Topic: Transaction Cost Problem - page 3. (Read 883 times)

Are you dividing the number of transactions in a single block by the amount of revenue that block earns for the miner?  If so, then you are assigning too much value to "how much electricity it costs per transaction".

Mining a block serves a purpose beyond the transactions that are in that block, and you are failing to account for that.
 

An AntMiner S9 uses 1372W to generate 14TH/s.

At the current difficulty and a mining rate of 14TH/s it would take approximately 451.914 days to mine a block.  That's about 10846 hours.

The average bitcoins earned per block is the 12.5 BTC subsidy plus about 2.43 BTC in fees for a total of 14.93 BTC.

Dividing the 10846 hours by the 14.93 BTC gives us about 726.46 hours of mining per bitcoin earned.

726.46 hours at 1.372 kW is:
726.46 X 1.372 = 996.7 kWh per BTC.

The "cost" of mining that bitcoin will depend on what you pay for electricity.

Assuming that you can get electricity rates around $0.09/kWh...
996.7 X 0.09 = $89.70

Looks like the "cost of mining a coin" is a LOT less than "$1000 - $2000".

Perhaps you need to take a closer look at your own maths?  Did you calculate that "$1000 - $2000" yourself?  Or are you just parroting some nonsense that you read on the internet somewhere?


High fees also suits the users.  If it didn't, they wouldn't pay it.


If the public moves away, then the quantity of transactions will drop.  If there are less transactions, then it won't cost as much (in transaction fees) to get your transaction confirmed.  If it doesn't cost as much, then the public will choose to use Bitcoin.  If the public chooses to use bitcoin, then the nuber of transactions will increase.  If the number of transactions increases, then it will cost more (in transaction fees) to get your transaction confirmed.  If it costs more to get your transaction confirmed, then the public will move away.

And with that we've come back to the beginning.

You see, there is a feedback loop built into the incentive structure of Bitcoin.  The amount of the transaction fees will ALWAYS be as high that the users are willing to pay, and will NEVER be higher.  The usage will bounce around a bit, but will eventually settle on a price where there are enough users willing to pay that price to keep the blocks full, and bitcoin will continue to operate successfully.


Well, if you "cut code" for a living, you should perhaps take some time to look at the Bitcoin code and get a better understanding of how it actually works.

There are, and have been for a while now, thousands of alternatives out there.  They all do something different.  Still, Bitcoin seems to be fine.

Honestly its kind of the same question as why has Cryptokitties broken the ETH chain.
People use it and everyone loses their minds...

Yes sky high transaction fees we agree but you need to check your understanding on how much electricity it costs per transaction
and bring yourself up to date and if you think that is bad then did you know that the cost of mining a coin is between $1000 - $2000

High fees might suite miners but it will drive the public away and they have plenty of alternatives to pick from


I know about IOTA using Tangle instead of block-chains and that the Lightning Network being used to plug the speed issue has many critics
and i cut code for a living so maybe I am closer to the truth than you think

No, it's not.  It's a designed feature.


Yes. Bitcoin has gained popularity in the past year.  Higher demand for a limited resource results in higher costs.  This is the way the world works with ALL resources.


They do.

However, the miners receive the transaction fees of the transactions that they include in their blocks.  If someone is willing to voluntarily pay a higher fee, then why should their high-fee transaction be ignored to include a cheaper transaction instead?  That wouldn't be fair and wouldn't make sense. You are suggesting that low fee transactions should confirm quickly and that high fee transactions should wait longer?


It is clear that you do not understand how the system works.


Check your math.  You seem to have made an error in that calculation.

That electricity is being used for much more than just "confirming a single transaction".

Is there any estimate how long it will take to establish the lightning network?

The current satoshis needed per byte to make a normal transaction successful is around 293 which give around $10 for an average transaction.
The high fee is an issue which everybody is pissed of. Bitcoin is not meant for any micro payments at the moment. Although it will be done in the future with the help of the lightning network it is just a waste of money to spend high fees on micro transactions. It is better to avoid small transactions and just hold the BTC until the lightning network is fully established. The development is going with a successful testing recently. I think people should stand together and join hands towards the development of BTC. Why should just a small group of people do all the hardwork and let the other enjoy it's benefits.

Yes this is a major problem on BTC and has put me off using the coins when the cost can be over $20 per transaction and at the start of the year the cost was
something like $0.00001 and the miners should take profit by mining new coins and competing to add new blocks the the block-chain.

Unlike 99% of people I am not a big fan of the block chain because it's too slow and complicated to stop double spending when you have to process and check
history on all the inputs to a transaction in a database that is already 200gb in size and have all the energy and GPU power being wasted as machine compete
with each other to find out who is fastest at counting grains of sand to win a prize for the miners.

Cost something like 120KWH of electric just to confirm a single transaction so yes the block chain solves one problem and made ten more as I see it

Yes. The lightning network.
 
https://lightning.network/

Hey,
what is the current status regarding the transaction cost problem?
Is the team working on a solution?