That two weekends didn't happen to see Bitcoin at 1 sat/vB. But it's so close this weekend, I think we saw 3 sats and 4 sats /vB this past week.
And that's already a good progress after we came from those high fees because of the network spams that was done by several factors, ordinals, runes, etc.
I hope that when the price of Bitcoin skyrockets or reaches more than the last ATH that it has got, there won't be any issue with the fees and it's going to be stable as what it is now.
Topic: Road to 1sat/vb! Destination in sight? (Read 870 times)
Yes, the obvious reason is the lack of runes and ordinals, when everything works properly without unnecessary clutter.
Blocks are full of runes and ordinals, don't know where you got the idea there are no more
https://ordiscan.com/blocks
I would like this to be the norm, but I understand that this is most likely a temporary phenomenon (usual for the summer period), and later we will see an increase in fees again, I do not know why they do this, but lately it happens more and more often ...
There is no such pattern,
https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#4y
if you look at it closely you will see that it was actually the last summer that the fees were higher than both sping and winter.
Bumping this since it's been a month, we dint get to 1 sat/vb but still last block had 2.21sat/vb and there is no pressure on fees, no major consolidations happen, no rune or ordinals as I can't tell them apart dumps, just random spikes caused by gaps over 20-30 minutes between blocks. If I were to gamble I would bet on under 2 next weekend and hitting 1.0x somewhere next month.
2 sat/vB can now be obtained as easily as it was with 3 sat/vB before, but the difference in fees is not so big that you have to wait. Yes, the obvious reason is the lack of runes and ordinals, when everything works properly without unnecessary clutter. The current values of fees are quite acceptable for normal work, when you do not have to wait for the right time to make a transaction. I would like this to be the norm, but I understand that this is most likely a temporary phenomenon (usual for the summer period), and later we will see an increase in fees again, I do not know why they do this, but lately it happens more and more often ...
Bumping this since it's been a month, we dint get to 1 sat/vb but still last block had 2.21sat/vb and there is no pressure on fees, no major consolidations happen, no rune or ordinals as I can't tell them apart dumps, just random spikes caused by gaps over 20-30 minutes between blocks. If I were to gamble I would bet on under 2 next weekend and hitting 1.0x somewhere next month.
Ten days ago it was 6sat/vb now it's 4sat/vb.
Not dropping as fast as I would want but still it's going down, don't think we're off the road for minimum fees at all.
Fees per block are indeed going down to even 0.04BTC or $2500, but as long as we have the reward it's not that much of a deal, me thinks.
Not dropping as fast as I would want but still it's going down, don't think we're off the road for minimum fees at all.
Fees per block are indeed going down to even 0.04BTC or $2500, but as long as we have the reward it's not that much of a deal, me thinks.
6sat/vb or 50 cents for a simple tx is normal now, will we see it 6 times cheaper?
Well well, I am just as optimistic as you are, but trust me, I have no expectations of seeing the bitcoin network fees back to 1 sat per vbyte, 6sat/byte of a 226byte tx is $0.80
1btc = $60k right now
now imagine when bitcoin is $600k.. the same 6sat per byte of a 226byte tx would be $8
thus we dont need people to pay more sats. nor do we need less transactions to allow more bloaty tx to cause more sats per tx.
whats more beneficial for all is that the spot market continues to raise (its called deflation) to take care of costs. whilst users pay less but more leaner transactions are allowed so more people can use bitcoin rather then be pushed to abandon bitcoin for other networks made purely for middlemen profiteers
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1083
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
After months of constantly checking the mempool, calculating fees, waiting for weekends, using coin control to save $2-3 on each tx, finally I can see the light, fees are down to just 6 sat/vb, and finally seems like there is no more spam! Not even these market swing haven't pushed people to move coins from and to exchanges, the mempool will be hopeful soon drained and we can finally not care anymore about sending even a few tens of dollars worth of BTC, consolidate our inputs with pennies and not having stuck funds cause somebody was a cheap bastard!
6sat/vb or 50 cents for a simple tx is normal now, will we see it 6 times cheaper?
How long do you think it will take to reach this target? Days, weeks, months?
I'm so optimistic I will say two weekends from now!
Well well, I am just as optimistic as you are, but trust me, I have no expectations of seeing the bitcoin network fees back to 1 sat per vbyte, even though I understand and believe that if this can happen, it will definitely be great, alot of us who don't have much money and can't afford fees in tens and hundreds of dollars will finally be happy since fees will automatically be reduced to just a few cents.6sat/vb or 50 cents for a simple tx is normal now, will we see it 6 times cheaper?
How long do you think it will take to reach this target? Days, weeks, months?
I'm so optimistic I will say two weekends from now!
But again, even bitcoin network fees currently at 6 sats per vbyte is already a great achievement for the network if you ask me, and I will prefer that it rather remains at this level for a very long time, than for it to go to 1 sats per vbyte today, and by next weeks or months, it's back at over 500 sats per vbyte.
There's only two ways this could play out:
- High transaction fees, few users interacting.
- Low tx fees, millions-
billionsof users.
You can't have billions of users!
The whole chain only has had 1.05 billion transactions since 2009!
That's an interesting stat and you made a fair point as well. For the number of active users, I'd have to agree to disagree because I want to believe that the goal of bitcoin was to become the global currency. In contrast to Visa and Mastercard that have billions of active cards worldwide, Capping Bitcoin's total users at millions isn't set in stone and very much bound to change. There's no telling how big bitcoin is going to get in the future.
This is just a quiet time before the storm, and people are still on their vacations.
Don't be fooled by 1sat/vb fee prediction, and even if we get there this won't last for a long time.
Don't be fooled by 1sat/vb fee prediction, and even if we get there this won't last for a long time.
If Runes and Orcs run out of steam 1satvb is definitely possible!
The last difficulty adjustment ended with 100+ fewer blocks and despite that, we went down to 5.04sat/vb
We are already seeing huge consolidation and runs only, consolidation is limited, no matter the backlog at current times there are more than actual transactions, so at one point there will be only runes, the fact that despite the ATH fees dropped is again clear message on chain transactions of normal users are down to nothingness.
1sat might be too much for now but 2-3 is definitely possible even this month!
There's only two ways this could play out:
- High transaction fees, few users interacting.
- Low tx fees, millions-
billionsof users.
You can't have billions of users!
The whole chain only has had 1.05 billion transactions since 2009!
1sat/vb is the lowest possible priority,
no its not
lets say a tx is 226bytes
if you think the lowest possible fee is 226sat. you are wrong
you can pay 1 sat for 226bytes, which is far less than 1 sat/byte
the issue is wallet devs decide to set arbitrary bump fee's and fee minimums to try to push the issue that people should pay more via the wallet they are using having set code limits/defaults rather actual choice
The minimum value for total fee you pay in a transaction has to be 1 sat/vbyte because anything lower than that (setting the fee to 1 sat) is rejected by nodes so it won't be picked up by any miner.
Considering how this is not a consensus rule, you can modify your node to accept minrelayfee values less than 1 sat/vb rate.
As for the bump fee, it's an RBF rules thing. If nodes start accepting small increments (eg. 226 sat to 227 sat) then it opens up a DoS attack vector where the attacked could flood the node's mempool with same double spends forcing it to keep verifying the same valid tx and replace it in its mempool.
Although the rate increment is not perfect but it makes this attack more expensive so you'll have to increment the rate instead of the fee itself (eg. 1sat/vb to 2 sat/vb which is 226 sat to 452 sat).
Similarly since this is not a consensus rule, you can modify your node to have a different preference...
read your own words vs what i said. then learn the consensus
mining pools can add transactions with small bumps of far less than 1sat/byte
however dev politics set wide bump defaults and higher mins to get nodes of the relay network to drop(ignore) transactions before reaching a mining pool, forcing people to pay more just to get transactions to relay to a mining pool via relay process
emphasis: even if i edited my node defaults, other relay nodes would reject small fees.
the only way around it is a direct pushtx to a mining pool
thus again for emphasis the dev politics has got in the way of the freedoms of mining pools open selection of relayed transactions that would have small fees
This is just a quiet time before the storm, and people are still on their vacations.
