Topic: Solution to high rates? Maybe not, but it's an idea... - page 2. (Read 427 times)

This is here the free market comes truly into play!

With mining there is limited space, you need to compete with the others for this, and only one entity gets a timeslot, it's like an auction for a newly found van Gogh, with LN is like your superstore or your airliner, you can choose the one doing it cheaper, and there will always be somebody who is happy with 99 cents rather than $1 and someone who thinks well 5 cents is good enough for basically doing nothing.

Besides, you're going to have an ally in websites and exchanges, they will be willing to pay for the extra hardware with minimal consumption and the fee to open a few channels when they can cut on paid fees. Rembert that although exchnges charge for withdrawals, they also have costs when collecting your free deposits,  and this is what hurts them as they have to move hundreds of inputs also.

If 1 million users want to set-up channels there is nothing stopping them and you have 1 million channels with 0.0001 fees, if they choose to mine, they will still get 144 blocks a day just as we are now.

I think idea is great but there could be issues with it once peeps start finding back doors to transact faster. Lets assume it is a time stamped transaction with low fees which will get included on the following day irrespective of its values. So it may happen peeps will set the lower fees intentionally and just wait for the following day to get their transaction picked and confirmed. This time there wont be any miner preferences so that could become chaotic. Miners might get lower revenue due to this feature and their profitability ROI might become even higher. This would be like taking out users burden and putting it on the shoulders of miners. I dont know if this will happen for sure but it seems most prominent way to trick the entire fee system. Tomorrow it may happen users with thousands of dollars in transaction could just broadcast it at lower fees even though they can afford higher fees. You see, its not confirmed events but we need to take care of it now before moving further.

$1 a transaction was basically the on-chain cost just a month ago....

I dont see this coming to LN, which was designed to cost sub satoshis (an unit specifically created for LN fees)

And as i said, I don't think LN is enough (as it is too complex to use) and more layer 2 option will show up

It was like that in old versions: it was possible to send transactions for free, if some conditions were met. And yes, it can be introduced without any forks, just convince major mining pools, and it will happen.

Some people called that "coinage", because inputs and outputs are sometimes called "coins", and then there were rules, to check, how many confirmation a given input has. More than that: you can use the same code for calculating something called "priority" for each transaction, and include them into blocks, based on that.

But of course, in the past, people abused free transactions, and since then, we moved into space-based transactions, counted in "satoshis per byte", and later counted in "satoshis per virtual byte", when Segwit was introduced. But still, nothing stops any mining pool from making a room for cheap/free/old/whatever transactions.

When it comes to solutions, I can see something like that:

1. Sidechains, mentioned by pooya87. Ordinals are only about cloud storage, and pushing data, which means, you can just sign existing mainchain coins, and put a signed message into the sidechain, and then handle it there in a trustless way. Also, in this way, the real ownership can be enforced properly, and some bugs can be fixed, for example related to assigning numbers to Ordinals with zero satoshis. Note that because Ordinals are not about payments, no soft-fork is needed to enforce any amounts, all that is needed, is just signing messages, and making sure they are unique.

2. Transaction batching. Regular users need a way to compete with Ordinals. Which means, transactions should be batched, so that thousands of users, paying one satoshi per virtual byte, could join their efforts, and make one transaction, which will have a higher feerate, and will handle all of their payments. Because one user paying 0.01 BTC is the same as thousands of users, paying 1000 satoshis each, if transaction size is identical.

And do you think that channel/node managers, if they can earn $1/transaction, will keep $0.05?
You can have thousands of channels, without a doubt, but everyone will seek to obtain the greatest profitability from having equipment connected 24 hours a day to keep the channels open. In addition to the obligation to keep Bitcoin staked in these channels.

1. People can choose to use non-custodial LN wallet.
2. That's true. It's not practical option for those who don't make much transaction.
3. But with increased usage, there'll more route where your LN wallet choose route with lowest fee.


No way. I expect people simply use multiple L2 for different purposes.

No. There are no validators at all. Everything works as it does now, the miners are the ones who process the transactions in the blocks.
We just added one more element to define the waiting queue, in addition to the fee, it is the transaction date.




I don't know if you know, but the network difficulty adjusts every 14 days. So it doesn't matter if there is 1 TH/hash or 1 EH/hash, the blocks will continue to be processed approximately 10 minutes apart.

This is another idea, a little wrong. The network does not need more hashing power to function. And security does not lie in having a lot of hash power, but rather in this power being divided among the largest number of people possible.




That's another wrong idea. Bitcoin was not created to be "Digital Gold", but rather as a commercial currency. To combat fiat and the traditional financial and banking system.
What is happening right now is the total opposite. Higher rates than the traditional system, more time to process payments than the traditional system, more difficult to use for small holders and dedicated only to tycoons.

Suggesting to use other currencies instead of Bitcoin is an attitude that is completely contrary to the idea of making Bitcoin popular. No one goes to Bitcoin with this level of fees.


Regarding the use of L2 two, I think many are very clear about what is going on, I made these points clear:

I'm not an expert in BTC blockchain, but I think that your idea doesn't make any sense.
Why separating 10% of the block, since we know that this 10% can still be congested with spam transactions?
My dumb idea about this would be to simply ban all small transactions on the blockchain. What's the point of moving 1 USD or 5 USD worth of BTC here and there? Bitcoin is meant to be "digital gold", so such small transactions don't make any sense. Ban all transactions below 100 USD and blockchain will be free of the spam. A true "digital gold" is being transacted only in big or medium amounts.
I know that this idea might sound stupid and a lot of Bitcoiners won't agree, but I can't see any other solutions(yes, removing the Ordinals is still an option, but sooner or later, the blockchain will get congested again).
If you want to send small amounts, just use altcoins.

I applaud your initiative to try and find solutions to the existing problem but the only viable solution to fixing unreasonably high transaction fees caused by an attack is to stop that attack! All other attempts will be like putting a bandaids on a broken leg.

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

Right now, a transaction fee lower than 23.3 sat/vbyte will get rejected.

To consolidate the inputs now is very unrealistic because the fee is high. The best I think that people with low amount of bitcoin can do now is to use side chain and lightning network. Side chain is easy to use.

If you try and broadcast a transaction with a fee of 1 sat/byte what will happen is that it will most likely get rejected because the fee is simply too low. Even with a fee of 10sat/byte will most likely get rejected.

Nothing you can do. It’s Christmas but the fees are still high. If you look at ETH the fees are less than 10 gwei but Bitcoin is still close to 70sat/btye or so. Only going to get worse going into the new year. Best is to consolidate any transactions you have and only do large transfers on the BTC network.

No one using Bitcoin for payment right now can be happy with the system, it is too high fee payments while some people are enjoying low payment with altcoins. This can be so frustrating if the person is forced to use Bitcoin for the transaction since some people do not have a choice but to follow the directive of the parties they are dealing with. All the businesses I know are not looking for alternatives and advising their business partners otherwise. This is unless the money dealing with is huge and the party do not care.

Be it as it may, we can't be wrong to continue giving suggestions on it can be better, and I know that the developers would have been racking their brains for the same purpose as well. Besides, I have made a similar solution to this one on the Mempool issues in July or thereabout, this is to curb the menace in the network, particularly that of miners that have monopolised the system. They are selling it to the highest bidders and this is not helping. Since miners will not stop as it is business as usual for them, the only solution is for the developers to make them stop. They can do it by writing codes that will mandate them to comply and stop rejecting the lower fees transactions. This has consequences too but they can still work around it for the common good of all.

1 satoshi might be an extremist scenario, but of course people would send transactions paying much cheaper fees to take advantage of this feature. It would impact miners in a negative way, discouraging them from working on the network, consequently decreasing even more the speed transactions are concluded, increasing fees and the number of stucked transactions on long run. And in this case probably forever, because there isn't an incentive anymore for new miners to join the duty. Fees have to increase when the network is congested, as that will work as an encouragement for potential miners to put more power to solve transactions.

The system was designed to work perfectly, and actually it is. There isn't much to change. I believe what can be done is to increase the network's power to work faster, but not the rules of the game.

Can this be like done now though, and can you explain it like how 5 year old like me could understand? Because I feel like I'm not getting it right, you're saying that there should be validators that would only process older transactions and they can't do anything besides confirming those? Because the space that's allocated are based on validators right?

Mathematically sound. It's like we are being forced by the miners to want to pay more to finish quickly, the same as the cost of a plane ticket whether you want economy class or VIP.

Yes. This is a consistent and very fast trend of increasing fee costs. Just choose, follow the request to enter their pool or not.

In principle, there is no difference, as in the future you can broadcast a transaction with low fees and speed it up via Mempool.space, and payment is done by watching advertisements or performing specific tasks instead of paying higher fees.
The main problem is that POW means that each megabyte inside the block is expensive and therefore higher fees must be paid.

@joker_josue Since the main purpose of confirmations is to ensure that double spending will not occur, some cryptocurrencies like DASH have added additions to speed this up. You can read more about Dash InstantSend if that is what you mean.

I think your idea is like free acceleration by viabtc, but in large scale since viabtc can only accelerate 2,400 transactions while average Bitcoin transactions are around 400K-500K. Of course this might be the solution, but this could encourage transactions with small fees might be confirmed after 2 days.

I guess we need something like prioritizing Bitcoin transactions over ordinals, so even though there are a lot ordinals transactions, there's a limit like only 10-20% of the block, so it won't conflicting with the Bitcoin transactions.

Layer 2, in my opinion, has three problems:
1 - We move on to custody services, as it will be difficult for everyone to have it on their own and in their own channels.
2 - The fees are still there, but camouflaged. In other words, the person still has to pay a high fee to transfer from L1 to L2.
3 - There is no guarantee that L2 rates will not increase. With increased usage, channel operators and node have found an excellent opportunity to make money from fees. While miners still make a return on the base block reward, channel operators depend their entire return on fees.

For these reasons, I see it difficult for L2 to solve the problem. In 10 years, are we discussing moving transactions to a future L3? In 50 years, how many layers will we have?

Now, if they say that L2 is to support everything other than transactions, it makes perfect sense. But to do that we have to take them there, which seems to be difficult.

He is suggesting that  the old transactions get confirmed even if they pay low fees.

Mempool.space service is offering a way for you to confirm your transaction while paying for that service. You just pay for miners directly instead of paying fees. That's a bit different..

It has been proposed a numerous of times, the end result will be the same, it allows spammers to spam cheaper.

Instead of flooding the mempool with 30-50 sat/b they now know for sure that for a fraction of that cost 1sat/b they are going to clog 10% of the block space, so in the end you will end up with worse results.  It costs around $4 for a 10kvb tx, so with $40 a block one spammer could just make this 1sat/vb impossible, so you will select only 2sat/kvb then 5sat/kvb then the order book for the old tx part will look the same as the normal book since a competition will happen there too, you just start with a different first attribute but in the end the fee will dictate this also.

Furthermore, with just 90% of the block left for people wanting to get a quick confirmation the rate race will intensify and the fees will spike even higher.

The problem is not order is capacity.
You have 2 liters of water/s pouring in a 1 ton tank and only 1 liter/s coming out, the tank will inevitable flood.
What you propose is to change that for 900ml/s and a 100ml/s way out of the tank, situated at different levels, the inevitable will still happen, the only difference is  just that different molecules of waters (see them as tx) will get out before the tank floods.