Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 24. (Read 21649 times)

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 3 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 9 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 8 sat/vB
• hourFee: 7 sat/vB
• economyFee: 6 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 6 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 5 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 4 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 3 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 7 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 6 sat/vB
• hourFee: 5 sat/vB
• economyFee: 4 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 2 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 9 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 8 sat/vB
• hourFee: 7 sat/vB
• economyFee: 6 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 4 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 4 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 4 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 3 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

But that's not supposed to happen. The network must remain clogged up most of the time, otherwise there's no block space competition.

Even if 1 BTC = $1M, which is plausible in a decade or two, 0.01 BTC is still low. Currently, miners earn about $25M per day. With 0.01 BTC, that's $1.44M for 144 blocks.

Burned how? It's the miner who gets the overprinted bitcoin. Do you mean that nobody will support the fork?

     

• fastestFee: 4 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 4 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 4 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

When you have such question, i would recommend to visit https://mempool.space/ to see "Mempool Googles" feature and click "Data".



Among TX with highest fee rate (which can fit in a block), there are many TX which store arbitrary data. Although without more detailed tool, it's hard to know the goal of transaction which contain OP_RETURN.

Yes, but it can always change. The problem is still not fixed. Another example: testnet4, at the time of writing, has almost empty blocks, and 1 sat/vB is sufficient. However, by having just 10k tBTC (which is not that hard to get), you can fill mempools with 1 TB of transactions, waiting to be confirmed, at any moment. This is more than 600 GB on mainnet, produced in the last 15 years.

Which means, that yes, here and now, you can see peace and quiet. Also because if you put too much spam, then you can undermine your own wealth, because regular users can they say "there is too much spam, let's try something else". And those kinds of things can negatively impact the current price, and even hurt some spammers (because when Bitcoin falls, then many altcoins can fall much lower, and even became abandoned).

No, because you can have a single transaction, serving thousands of users. In general, if we would have commitment-based transactions, then every 10 minutes, every mempool will be cleared into zero, no matter how big it would be. Because then, adding a new public key, with a new amount, would be simplified just into tweaking a single commitment public key, in a single transaction. And if you have a tree of keys and amounts, then you can update it logarithmically (in a similar way, how SPV proofs work). Which means, that if you have correct signatures, then you don't even have to download those parts of the tree, which you are not interested in. You can just audit them, and check if no coins are created out of thin air. For example: you can see, that the root of the tree has 21 million coins, the left branch has 1 million, and the right branch has 20 millions. If you are in the left branch, then you don't have to download the right branch at all: you just verify a signature, and it is sufficient to know, that those 20 million coins are properly signed, no matter how many users are there.

Almost there. "0.01 BTC * 3000 = 30.00 BTC".

I guess 0.01 BTC per block may be sufficient. Because keeping 1 sat/vB means 0.01 BTC per 1 MB. So, rewards in range 0.01-0.04 BTC are guaranteed to happen, if 1 sat/vB limit will never be lowered, and if blocks will be always full.

1. Adding "tail supply" is not that easy. Each and every overprinted satoshi may be easily burned by those, who care about keeping 21 million coins limit.
2. You don't have to violate the hard cap. BTC domination of 50% is the same situation as 100% domination with 42 million coins. If some altcoin create new coins, it simply violates 21 million coins limit.

3 sats/vb must mean that not so many people are inscribing stuff into the blockchain, right?

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 3 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 2 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 3 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 2 sat/vB

     

• fastestFee: 6 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 5 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 4 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 3 sat/vB

My line of reasoning goes like this:


How does the network sustain itself?

• Block subsidy
• Transaction fees

Which one is definitely going to stop sustaining the network?

• Block subsidy

Therefore, which one is the main compensation for the network's survival?

• Transaction fees

Does this mean that transaction fees need to be expensive? Several answers:

• Yes, because Bitcoin has scarce block space. Therefore, with ~3000 regular transactions per block, to cover 3 BTC (which is currently the block reward), each one has to pay 0.001 BTC, or 400 sat/vb, for a typical, 250-byte transaction. Hopefully, we will need less than 3 BTC per block.
• No, we can arbitrarily increase the block size, so that we have more on-chain transactions, each one paying much less. This comes with several tradeoffs, of course, like the risk of lacking competition for block space, which would without doubt result in a network dying out of starvation.
• No, and as a response to the lack of competition, we can violate the hard cap, and add tail emission.

The roadmap of Bitcoin, in my view, is set in stone in 2017, with small blocks and backwards-compatibility as the status quo, and it is the first one. You can find altcoins that have picked #2 or #3.

I don't think it was designed to be expensive.  Actually,  transferring bitcoin was always very cheap  (with very few moments ad exceptions). To prove that, just take a look at how many small transactions we see everyday in this forum for more than a decade.

That being said, it is very likely we will see higher fees on main chain in the future.  When? Nobody knows. But it is very cheap now.

Finney predicted it, and I agree with him

If the block subsidy declines by half every four years, then how will the network be able to sustain itself other than by transaction fees?

Satoshi had nowhere said that "it's designed to be expensive", if that's what you're looking for.

Where does it say that Onchain is designed to be expensive?