There should be alternatives to these motives for general adoption.
Lightning network
Topic: Revision of High transaction fee in bitcoin. (Read 294 times)
There are different ways of looking at it. One might be for fees to be covered by merchants rather than customers. AFAIK, merchants are paying fees with traditional payment methods, so I suppose they can handle Bitcoin fees as well, excluding exceptional times of very high fees. But that's not easy to implement, and I don't think the merchants would like that. Then there are off-chain solutions that were mentioned in the thread. And then there's partial adoption, like paying for Bitcoin when ordering online and when the sum exceeds a certain amount (so that the fees are negligible).
So there are some ways of working around high fees, but no universal solution to actually fix the fees.
So there are some ways of working around high fees, but no universal solution to actually fix the fees.
There should be alternatives to these motives for general adoption.
Lightning network, Liquid Network, Rootstock etc.Quote
If this issue is been addressed, bitcoin will prevail. The fee is deterring the adoption especially in our rural and local areas.
This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
They can start as small as possible, just buy Bitcoin in centralized exchange, you will not pay transactions fees as you only pay the trading fees. Yeah I know it's bad to hold your money in CEX since it prone to many issues including bankruptcy. This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
But that's the only way for small holder.
Yeah, it's true that there numerous risks associated with using centralized exchanges for buying and holding Bitcoin. But On the one hand, they make it easy to get started with a small amount of money and without incurring any fees. And if we wanna put the risks involved into consideration, it'll lead us to no other option that to consider using alternatives such as a hardware wallet or cold storage solution which can be expensive and difficult to set up for beginners.
Use transaction trough lightening network for sending bitcoin without take care with highest transaction fees or get problem network congestion, current last several days bitcoin transaction fees have back normal and get lower fees with transaction take confirmation without twenty minutes regarding with my bitcoin withdrawal from crypto casino gambling account yesterday.
Its normal during high demand with bitcoin transaction need to pay higher fees for sending bitcoin and we need more patience due network congestion. Personally highest or lower fees of bitcoin transaction is not much problem for every holder and investor keep use bitcoin as their investment assets and digital payment currency.
Its normal during high demand with bitcoin transaction need to pay higher fees for sending bitcoin and we need more patience due network congestion. Personally highest or lower fees of bitcoin transaction is not much problem for every holder and investor keep use bitcoin as their investment assets and digital payment currency.
In my opinion, miners have been exploitative as far as Bitcoin is concerned, the income does not flow anywhere but to them only which makes it very bad and ill-planned. This can only happen in a decentralised system where no one can do anything unless to follow such a process already structured. This is ugly to me and whenever I think about it, it is so annoying as Bitcoin encourages a monopolistic system, which I know that Satoshi didn't plan well, and had it been he didn't leave everything like he did, he would have resolved it justifiably.
How can the miners be held responsible? They don't hand pick Bitcoin transactions that have high fee. The principal of Bitcoin transaction is that if you want fast confirmation you pay higher fees. The miners cannot be held responsible for the high fees and congestion in the network. BRC20 users did all the congestion as they were the ones who were paying high fees for transaction. Don't blame Satoshi for an issue which was not created by him. If you want to blame then blame the developers who allowed the creation of BRC20 on Bitcoin main network.
The same I believe should be raised when the market is experiencing too much congestion that is only making the network bad and commoners are groaning. Bitcoin is not made for the rich alone who can afford the transaction fee, but for all, and it should consider the poor the most. Miners are the only ones who can vote for a change if willing, and since they've not but monopolizing and earning all the money in the network, then they are selfish and do not have that core love of Bitcoin like Satoshi but are only in for their pocket and pocket alone.
Bitcoin network was never planned in a selfish manner if the core vision of Satoshi is to be followed. But sadly, he/they is/are no more in control to put an end to this menace.
If you don't want to pay high fees, use a network or lightning network and broadcast the transaction/open channels when the fees are low, batch transactions when the fees are low, use a good wallet that supports RBF options, but the option to support some quick fixes like increasing the block size Or banning BRC20 has bad future effects.
Consolidation is good to use when mempools are clear and transaction fee is cheap. Lightning Network will need an on-chain transaction to open a channel, so if demand to use it only occurs when transaction fee is expensive, it is unrealistic for small Bitcoin holders, who don't need to make many transactions.Side chains like Liquid or Rootstock.
An introduction to Bitcoin sidechains.
Side chains
In my opinion, miners have been exploitative as far as Bitcoin is concerned, the income does not flow anywhere but to them only which makes it very bad and ill-planned. This can only happen in a decentralised system where no one can do anything unless to follow such a process already structured.
If you don't want to pay high fees, use a network or lightning network and broadcast the transaction/open channels when the fees are low, batch transactions when the fees are low, use a good wallet that supports RBF options, but the option to support some quick fixes like increasing the block size Or banning BRC20 has bad future effects. In my opinion, miners have been exploitative as far as Bitcoin is concerned, the income does not flow anywhere but to them only which makes it very bad and ill-planned. This can only happen in a decentralised system where no one can do anything unless to follow such a process already structured. This is ugly to me and whenever I think about it, it is so annoying as Bitcoin encourages a monopolistic system, which I know that Satoshi didn't plan well, and had it been he didn't leave everything like he did, he would have resolved it justifiably.
How can the miners be held responsible? They don't hand pick Bitcoin transactions that have high fee. The principal of Bitcoin transaction is that if you want fast confirmation you pay higher fees. The miners cannot be held responsible for the high fees and congestion in the network. BRC20 users did all the congestion as they were the ones who were paying high fees for transaction. Don't blame Satoshi for an issue which was not created by him. If you want to blame then blame the developers who allowed the creation of BRC20 on Bitcoin main network.
-snip-
I researched that on a Monday (one day), the total value of all transaction fees paid to miners hit an astronomical sum above $11 million on that one day, according to Blockchain.com data.
In my opinion, miners have been exploitative as far as Bitcoin is concerned, the income does not flow anywhere but to them only which makes it very bad and ill-planned. This can only happen in a decentralised system where no one can do anything unless to follow such a process already structured. This is ugly to me and whenever I think about it, it is so annoying as Bitcoin encourages a monopolistic system, which I know that Satoshi didn't plan well, and had it been he didn't leave everything like he did, he would have resolved it justifiably.I researched that on a Monday (one day), the total value of all transaction fees paid to miners hit an astronomical sum above $11 million on that one day, according to Blockchain.com data.
$11M in just a day? That is so huge, and that means that within a few months, they would have each pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars and this is unchallenged because the system has already favoured them unless the whole overhauling will happen which I know sooner or later this will happen. To make matters worse, these miners don't care about Bitcoin itself but the business they make around it, if not, they would have voted for developers to do something about the high fees associated with it. For now, it is business as usual, so let us fold our arms and watch as our hands are tied on this no matter how pissed we are.
Miner fees are crucial to Bitcoin's future, because it will have to replace the block reward for miners to mine in the future.
I highlighted the keywords, in other words using block subsidy reduction argument now that it is not an issue and won't be in the near future is irrelevant under the context of a spam attack like Ordinals.The fast and cheap alternative are the Lightning network for smaller transactions. 
(If more people use that, congestion will be reduced)
No it won't because the fees haven't gone up because more people are using bitcoin. (If more people use that, congestion will be reduced)Instead the fees went up because some people are abusing the protocol and are spamming the chain which means even if every single bitcoin user stopped using bitcoin, the fee would still be high thanks to these malicious spammers.
Transaction fees doesn't prevent the mempool getting flooded because it is the reason why some transactions aren't getting confirmed because the transaction fee increased and the minimum or optimal transaction fee are the ones that are most likely getting confirmed. If you check the mempool right now, you can see the transaction with lowest fee are stuck and waiting for the transaction fee to decrease.
Quote
If this issue is been addressed, bitcoin will prevail. The fee is deterring the adoption especially in our rural and local areas.
This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
Why does it stop the adoption in rural and local areas? You have to pay the transaction fee regardless where you live. The fee is the same if you live in a big city or a small village. I guess you mean that the people living in rural areas are poor, so they can't afford big transaction fees. I've written this many times, if you don't like high BTC transaction fees, just choose an altcoin or stick to fiat money. Nobody is forcing you to use BTC. Buying and HODLing BTC doesn't require making multiple transactions and paying high transaction fees.
And by the way, the transaction fees on the Bitcoin blockchain are pretty normal right now.
This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
Transaction fees are an expected and welcome attribute, they incentivize miners to secure the network. Satoshi noted this in the Bitcoin whitepaper:
Quote from: satoshi
Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
Yes, transaction fees are expected. But that has to be reasonable and madness free. Especially when we see too many optimistic comments stating that Bitcoin will one day replace the traditional banking system. But in reality, Bitcoin is a stone age payment method if we compare it with the traditional banking system. It is expensive and slow. Along with the Ordinals madness, it has become highly expensive and slower. Do you really support this?
I surely do not! In order for Bitcoin to become competitive, the madness with translation fees need to be addressed. Otherwise, Bitcoin will remain as an invest only! I am sure no one will like that to remain as an investment only.
Miner fees are crucial to Bitcoin's future, because it will have to replace the block reward for miners to mine in the future.
The "Halving" will eventually reduce the block reward so much, that it will not be enough to motivate miners to process the transactions.
Yes, the fees are high at this moment, but we know things like Ordinals are causing congestion on the Blockchain and that congestion, require people to pay higher fees to get their transactions confirmed.
The fast and cheap alternative are the Lightning network for smaller transactions. (If more people use that, congestion will be reduced)
The "Halving" will eventually reduce the block reward so much, that it will not be enough to motivate miners to process the transactions.
Yes, the fees are high at this moment, but we know things like Ordinals are causing congestion on the Blockchain and that congestion, require people to pay higher fees to get their transactions confirmed.
The fast and cheap alternative are the Lightning network for smaller transactions.
(If more people use that, congestion will be reduced) 
Most people since 2017 pretty much have learned that you cannot use the bitcoin main chain for small transactions. You can’t use it to pay for your coffee or to send a $5 to your buddy. We all moved on to ETH L2 networks or other alt coins.
