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.
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
1sat/vb is the lowest possible priority, if there are only 6k transactions on the mempool, the ones with 1sat/vb will be the last to confirm. And i don't think it will be a trend at any time. There will always be someone in need of a high priority and paying some extra fees to get a confirmation in the next block. That's how priority works on Bitcoin, and i think is a fair deal, you want a fast confirmation? then pay more.
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.
He's right about that, despite the ATH in price fees going down, you would have expected fees to go up as people would rush to exchange yet id didn't happen at all, past charts actually show traffic from the exchange and sums there are going down!
More and more just leave their coins there and fewer are moving them rushing to sell!
I would bet that with no ordinals and even with a peak of 100k we won't be touching 60satvb for more than a week and then go back to 5-10sat/vb!
How long do you think it will take to reach this target? Days, weeks, months?
Back in 2023 I asked the same question, answers were years months, and it happened in less than a month!
So with no crystal globe available, I would say a month max unless the price moves!
They are already jumping ship and replacing ASIC's with HPC's as AI learning gives them more stable income.
They're "replacing ASICs"? What does this mean? Selling ASICs for HPCs? Even if some miners migrate elsewhere, this means difficulty declines, and makes the rest take their piece of the pie. Meanwhile, hashrate is pretty much at an all-time-high: https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/hashrate-chart.
Bruh, hashrate alone means nothing alone, just as profitability per th/s without a price for it and energy consumtion!
If a miner switches from 1000 S19 burning 3MW to 500 S21Pro burning 1.7MW he would produce 117Ph/s with 1.7mw instead of 100Ph/s burning 3MW, the hashrate has grown energy demand is lower, the miner might have spare capacity and not be willing to buy more as it's not economically rewarding.
Quote
Northern Data is one of several Bitcoin miners that has expanded into the AI space as profit margins continue to thin in the mining sector.~
Core Scientific, one of the largest Bitcoin mining companies in the United States, is betting on artificial intelligence (AI) amid challenges associated with the most recent BTC halving.~TeraWulf, After the Bitcoin halving in April, many mining firms have been looking for ways to make themselves more competitive amid profitability challenges.~Iris Energy co-founder and co-CEO Daniel Roberts said the company was looking to leverage its existing data centers into serving generative AI computing requirements
Core Scientific, one of the largest Bitcoin mining companies in the United States, is betting on artificial intelligence (AI) amid challenges associated with the most recent BTC halving.~TeraWulf, After the Bitcoin halving in April, many mining firms have been looking for ways to make themselves more competitive amid profitability challenges.~Iris Energy co-founder and co-CEO Daniel Roberts said the company was looking to leverage its existing data centers into serving generative AI computing requirements
Anyhow back to the topic, 5sat/vb is the new norm!
Two more halvings and you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.
Maybe some years later I'll create a YT channel called "Forgotten Cryptocurrencies" and mention Bitcoin as people are quick to forget.
Are you HmmMAA's alt account or what? Maybe some years later I'll create a YT channel called "Forgotten Cryptocurrencies" and mention Bitcoin as people are quick to forget.
Zoom out... and btw, more hashrate does not mean more miners, it's getting more centralized each year.
In terms of mining pools? Sure, but that's still consisted of separated entities. Mining pools do not control those miners. If they act maliciously, their clients can simply leave. All they'll have achieved is ruining their reputation. The fact that you can't deal with reality is really sad, "all time high" and linking to charts that say otherwise...
Which charts say otherwise? I literally just shared with you a chart that, when zoomed out, clearly illustrates the tension. Meanwhile, hashrate is pretty much at an all-time-high: https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/hashrate-chart.
Zoom out... and btw, more hashrate does not mean more miners, it's getting more centralized each year.Oh, is it two halvings now? So, in 2032, there should be the last headline in here? I can't keep up with "Bitcoin is dead" anymore. 
As a means of payment it's been dead for a long time now.
The fact that you can't deal with reality is really sad, "all time high" and linking to charts that say otherwise...
I'm out of this forum as I don't need to talk with toxic people in my life.
Cheers!
They are already jumping ship and replacing ASIC's with HPC's as AI learning gives them more stable income.
They're "replacing ASICs"? What does this mean? Selling ASICs for HPCs? Even if some miners migrate elsewhere, this means difficulty declines, and makes the rest take their piece of the pie. Meanwhile, hashrate is pretty much at an all-time-high: https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/hashrate-chart.
Two more halvings and you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.
Oh, is it two halvings now? So, in 2032, there should be the last headline in here? I can't keep up with "Bitcoin is dead" anymore. Not to mention that at current prices, miners don't even need the extra revenue generated by increased fees to remain profitable. Not now and not in the near future.
They are already jumping ship and replacing ASIC's with HPC's as AI learning gives them more stable income.
Two more halvings and you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.
Maybe some years later I'll create a YT channel called "Forgotten Cryptocurrencies" and mention Bitcoin as people are quick to forget.
So how the network suppose to survive on low-fees when there will be not enough block reward to sustain the mining operation ?
What is there to convince people from using something that costs them a lot of money instead of moving to an alternative that has very low fees and does pretty much what Bitcoin does?Quote
This is the biggest problem of Bitcoin - instead of fixing known issues with known solutions, people just wish everything will be alright.
To fix a problem you have to first understand the problem correctly.Here, you keep thinking about miners and their revenue and don't care about anybody else. You are forgetting that it is people who are creating those transactions and expensive transactions is not a sustainable solution in long term.
Not to mention that at current prices, miners don't even need the extra revenue generated by increased fees to remain profitable. Not now and not in the near future.
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!
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!
I would say it's temporary! You will see the volume of translations increasing again if the price goes up. However, it's also important to be cautious, as unexpected events can quickly change the scene. Your prediction of two wees might be on the optimistic side, but it's not entirely out of reach if current trends continue and no major market changes occur.
By the way, what about the ordinals? Have they been removed from the network completely? I am unable to find any news related to that so I guess it's still the same. If the activity of BRC-20 tokens pick up, the network may see some congestion again and may not show any fees reduction. For me, it feels like a temporary scene.
No, they are still in then network completely that's why there will be spikes in the tx fees.
We are still have ~200,000 transactions right now, we need to clear that out in the next coming days to see 1 sat/vB.
However, it's not that easy, as again, there could eb BRC20 tokens activities and it might cause the fees to go up again. But good to see that we are not in the double digit as the price is somewhat in the 5-7 sat/vB.
Every halving people make the same claim and every cycle we only see hashrate rising since miners are making more money than you think.
Not all Bitcoin miners can make money. They are like investors or traders or speculators and can be smart or stupid.If miners join the Bitcoin mining industry with FOMO, without plans for their mining business, without financial reserve for their operations when Bitcoin price has problems, falls down a lot and cause loss in short term, they will have to shut down their ASICs or have to sell their bitcoins monthly to pay electricity bills and other expenses for ASIC, ventilation system maintenance and more costs. There are capitulation times from weak and not smart Bitcoin miners.
In bull runs, Bitcoin miners get more money from fees as fee per reward percent increases a lot in bullish months.
I agree with you that with time and each new Bitcoin cycle, new halvings, there are more Bitcoin miners work to support the Proof of Work blockchain because they see chances to get profit and many of them actually get profit from mining.
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-hashrate-chart/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/hash-ribbons/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-total/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-fees-vs-rewards/
What type of information is generally displayed and not necessary in a Bitcoin Wallet?
We were talking about LN, remember ?
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.
The whole UX of LN is fucked up. I don't know what "important" details you were talking about as you wrote about it.
This argument is silly. Who says you need to know what happens in the background when Spending or Receiving Bitcoin?
Yeah, just tell average Joe to open channel on LN
Unless you don't care about decentralizaiton (which is F-UP anyway), then you can tell him to use x service.
Remember: Average Joe does not care about decentralization and all the "mumbo-jumbo" we like - all he cares for is the transaction to be fast, cheap and easy.
They can already achieve this by using different project without any L2's needed.
