Topic: Road to 1sat/vb! Destination in sight? - page 3. (Read 870 times)

Interesting how you see it.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Transactions being expensive is a side effect of the Deflationary aspect of Bitcoin rather than a side effect of the Congestion.  If Bitcoin was not Deflationary, the Price would have never been high enough to consider the Fees expensive.  It could even be a psychological effect of how small Fees seem at first glance when choosing them in a Wallet, since I almost never see the Fee in USD but rather in Satoshis per vByte and Fees often seem way cheaper than they actually end up being.

Am I missing something here?

Solve Privacy with out the Governments coming really harsh on Bitcoin.

Centralization?  Where?

How do you solve the User Experience problem of a system that gives everybody the power of being their own Bank?  You can not make it too simplistic because then you would hide very important information.  I mean.  A Wallet that is extremely simple to use can be created, but then again important details will be lacking and that is not alright in my opinion.  The problem of User Experience is not in the Bitcoin protocol but in the Software Wallets currently existing around.

wrong
miners are not paid per transaction so they dont need every transaction to pay more
instead realise in the last 10 years average global internet speed has increased as has the average size hard drive and ram sold in a PC. meaning transaction count(number of transactions) per block can increase, so that each transaction does not need to pay more

also to note pre halving an average btc price was below $25k now its above $50k so the btc market helps miners.. thats the whole concept of deflation.. learn it

also compared to 10 years ago the efficiency of relaying, propagating and validating has changed which adds more efficiency to make it possible to allow more transactions per block without throttling the network.

and lastly, no this is not an opportunity for you to scream 'lets leap to 1gb blocks' as a propaganda rebuttal, to insight debate to cast away any possibility of scaling bitcoin via that divisive argument.. instead realise that market deflation helps miners not need a 2x fee increase so often and with that, periodic transaction scaling(not leaping) more bitcoin transactions would help not just keep fees reasonable but also allow more transacters transact

other things can be done too to reduce spam/bloat transactions to further utilise the space to allow more genuine transacters

I actually still do not believe this is something that will be possible basically because we are yet to see a full-blown up bull market we used to have where a lot of people would FOMO into the market, and priority would be paid to transactions with higher fees, and we may once again resume to witnessing another high fees, for now, let's just enjoy the fact that the fees are almost at its floor after we all witnessed the high level of congestion of the mempool few months back.

It has scalability problems, it has privacy problems, it has centralization problem, it has user experience problem.

It was (and still is) used as the ultimate answer for every Bitcoin shortcomings by the lemming population who copy/paste outdated/false information.
This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin protocol is outdated today because "L2" solutions will fix it.
Now some people try to belittle it by saying "meh it was only a test project" and point to another project while not realizing Bitcoin can't handle any L2's because as network gets congested nothing gets passed like we have seen with LN failing in the first batch of ordinal spam this year.

It failed at everything it promised for so many years and current state is so unfixable that one of the main devs abandoned the project because current exploitable behavior can't be fixed without changing Bitcoin protocol.

That's how.

I hope we see 1 sat/vb soon, but I doubt it. 1 sat/vb paying transactions are on the bottom of a mempool which can fill 169 blocks, at the moment. Meaning, you'd need to wait for about a whole day, with nobody making any new transactions, so that you reach 1 sat/vb.

The goal is to have a congested network, because a hard capped network like Bitcoin that does not have tail emission is reliant on transaction fees. Therefore, there have to be a lot of transactions.

Transactions (on-chain) being expensive is a side effect of that goal, because of the scarcity of the small block space.

I hope so. It's been so long since I've checked the fees and just because of this thread, was surprised to see it down to 6 sats/vB.

I don't want to guess but right now is totally fine for me and it will be better if we'd see that anytime in the next few days, months - anytime in the future.

Your statement is still wrong.  The goal of Bitcoin was never to have more expensive Transactions with time.  This was a problem that came up with time, not a goal.

How did Lightning Network fail?  Because it did not bring enough Bitcoin users to be part of it until today?  Bitcoin is still pretty hard to learn, Lightning makes things even more complicated in my opinion.  This does not make Lightning a failure.  It was more of an experiment anyway.  Bitcoin is an experiment itself.

You are free to contribute to Bitcoin at any given time if you think it is better than wishing.  Why are you not contributing and solving the known issues?  Many of us only wish because we do not possess the skills and knowledge to solve issues, even if we knew what the solution was.  From speaking an idea to writing the right lines of code to solve the problems AND have everybody else agree with your suggested changes, it is a long road.

Far from the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6aMxaNmXA&t=416s
I don't know if you're familiar how difficulty works but tl;dr: More network hashrate = less profit for most miners.
It's a fight for who eats most of the cake and it's getting centralized due to competition outperforming smaller miners.

This does not make my statement wrong, the goal was simply not achieved and postponed due to endless promises of the failed project called Lightning Network.


So how the network suppose to survive on low-fees when there will be not enough block reward to sustain the mining operation ?
Miners are already shifting towards AI learning and replacing their ASIC machines with HPC in their facilities.

This is the biggest problem of Bitcoin - instead of fixing known issues with known solutions, people just wish everything will be alright.

Here's a little song for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg5QAO72eLo
 

Every halving people make the same claim and every cycle we only see hashrate rising since miners are making more money than you think.

Wrong. The goal of Bitcoin has always been to create a decentralized payment system.

If you want adoption to grow and Bitcoin not to be replaced by something else (and die) you should wish bitcoin remains usable. That requires low fees and no spam attacks exploiting the protocol.

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.

Because they didn't expect Bitcoin would create new ATH before halving, people were expect the peak of Bitcoin around near end of this year or beginning in the next year.

ATH will trigger higher fees, but at that time ordinals were spamming the mempool. If there were no ordinals, I believe March 2024 should be the peak at that time.


https://dune.com/dgtl_assets/bitcoin-ordinals-analysis

However, the good news is the fees keep going down, now you can send transaction with 5sat/vbyte.

Fees are lower now but there are still 188,290 unconfirmed TXs, according to mempool.space, people just don't pay big bucks to spam mempool anymore but I don't see the fees going down to 1 sat and even less when we are in the middle of a bull market and the price is likely to go up in the next months, as Solosanz points out. Expecting that to happen seems too optimistic to me.

Just because fees are lower than months ago at the peak of the spam attack, it doesn't mean the attack itself has stopped. When looking at the mempool chart at a longer period like 2 weeks[1] I still see a persistent attack going on that is filling the blocks.
Some people are still abusing the hell out of the protocol and are injecting junk into the chain[2] using different methods.

Can we go back to 1 sat/vb? It's hard to predict as long as the spam/Ordinals family of attacks are not stopped. But it is not impossible.

[1] https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,2w,weight
[2] https://mempool.space/tx/c605f1c28813b85e76a6f9abaaa4002a51792a0244addbfe13624761ba128173

It might look possible to achieve 1sat/vb if we consider how fast the fee was dropping few weeks ago but I do not think we will achieve it anytime soon. Now the fees have been fluctuating seriously in response to the market finding a support and the gradual recovery we are seeing after the dump. If the market continues upward, then the fees will follow it as well and the idea of 1sat/vb will only be a wish that will hardly come true. I would actually love a situation where the fees is that low because higher fees is one of the major reason hindering Bitcoin adoption in businesses. If that is address, we will see many people and business using Bitcoin in their daily needs.  

easier methods would be to get all wallet defaults to increment in bumps of 1sat/kb instead of current defaults that increment in larger amounts

for instance
a wallet that bumbs in 1sat/b would see a 226byte tx jump from 226sat to 452sat just in one increment
however doing 1sat/kb would see a 226byte tx jump from 226sat to 227sat in just one increment

its like auctions
imagine a bidding war that starts at $50 but each bidder screams out $150, $250, $350.. instead of $52, $54, $56

the larger the bump, the faster the average fee jumps to stupidly high numbers
the smaller the bump, the less the average fee jumps to stupidly high numbers

Finally after half year we see good fee rates. Unfortunately, it mean that no one is transacting right now

The thing is the bitcoin transaction fee is definitely not something anyone can actually predict when it will go up or come down it is just like the price itself, everything is just mere speculation and nothing more to me, you should always use the lower fees when it’s there.

Concerning the chart I think what Solosanz wanted to point out is that there were high fees during the period of November last year until March this year, which was the same period we had the price of bitcoin to be very bullish and also got a new all time high, so logically it could be that people were selling off their profits. But to me that was just coincidental although during bull period there is high percentage of greed which means high movement of coins but this period of time we are talking was definitely caused by the ordinal inscription scams, so it was just coincidental then and nothing to do with the bullish price movements

Bitcoin price isn’t in anyway correlated with the fees, it was just a speculation that Solosanz made that probably it could go up again when bulls set in. My advice is use this period well and don’t wait for lower fees, you never might know when the network spammers could come back again

The fees are indeed very cheap lately. Some people probably think it is happening because less people are using bitcoin. That might actually be true but you can also take advantage of that moment and consolidate your inputs because tomorrow people may again like bitcoin a lot. These market cycles happen all the time it is nothing new. Bitcoin dumps, nobody likes it, fees go down… bitcoin rises, everyone likes it, fees go up. Right now it is time to accumulate and consolidate…

I agree. I also think we will see 1 Sat/vB soon!!

Look at transactions from feebuddy  now


Nobody can say when, but it is likely we will see 1 sat vB within some months from now

What part of my logic is broken?
He said that Bitcoin reaching an ATH will trigger higher fees, he posted a graph that shows that during an ATH fees went down!

So, whose logic is broken here?


It's you with a broken logic!
If you have empty or half empty blocks it doesn't mean the chain is broken or dead, otherwise Bitcoin would have been dead from 2009 till 2023!

Was Bitcoin broken 18 months ago?
https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000004ea65f5ffe55bfc0adbc001d3a8e154cc9f19da959ba8