The fees now are better than before. Last I checked you could get a 25sat/btye fee going, which isn’t too bad if you are sending more than 4 figures but if you are sending 2 figures or less then it doesn’t make sense. Hence why many are moving to lightning or other alternative bitcoin networks.
The fees now are better than before. Last I checked you could get a 25sat/btye fee going, which isn’t too bad if you are sending more than 4 figures but if you are sending 2 figures or less then it doesn’t make sense. Hence why many are moving to lightning or other alternative bitcoin networks.
Unfortunately this is one of those issues that polarized the community. There still are a small group of people who refuse to accept that what's known as Ordinals is an attack on Bitcoin, which is why the progress on fixing the exploit this attack is abusing has been very slow and fruitless.
It is going too far to talk about bitcoin prevailing or not, just because of this attack. But you are right that this is affecting the adoption negatively.
The small group that you're talking about are people that are benefiting from all this problem with ordinals and high transaction fees, most likely they're miners and NFT people that don't have anything better to do besides leaving garbage on the network. I don't believe that it's because of this groups refusal that are causing the slow fix for this vulnerability, it's more likely that the devs can do it but they choose not to because they're probably somehow benefiting from this too because the vulnerability is already identified right? So how come they're not fixing it quickly? They probably got a long time already to fix it so what's the hold up right? I do think it affects the adoption negatively but for me, I don't think it's that big of a deal, ordinals are just like an NFT anyway, they'll eventually lose their hype and people will find new ways to get others into crypto. It is going too far to talk about bitcoin prevailing or not, just because of this attack. But you are right that this is affecting the adoption negatively.
You can still customize your fees and choose low sats/vbytes for your transaction.
not when the base cheap fee is non zero, but something that averages above 20sat/byte fee as a minimumIt is true that Bitcoin fees are considered a problem for adoption, but it is a problem that has solutions and has been discussed a lot.
the advert you promote has been widely known to have bugs, flaws and unfinished features that do not meet its promises. it relies on middlemen taking fee's per payments and each payment is not a single fee from the wallet you use, but a chain of payments per router involved in the hops to destination..the promotion you advertise is not a solution that everyone should be swayed over to use, nor coerced or forced due to the annoyances created on the bitcoin network. the real solution is to close the softened exploits of the bitcoin network and reduce the fee bumps and other mechanisms that cause fee rises. and change code to make lean transactions more preferred not bloated transactions
Yea, that is what I am worried about, because if something is not done to stop these inscription so that we don't see this reoccurring again in the future, and who knows maybe in the future the fee will be discouraging.
They can reoccurre in the future but it wouldn't be more than what he have seen because for the very first time, mempool becomes congested with over 300,000 unconfirmed transaction, even when we had bitcoin halving, we didn't have much unconfirmed transaction like that in the past. Experts believe that it's a coordinated attack by the guys that want these ordinals and now that it's fading out with time, they might even be forgotten just like other useless trends in the past.
Quote
This is why your transaction output should not be less than $500, so that in future when such high transaction fee comes up, it wouldn't be a problem for you to transfer your bitcoin. But if you have $50 that you sent to your wallet, often to make up $500. You might end up spending a very high amount for transaction fee when you want to withdraw all the $500 in one transaction.
This is not accurate, you can have $50 in your wallet and be able to pay a little amount especially when you have a single input, a receiving wallet address of segwit format, if it were a wallet address like legacy, you will be paying more if you want to send a transaction in bitcoin network. You can still customize your fees and choose low sats/vbytes for your transaction.
High tx fee is surely a problem and it makes BTC unusable, especially as a currency, but i think it is a temporary problem. We used to make tx's with 1 sat/vByte before and i think we will see those times again, though i do not know when.
This problem might still reoccur except something is done to stop these inscriptions. It might be a temporal problem but I don't see it ending soon except it is fixed. This is why your transaction output should not be less than $500, so that in future when such high transaction fee comes up, it wouldn't be a problem for you to transfer your bitcoin. But if you have $50 that you sent to your wallet, often to make up $500. You might end up spending a very high amount for transaction fee when you want to withdraw all the $500 in one transaction.
If this issue is been addressed, bitcoin will prevail. The fee is deterring the adoption especially in our rural and local areas.
This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
Unfortunately this is one of those issues that polarized the community. There still are a small group of people who refuse to accept that what's known as Ordinals is an attack on Bitcoin, which is why the progress on fixing the exploit this attack is abusing has been very slow and fruitless. This transaction fee may stand as an obstacle and a repugnance to the widespread of bitcoin acceptance.
It is going too far to talk about bitcoin prevailing or not, just because of this attack. But you are right that this is affecting the adoption negatively.
High tx fee is surely a problem and it makes BTC unusable, especially as a currency, but i think it is a temporary problem. We used to make tx's with 1 sat/vByte before and i think we will see those times again, though i do not know when.
This problem might still reoccur except something is done to stop these inscriptions. It might be a temporal problem but I don't see it ending soon except it is fixed. Jump to: