are receiving payments as small as 0.0003BTC so i think you aren't really the one that should be talking about fees and if we are greedy or not

start spending some coins from your Electrum wallet which you keep offline and then after a dozen transactions where you bought some stuff from internet come back here and lets talk more about fees

If you are a small time trader, exchange fees are negligible. The most notable amounts by sum of amount paid are banking transfer fees for FIAT trades but those are not a percentile fee so even if you trade big time its not an amount to change your plans over

i don't remember any deposit fee in any exchange, i only use kraken at the moment and there is no, to withdrawal tehe fee is also very low, both in bitcoin and in sepa, in sepa is ridiculous non-existent like $0.09

what exchange you are talking about exactly with this high fee?

The price of bitcoin is getting crazy high and so does the transaction fees we have to shell out per transaction.I have noticed that some exchanges are charging higher transaction charges for most of the alt coins too even when the price of the coins shoots ten fold they are not making any changes to the amount of coins they take as transaction fee,these things have to be changed,the case with bitcoin is that the transaction charges are getting higher and so we have to shell out more,that is not the case with alt coins,but still some exchanges are charging higher fees.

I agree and transaction fee is just normal for the security any blockchain gives. Because it is not easy to manage blockchain now that there are millions of users in the world wide web. So i suppose we are greedy in a way that we don't want a high fee even though we are getting btc in simple ways just by waiting and also via investing. Because time in time price is increasing so let us just adjust to that.

Most of the time the fear of missing out the highest price is the lead for being greedy. When the user panic on selling at the best price, greediness accompanies and make people to hold and here too the one with the luck sell and profit at the best price. Transaction fee is always discussed as a major issue, but the increasing price always leads to increased transaction fee. No need to think bad about the transaction fee.

Its not we who are greedy it's the miners who are exploiting us to their whims. Honestly the best thing is not to make any transactions hold on to your coins, cause there nothing else one can do. At this very moment best is to wait and watch what happenes in near future, and I hope some common sense prevails and prices are restored to normalcy. Till then let's pray for the best.

Greed is the driving force behind bitcoin which keeps the network trust-less. Yes, the fee is high and this is exactly the burning issue we are facing... even with this the bitcoin price is still unstoppable. So imagine the potential we have when scaling solution is implemented....

So what do you suggest? Bitcoin is supposed to make money transfers cheap and fast, but the idea of paying more to get your transactions confirmed faster seem to defeat the purpose that it was intended to do since its inception.


That's what I'm thinking as well. Simply increasing the block size limit wouldn't magically solve some problems we have in handling transactions unlike SegWit.

it is not just about paying higher fees per se it is paying higher fees at this point too. fees are supposed to be there to compensate the miners for the work they are doing, what satoshi calls "CPU time and electricity" in the paper. and at this point when block reward is 12.5BTC and price at $2000+ paying this much fee is not fair.

I think you don't really understand. People are annoyed when they have to pay 1-5 dollars worth of fees just to transact like 20 dollars. And then when you transact 2000 dollars, you are paying the same fees. It is pretty weird.

Well, just think that a couple of years, there were priority transactions which you could send across without fees. I am not saying that we should expect to send across bitcoins without fees, but the current situation of congestion is artificially created.
It has solutions but we are waiting for consensus. That is what is putting off people.

It is quite easy, if you think the service fee of an exchange is unfair, not use it.  No one is forcing you to use the service that you think is too greedy and unfair. Why not transact in P2P at least that way you can avoid the high processing fee of these exchanges but you must meet the person face to face or through bank transfers. 

in short your admitting segwit as is doesnt solve the issues.. thats step one which i congratulate you for admitting and seing..
but..

simply blocking pools/nodes/tx is literally killing the 46m outputs. literally creating an altcoin. literally causing a tier network and literally causing MORE network issues than a hard consensus of real scaling would have solved, which 'going soft' was trying(but fails) to avoid.

segwit DOES NOT!!!! guarantee 2x. its all dependant on keypair utility,
segwit DOES NOT!!!! prevent native malicious key issues
segwit DOES NOT!!!! guarantee bringing fee's down

the solution is simple
more transactions per block by having a single merkle block thats more than 1mb. not the tier cludge
reduce the chance of one spammer having 20% control of a block with just 1tx (the cludgy maths core will not sort)
new code that limits bloaters
bring in a NEW fee priority formulae which actually works to punish frequent spammers/bloaters and reward infrequent/lean tx makers. instead of punishing everyone nearly equally.(if they spend 6 times an hour or just once a month all punished the same)

core need to really stop trying to push the cludgy temporary gesture right up until 2019 and instead make a plan B of a hard consensus peer network that actually does a proper job without the cludge.

its not about core abandoning the core bus and jumping on the BU band wagon. its about core getting their thumbs out their ass and actually doing things the community want

and dont even try to pretend utopia via mentioning litecoin.. although "activated" the litecoin pools are not actually using segwit. their sending their block rewards to native keys(L not 3). yep the pools are not risking using segwit keypairs. so all the gestures and hope cant even be judged yet. because litecoin is not even truly utilising segwit.

get your heads out your asses thinking its segwit or no way and realise there is another route. where you can have a proper single block for everyone. and yes that still includes the voluntarily opt-in segwit/ln features. but actually does things the community want like limiting sigops and adding a new fee priority formulae and other things can than only occur in a hard consensus upgrade.
this combined would unite the community and get everyone having their cake and being able to eat it

This is a point brought up several times in this forum but its meaning seems to have been lost on the many who see Bitcoin or even crypto as the saviour of the unbanked. I like Bitcoin myself but the way it is developing and the path it seems to be headed down, it seems to be doing its share of widening the gulf between the "banked" and "unbanked".

Never mind those 4 billion people to whom the Internet will never be affordable to use - my own country's min wage is USD 180 and still dwarfs that of its neighbours - and because labour is largely unregulated, the majority of working class people earn far below min wage.

So yes, it seems incredulous to some here that people would scramble over signature campaigns. They mock the whining over $1 fees. But you're absolutely right franky. In relative terms, a fee of dollars is not just a meal for some, it's a hard day's or even week's earnings for many.

It's a good thing to step back and understand the realities of those for whom Bitcoin should be doing better.
 

I'm pretty sure even with 2MB blocks we'll continue to see these unconfirmed transactions, we're getting big every day so expecting users vanish magically is not a reasonable thing to do,
Even with 1MB blocks very soon normal users will not be able to run full nodes and normal users really don't need to run a full node unless you are invested enough money to need validating every thing yourself, then you wouldn't mind to spend less than $2500 to get hard drive a decent mother board, ram, a decent CPU-GPU and at least 100MBps internet access then start running a full node to secure your plus $100K investment under your own terms.
Now we could all agree Bitcoin was never meant for our time and we should wait another 10 years for technology to improve so normal users could easily run and maintain a full node.
While BU wants a simple block increase, SW is going with a smart plan to reduce the size of transactions and same time increase the block size.
Those who refuse to upgrade to SW compatible versions better to stay behind, those miners continue to mine spam and fill blocks with native keys should get blacklisted and their blocks rejected, we're not playing games this is serious, if SW has a fix for spam attacks and allows miners to filter them then any body not signalling it should be blacklisted and their blocks rejected.
If miners keep doing what they're doing then where are the honest miners wanting Bitcoin to thrive and not stuck like now?