If it's more than "scan QR code" and click OK to pay (while being fast and cheap) - people won't use it.
Why ? because there are alternatives that are already doing it in cryptocurrency space on L1, why should they care about clusterfuck called LN ? or any other "solution" on top of Bitcoin ?
It's called competition and Bitcoin must evolve (a lot) in order to stay significant because "number goes up" only goes so far.
UX does not need to be complicated, users don't need to know what's in the background.
What type of information is generally displayed and not necessary in a Bitcoin Wallet?Do you need to know how engine works in order to drive a car ?
How many people would drive a car if this knowledge was a requirement ? not many.
And should they care how it works in order to use it ?
Imagine being required to know how VISA/Mastercard works in the background by average Joe in order to use it.
Average user doesn't care and shouldn't be required to care about any details.
This argument is silly. Who says you need to know what happens in the background when Spending or Receiving Bitcoin?How many people would drive a car if this knowledge was a requirement ? not many.
And should they care how it works in order to use it ?
Imagine being required to know how VISA/Mastercard works in the background by average Joe in order to use it.
Average user doesn't care and shouldn't be required to care about any details.
Except a few terms you need to look up to understand, such as Mining Fees, Blocks, Confirmations et cetera, it is pretty straight forward. It is not like a Bank is straight forward to use any way. You still have a lot of terms you need to look up, you do not just log in to an Internet Banking interface, write the name of the Receiving person, write down the Amount and press 'Send'. You need to know what an IBAN is, maybe Swift or BIC, what an Account Statement is if you need to prove you paid et cetera.
Bitcoin is straight forward. You only have the more advanced details at hand if and when necessary.
Centralization? Where?
Everywhere. There are plenty of studies about this matter:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225966
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.
UX does not need to be complicated, users don't need to know what's in the background.
Do you need to know how engine works in order to drive a car ?
How many people would drive a car if this knowledge was a requirement ? not many.
And should they care how it works in order to use it ?
Imagine being required to know how VISA/Mastercard works in the background by average Joe in order to use it.
Average user doesn't care and shouldn't be required to care about any details.
It's more of a theoretical talk as LN arrived at a dead end.
If Bitcoin was not Deflationary, the Price would have never been high enough to consider the Fees expensive.
It doesn't work that way. Fees are primarily determined by block space competition. Back in 2012, you would notice transactions paying even ~0.03 BTC as a transaction fee, but that's because it was an unimportant amount back then. A few years later, it declined, because of the abrupt rise in price. But, if you look closely, you can see that, in dollar terms, these fees were all unimportant. And if you search the blocks at that time, you'll notice there were even transactions paying nothing at all, a feature that was advertised at that time, in favor of Bitcoin. (Misleading, as on-chain transactions wouldn't always stay at 0.)Just because Bitcoin is deflationary (in terms of USD/EUR purchasing power), it doesn't influence the transaction fee. Remember, you can choose to enter any fee you want.
And it is true that there has to be competition for Bitcoin to survive. Which, incidentally, results in high fees becoming the status quo.
strangling the tx count to get a premium is not good economics. far better to allow more users who pay reasonable fee
you dont need to strangle the size of the block to force only 3k transactions.. pools can choose the min fee they accept, and the max tx they want to include even if there are masses of space, they are not forced to fill a block, they are not forced to empty block. pools can decide what they want to go in. it does not require putting a stranglehold on the blocksize
infact even if blocks had a capacity of say 16mb pools could fill a block and if the block had propogation delays, thats no reason to lower the blocksize instead pools would decide to half fill the block and find the right level that they still get to be fastest first propagation to be the next blockheight. even if the blocksize code limit is higher then the real world resulting block content average
(take 2009-2013 when block code was 1mb but blocks only contains <0.5mb)
yep the code of blocksize limit is the thing that doesnt influence competition. its the mining pools decisions over what they decide to have included that does.. having a block limit is just pure dev politics to promote annoyance to advocate for other networks to be used.. other networks they designed for sponsorship income. it has nothing to do with technicals of economic growth. limiting blocksize has the opposite causality on economic growth
having wallets that 'bump fee' in huge increments is again not good economics. its just dev politics pools can decide to ignore transactions under a set fee even if there aren't that many transactions waiting. it doesnt require core dev politics to make it too expensive to use bitcoin under the premiss of helping the mining pools. the mining pools can choose what to include or ignore themselves
If Bitcoin was not Deflationary, the Price would have never been high enough to consider the Fees expensive.
It doesn't work that way. Fees are primarily determined by block space competition. Back in 2012, you would notice transactions paying even ~0.03 BTC as a transaction fee, but that's because it was an unimportant amount back then. A few years later, it declined, because of the abrupt rise in price. But, if you look closely, you can see that, in dollar terms, these fees were all unimportant. And if you search the blocks at that time, you'll notice there were even transactions paying nothing at all, a feature that was advertised at that time, in favor of Bitcoin. (Misleading, as on-chain transactions wouldn't always stay at 0.)Just because Bitcoin is deflationary (in terms of USD/EUR purchasing power), it doesn't influence the transaction fee. Remember, you can choose to enter any fee you want.
And it is true that there has to be competition for Bitcoin to survive. Which, incidentally, results in high fees becoming the status quo.
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.
part true. frankly people don’t want to $5 worth of btc to move $25 worth of btc.
and 144 x 2000-3000 is 288,000 to 432,000 tx possible in a day. (very general number but gives you an idea of the limits to the chain.
A simple LN ver 3 could help handle this.
Time will tell if they fix this.
again the failed economics of that thought is the less people transacting the less fees go to a block reward meaning the less that can be split to go to each miner.. whereby then even the miners cant then spend their rewards as they are locked to a pool whom it would cost a miner alot to split the coin away from the pools reward(yep shooting self in the foot)..
the solution again is not less transactions per block with high fee per tx that remain in a block.. the solution is more transactions per blocks so each tx pays less, but where the total accumulates per block total
10 years ago the network had no problems handling 2k-3k tx.. and many things have moved on, apart from tx count totals.
we could have easily done things to utilise lean transaction, fee formulaes, bloat penalising and other things so that when devs finally agreed that 4mb was network safe we could have easily 4x+ the average tx count to get to ~12k+ tx count per block. we could have also then scaled a few increases(emphasis on scale not leap) in the last 8 years to further that. but instead idiots went with the model of less transactions and more fee's which is the opposite of good economics.
as for some idiots thinking we desparetly need fee's in the era of 2020-2030 they have no idea about bitcoin economics of the market price deflation work.
again the market price deflation will look after miners for many halvings to come. what we should do is not shoot the foot to spite the toe, leaving bitcoin staggering around. instead we should be doing things to help bitcoin walk forward. not limp
By the way, what about the ordinals? Have they been removed from the network completely? I am unable to find any news related to that so I guess it's still the same. If the activity of BRC-20 tokens pick up, the network may see some congestion again and may not show any fees reduction. For me, it feels like a temporary scene.
Nope, the developers haven't remove inscriptions completely from the network. It just an idea by Luke Dash Jr to ban inscriptions, but not many people agree with that.Even though the fees going lower and lower, but there are still many inscriptions, here's the recent block that has been mined. But, that's the good thing it means even though developers did nothing, the BRC-20 tokens hype is over.
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!
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!
I would say it's temporary! You will see the volume of translations increasing again if the price goes up. However, it's also important to be cautious, as unexpected events can quickly change the scene. Your prediction of two wees might be on the optimistic side, but it's not entirely out of reach if current trends continue and no major market changes occur.
By the way, what about the ordinals? Have they been removed from the network completely? I am unable to find any news related to that so I guess it's still the same. If the activity of BRC-20 tokens pick up, the network may see some congestion again and may not show any fees reduction. For me, it feels like a temporary scene.
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.
part true. frankly people don’t want to $5 worth of btc to move $25 worth of btc.
and 144 x 2000-3000 is 288,000 to 432,000 tx possible in a day. (very general number but gives you an idea of the limits to the chain.
A simple LN ver 3 could help handle this.
Time will tell if they fix this.
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.
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.Transactions (on-chain) being expensive is a side effect of that goal, because of the scarcity of the small block space.
Am I missing something here?
it has privacy problems, it has centralization problem, it has user experience problem.
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.
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.
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 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.
Transactions (on-chain) being expensive is a side effect of that goal, because of the scarcity of the small block space.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Transactions (on-chain) being expensive is a side effect of that goal, because of the scarcity of the small block space.
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.
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.
6sat/vb or 50 cents for a simple tx is normal now, will we see it 6 times cheaper?
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.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!
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. I'm so optimistic I will say two weekends from now!
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.
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.
This is the biggest problem of Bitcoin - instead of fixing known issues with known solutions, people just wish everything will be alright.
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. Every halving people make the same claim and every cycle we only see hashrate rising since miners are making more money than you think.
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.
Wrong. The goal of Bitcoin has always been to create a decentralized payment system.
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.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.
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
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%.
Every halving people make the same claim and every cycle we only see hashrate rising since miners are making more money than you think.Quote
The goal of Bitcoin is to have more expensive transactions with time.
Wrong. The goal of Bitcoin has always been to create a decentralized payment system.Quote
If you cheer the idea of "There will only be 21M" then you should also cheer whenever tx fee goes up.
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.
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.
They didn't on the last ATH at 72k in March according to your own graph, so why would they move coins at the other ATH?
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.He said that Bitcoin reaching an ATH will trigger higher fees, he posted a graph that shows that during an ATH fees went down!
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
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
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!
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. 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!
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
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
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?
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?
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…
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!
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!
I agree. I also think we will see 1 Sat/vB soon!!
Look at transactions from feebuddy now
- fastestFee: 7 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 7 sat/vB
- hourFee: 7 sat/vB
- economyFee: 4 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 2 sat/vB
Nobody can say when, but it is likely we will see 1 sat vB within some months from now
Fortunately, we don't see it on Bitcoin blockchains and your logic is broken.
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?
If there is no transaction in many Bitcoin blocks, what does it mean?
The Bitcoin blockchain, at that time, is more like a dead blockchain similarly to many altcoin blockchains.
The Bitcoin blockchain, at that time, is more like a dead blockchain similarly to many altcoin blockchains.
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
They didn't on the last ATH at 72k in March according to your own graph, so why would they move coins at the other ATH?
ATH or not, there are always Bitcoin transactions in Bitcoin blocks except barely seen empty blocks.If there is no transaction in many Bitcoin blocks, what does it mean?
The Bitcoin blockchain, at that time, is more like a dead blockchain similarly to many altcoin blockchains.
Fortunately, we don't see it on Bitcoin blockchains and your logic is broken. People have many reasons to move their bitcoins and no reasons why they should not move their bitcoins around ATH price range.
Even though the fees are down from time to time, but I don't think it will down to 1 sat/vbyte because Bitcoin is going to bullish in the next few months, so the fees would increase since people might sell Bitcoin at the ATH.
They didn't on the last ATH at 72k in March according to your own graph, so why would they move coins at the other ATH?
You need to wait at least a year and half when Bitcoin is in bear season.
Bear market is mostly boring for most of us and demands to purchase Bitcoin, trade it or move it in bear market is usually significantly lower than in bull market. What you said is true but I bet that except if you plan to wait for bear market to purchase more bitcoin or fraction of bitcoin, you will less likely want to see a bear market.Zoom out and see Bitcoin mempools recent years, since 2017
OP can read my thread and apply some tips if see fit.
The mempool was empty in October 2023, after that transactions with 1 sat/vbyte fees weren't confirmed till now. Even though the fees are down from time to time, but I don't think it will down to 1 sat/vbyte because Bitcoin is going to bullish in the next few months, so the fees would increase since people might sell Bitcoin at the ATH.
You need to wait at least a year and half when Bitcoin is in bear season.
You need to wait at least a year and half when Bitcoin is in bear season.
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!
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!
Jump to: