Topic: Transaction Fees are SPIKING ! - page 4. (Read 5787 times)

I wouldn't say whoever is taking the blockchain data from them would be thinking... anything at all, really.  Unless "whoever" had actually received the invalid blockchain themselves, they would never have known about it to begin with, so in turn, they also wouldn't know if they hadn't received it (I'm sure I could have phrased that better, heh).  Basically, the other receiving node won't miss anything it never knew existed.  In terms of "stale", the network as a whole doesn't particularly care how frequently it receives updates or how long it takes.  As long as it's valid.

I specifically emphasized the word "relay" in your reply

And that's the whole point of what I'm trying to convey. If the full nodes (which are only relaying the blockchain or its changes, i.e. not confirming transactions) consider some block as invalid (for whatever reason), the max what they can do is not to relay the changes. In other words, they themselves cannot invalidate the offending block. Instead they would be just relaying the old version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block). Thereby, whoever is taking the blockchain data from them will be thinking that they are just sending them the stale version of the blockchain

Translation:  Three people have tried explaining it to you and you argue about it every single time.  

You seem to get fixated on the word "validate" and assume it means something highly intensive or rigorous like hashing.  When we talk about validation, we don't mean it in any particularly elaborate way, just checking it conforms to set rules and follows the longest chain.



The Bitcoin software itself does the validating.  It's the default behaviour of the software.  You don't have to manually configure anything.  By running a full node you are both validating and relaying the blockchain.  Full nodes won't relay blocks that don't conform to network rules.  

In the same way that miners don't just validate the transactions in the mempool to be added to the blockchain, they validate the previous blocks as well.  Full nodes also validate previous blocks.  

If, for example, you were running your own full node, then edited one of the previous blocks to give yourself more bitcoin than you previously had, then tried relaying that version of the blockchain to the network, both miners and full nodes (or the software they're running, to be specific) would refuse to validate or relay that version of the blockchain and you would be forked off the network.

That's why I made an allowance for likely being mistaken on this point

I've heard something about Bitcoin users who are running full node clients and somehow validating miners' input. Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

There is a solution. Do not send 30k satoshis. Bitcoin is not a micropayment network, there are many alts and side channels for that. No fork will ever change that, because it is impossible to distinguish spam from your transaction. So main network must be protected from spam with high fees, while micro-transactions will happen elsewhere - still backed by the secure bitcoin network, just not written to the blockchain.

yeah it kinda is and the fees are going to go up and up if nothing changes, we need the segwit to happen as soon as possible in order to not lose bitcoin users as if the fees keep increasing people will start using fiat instead of bitcoins once again. I hope that the devs will do something to fix it, I mean it is just ridiculous to pay 30k fees when you send 30k satoshi as a transaction isn't it?

Those who run the full node clients help keep the miners honest.  They independently validate each block of transactions to make sure the block confirmed by the miner is valid.  This allows the nodes to "trust" the block without "trusting" the miner who confirmed it.  It is an important "check" on the network to prevent bad actors from manipulating the ledger....Right?  Another nuance, maybe: confirmation vs validation?

The transaction fees have gone crazy lately and what once was enough to cover the miner fee is now not going to cut it it will take a day or 2 even not at all. Even higher transaction fees scam often lag behind but mostly larger payments are still quick under 15 minutes.

Just remember bitcoin has gone up in USD value so it makes it even more costly.

For all practical considerations this division doesn't seem to bear well on reality

These "configurations" as you call them are in fact just one setup (at least, so far). The ledger may be distributed across many millions of nodes but these are irrelevant ultimately since only those copies are binding which are used by miners themselves (and which they change by adding transactions). Really, what's the purpose of a copy of the blockchain (in respect to your point, of course) if you can't do anything with it? In other words, the nodes that are not actively participating in mining can be written off entirely. I guess that wouldn't affect Bitcoin in any substantial degree if they all went offline (though I may be mistaken on this)

Okay....I think what we are arguing about here is a bit convoluted.  I believe that this argument fits more into the long debated argument of "distribution" vs "decentralization."  The bitcoin network is a combination of the two network configurations: the ledger is distributed and the miners are (arguably) decentralized.  It's the balance and interrelation of the two configurations that triggers the extreme perceptions here.  It seems to be a difference in perspective that drives the divide. The perception of that division can also be attributed to the other long debated argument of "means of exchange" vs "store of value."  Can the network support both use cases with the efficiency required to sustain both cases simultaneously?  Could one case be sacrificed for the other without causing a disruption in the network?  Are they mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive....etc?  What is the balance?  It's all a matter of perspective, right?

as a legendary member you should already know that transaction fee has been being calculated based on the size of transaction in bytes for a very long time now.

so statements such as "fee as 8% of the transaction amount" and "paying high fee for same amounts" does not make any sense, and are wrong for the most part. and it is best to avoid saying them.

also the transaction sizes are not increasing, they are the same size on average as they were before. but there are exception that you may have seen and also the spam attack had some pretty big txs.

The transaction fees are high (they consume 8% of the transaction amount) and I don't see it increasing due to the high price of bitcoins. The transaction size is itself increasing. Where earlier we used to have a fixed fee of 0.0001 BTC enough for any transaction amount below 0.1 BTC, now it requires me to send 0.0008 BTC for the same amount. If it's the price, then it should have been the opposite.

This article explains everything: http://www.nigeriatoday.ng/2017/02/bitcoin-transaction-fees-are-up-more-than-1200-in-past-two-years/


I understand that the size of a transaction is the same as before but I can see that because of the spam transactions, the confirmations are taking even longer if we set a fee of 0.0001 BTC compared to what was the state last year. I sometimes see that transactions of a small amount have a size of 500+ bytes than other big amount transactions depending on the number of inputs and outputs and hence I end up paying more fee compared to what I used to pay earlier.


And well, being a legendary member, I still need to learn many details about transactions. I use wallets like xapo and coinbase and hence never paid attention to the size as I had not to pay a fee. It's when I started seeing so many transactions of mine not getting confirmed soon, I read about it.

so why this unstability is happening in bitcoin and we need a stable and smooth bitcoin network. because we are hoping for  a better future of bitcoin and for that we need a smooth runing network.

Transaction fees are ever increasing but it doesn't mean if it exceeds our limit we shouldn't complain. It's getting out of hand and these monetization of our beloved cryptocurrency should stop. It seems it is making some big people rich and the rest of us are at their mercy.

Honestly, I don't see much sense behind this verbiage

Could you formulate in a few sentences what exactly you disagree with? I specifically didn't mention Lightning Network (primarily because I mention it too often nowadays), but it will just place the miners where they should be. Right now, they are heavily abusing their powers (which is understandable), that's why they should be deprived of this power, and that's what LN basically does. What it does is turning a seller market (read a monopoly) where prices are dictated by a few sellers with many buyers into a mostly buyer market with many sellers and many buyers. That's another why your post about fee market working perfectly is utterly misguided. Basically, there is no free market in respect to fees to talk about

Transaction fee is spiking in relation to the price increase. This doesn't mean that the fee is high. Now even the increased fee doesn't gets priority in the queue. As for concerned its good to hold on or use confirmation catalyst websites that speed upon transactions.

True but in this case something needs to be done about it before the whole world grows weary if Bitcoin fees and the delayed confirmations and abandon its usage completely.

I think there has been enough evidence throughout history that price fixing is a complete failure which always makes things worse.

Facilitating exchange is only one aspect of money, and one that first requires a store of value. Bitcoin's unique properties which enable a decentralized network to maintain an immutable ledger providing for censorship-proof transactions is what gives Bitcoin it's value. Ignoring those unique properties while trying to solely improve the ability to facilitate exchange will be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You also ignore real world resources and real world friction in your analysis.

Free, instant transactions are pointless if I need to ask a third party for permission or assistance. That's real friction which hinders exchange. And let's be honest, there is no such thing as "free", you will pay one way or another.

Then we have the block chain, the distributed network of nodes, and proof of work, you know, the combination of which creates the possibility of censorship-proof transactions. Maintaining and securing the network has costs, and those costs have been paid by the block subsidy since the dawn of Bitcoin, but that has to transition to fees.

Simply put, appending the block chain has a cost, and that cost has to be paid. I prefer those costs be paid directly because it keeps the system honest. It's clear that the block subsidy has obscured the truth from many early adopters.

So yes, all things equal, paying less is better than paying more. However, you haven't given any alternatives to transaction fees for the real costs which provide the very utility you desire. "Establish hubs" doesn't explain anything. If you mean building a layer on top of Bitcoin, which allows the underlying protocol to retain the very properties which give it value, fine, we are in agreement.

People don't see the forest for the trees

And you seem to be one of them. If we are to consider Bitcoin as money, Bitcoin should facilitate exchange, not hinder it. That's what essentially makes money money. In this way, money is purely utilitarian, and its utility depends on how well it facilitates the exchange (of goods or whatever). Unsurprisingly, the money which incurs less expenses associated with transactions would have more utility in comparison with the money which demands more costs for its use. Thereby, your assumption that you should pay more is against the very concept of money. There is basically nothing to argue with since that should be evident to anyone more or less familiar with economics