Don't be fooled by 1sat/vb fee prediction, and even if we get there this won't last for a long time.
If you have some consolidation to do than better do it now instead of waiting for 1sat/vb.
Just observe the big picture, we are in crazy geopolitical time, and MtGox customers and other governments are going to continue selling.
Don't be fooled by 1sat/vb fee prediction, and even if we get there this won't last for a long time.
If you have some consolidation to do than better do it now instead of waiting for 1sat/vb.
Just observe the big picture, we are in crazy geopolitical time, and MtGox customers and other governments are going to continue selling.
You don't want cheaper transactions in Bitcoin as miners are already struggling to stay alive with the block reward that was recently cut-off by 50%.
The goal of Bitcoin is to have more expensive transactions with time.
If you cheer the idea of "There will only be 21M" then you should also cheer whenever tx fee goes up.
The goal of Bitcoin is to have more expensive transactions with time.
If you cheer the idea of "There will only be 21M" then you should also cheer whenever tx fee goes up.
We don't need high tx fees if we eventually get mass adoption. In order to have mass adoption that we have a be gunning for, tx costs have to be on the low side because the average joe don't have enough to spend $5 or more on fees for each transaction. Something similar has happened with Ethereum where tx costs have been super high for a long time and the not-so-wealthy users had to leave the chain. If the same happens with Bitcoin, only few wealthy users will make transactions.
There's only two ways this could play out:
- High transaction fees, few users interacting.
- Low tx fees, millions-billions of users.
Looks like all the Ordinals/Wizards/Rune idiots ran out of interest in flooding the mempool. Better for us, I’m unsure if we’ll ever see 1 sat transaction fees regularly getting confirmed by miners though. Let’s see what happens in the next few weeks.
we could go to 4 to 5 but 1 or 2 won't happen.
flooding the pool with 2-3-4 sat transactions is cheap
there are 17,000 tx at 2sats
26,000 tx at 3 sats
16,000 tx at 4 sats
cost for them is about 1.7btc.
which is zero if they do not clear
so flooding in 60,000 tx and 1.7btc is very easy to do since they do not clear.
The minimum value for total fee you pay in a transaction has to be 1 sat/vbyte because anything lower than that (setting the fee to 1 sat) is rejected by nodes so it won't be picked up by any miner.
No, it won't!
https://mempool.space/tx/82de0a89312faaebd40cb4be162f3880e38c2d56cdb8f64aef738721a2f3011b
F2pool and Foundry have added near zero fees transactions since 2019!
I saw something on Twitter or somewhere the other day where someone was arguing that the block reward model will cause weaker security of bitcoin, which is ridiculous, because the hash rate is already ridiculously high. There's no need for it to be that high... society had to invent new scientific terms to describe levels of hash rate for bitcoin.
Hashrate being ridiculously high doesn't mean ridiculous high security!
Back when it was 1 petahash you still needed ten millions of gear, now that is 600 exahash you don't need 60 trillion for it, that hashrate has a price, if 3 years ago you spent $100 per th/s and now you can get it with $10 it means the same security is 10 times less in USD value!
BurtW wrote a variation on the maximum security based on electricity back in 2014, it's the same for the hashrate (which comes from electricity)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/estimating-the-energypower-consumption-of-the-bitcoin-network-694401
Looks like all the Ordinals/Wizards/Rune idiots ran out of interest in flooding the mempool. Better for us, I’m unsure if we’ll ever see 1 sat transaction fees regularly getting confirmed by miners though. Let’s see what happens in the next few weeks.
1sat/vb is the lowest possible priority,
no its not
lets say a tx is 226bytes
if you think the lowest possible fee is 226sat. you are wrong
you can pay 1 sat for 226bytes, which is far less than 1 sat/byte
the issue is wallet devs decide to set arbitrary bump fee's and fee minimums to try to push the issue that people should pay more via the wallet they are using having set code limits/defaults rather actual choice
The minimum value for total fee you pay in a transaction has to be 1 sat/vbyte because anything lower than that (setting the fee to 1 sat) is rejected by nodes so it won't be picked up by any miner.
Considering how this is not a consensus rule, you can modify your node to accept minrelayfee values less than 1 sat/vb rate.
As for the bump fee, it's an RBF rules thing. If nodes start accepting small increments (eg. 226 sat to 227 sat) then it opens up a DoS attack vector where the attacked could flood the node's mempool with same double spends forcing it to keep verifying the same valid tx and replace it in its mempool.
Although the rate increment is not perfect but it makes this attack more expensive so you'll have to increment the rate instead of the fee itself (eg. 1sat/vb to 2 sat/vb which is 226 sat to 452 sat).
Similarly since this is not a consensus rule, you can modify your node to have a different preference...
As long as reversing one confirmation takes (likely) more than a couple of millions of dollars, to me, the game theory is set. No rational person would spend more than that, to reverse a transaction. Even in the extreme scenario where they transact a greater amount than that, and want to reverse it, it still doesn't hold much water, because the receiver will ask for more than a confirmation.
Hashrate is not the problem. In reality, the problem is the allocation of the hashrate. There is a much more apparent danger from a mining pool turning evil, or a mining pool becoming a victim of an attack, than a "real-life Villain" destroying Bitcoin.
Hashrate is not the problem. In reality, the problem is the allocation of the hashrate. There is a much more apparent danger from a mining pool turning evil, or a mining pool becoming a victim of an attack, than a "real-life Villain" destroying Bitcoin.
I think the current hashrate is fine, even if the price goes a lot higher.
If miners think AI is more profitable, then more power to them.
Mining (especially ASIC-based) is a highly competitive process, so eventually a market equilibrium will be reached.
If some miners leave, then the remaining miners with earn more satoshis.
I wouldn't worry that much, unless the hashrate goes back to 2009 levels, which would imply a catastrophic event.
If miners think AI is more profitable, then more power to them.
Mining (especially ASIC-based) is a highly competitive process, so eventually a market equilibrium will be reached.
If some miners leave, then the remaining miners with earn more satoshis.
I wouldn't worry that much, unless the hashrate goes back to 2009 levels, which would imply a catastrophic event.
I saw something on Twitter or somewhere the other day where someone was arguing that the block reward model will cause weaker security of bitcoin, which is ridiculous, because the hash rate is already ridiculously high. There's no need for it to be that high... society had to invent new scientific terms to describe levels of hash rate for bitcoin.
So I agree, it can come down quite a way and bitcoin's security still wouldn't be at risk.
I think the current hashrate is fine, even if the price goes a lot higher.
If miners think AI is more profitable, then more power to them.
Mining (especially ASIC-based) is a highly competitive process, so eventually a market equilibrium will be reached.
If some miners leave, then the remaining miners with earn more satoshis.
I wouldn't worry that much, unless the hashrate goes back to 2009 levels, which would imply a catastrophic event.
If miners think AI is more profitable, then more power to them.
Mining (especially ASIC-based) is a highly competitive process, so eventually a market equilibrium will be reached.
If some miners leave, then the remaining miners with earn more satoshis.
I wouldn't worry that much, unless the hashrate goes back to 2009 levels, which would imply a catastrophic event.
When bitcoin's price falls there's less interest in highly speculative and experimental "assets" and "investments" like ordinals and runes. In other words, the shitcoin traders dissapear simply because their investments went to zero all of a sudden. But it's an attack vector that could come right back at us to bite bitcoin.
Currently bitcoin's infastracture gives a cheaper rate/vb to transactions using taproot calls to add irrelevant data in a tx. So the weak point still exists. Monero actually had a nice and fast fix when mOrdinals came around as an idea by decreasing the space in a tx for data dramatically. I can't understand why bitcoin devs have been idle on this matter for so long. The fees could skyrocket again at any moment when an influencer launches anything on-chain. It's a ridiculous situation to be in.
Currently bitcoin's infastracture gives a cheaper rate/vb to transactions using taproot calls to add irrelevant data in a tx. So the weak point still exists. Monero actually had a nice and fast fix when mOrdinals came around as an idea by decreasing the space in a tx for data dramatically. I can't understand why bitcoin devs have been idle on this matter for so long. The fees could skyrocket again at any moment when an influencer launches anything on-chain. It's a ridiculous situation to be in.
Jump to: