Topic: Transaction Fees are SPIKING ! - page 7. (Read 5685 times)

I think we should just apply understanding to this king of scenario like the increasing fee on transactions because we all know that the bitcoin is in demand and the network can't sustain it so it needs a lot of miners and the miners also feels the difficult situation which is half block reward (Bitcoin Halving Effect) and the increased mining difficulty so they also needs to make profit and that is thru fees on transactions.

I guess they will rush to patch the solution when majority of Bitcoin users turned their back and put their interest to a more scalable cryptocurrency.  When they see that people who got dismayed is not supporting Bitcoin anymore and no one is insane enough to buy BTC with this disability feature.  I hope developer does not need that kind of scenario to come into consensus on the possible fix of Bitcoin block size problem.

Wow... you just realized it now? Yes, the transaction fee cost is heavily increasing because the blocks are getting full. and it is a real threat to the network. Unless we find an alternative to the Blocksize increase or go for it, they will increase to the point it will be unbearable to use Bitcoin.

lets imaging we had a onchain block boost at 2012 due to something satoshi was thinking about back in 2010.

then we had another onchain block size change that was lets say the equivalent to doubling at each block reward having event..
(you can argue and cry all you like about timing and amounts. but just go with this scenario)

now imagine we slap anyone that thinks larger fee's are good and instead kept fee's at lets say 5cents
now imagine DEFLATION didnt move at 10* or 100* every 4 years but instead just 2*(yea low number to play devils advocate), just to keep the reward and bitcoin price on par.

lets see how much pools will earn over the next 40ish years per block



oh look in 36 years+ the pools will be getting over $127K for ~10 minutes work all without having to push users into spending anything over 5 cents a tx
shockingly positive, i know! but i hope it opens your mind to do some scenarios of your own. without being biased to push for LN or pushing to increase fee's to rule out developing countries from using bitcoins mainnet as bitcoins end game

also noting that world wide stats of fiat = people only spend fiat 41 times a month average. (convert to bitcoin tx count) 226,578,732 people to use bitcoin mainnet
yes there are some users that will want to spend 20 times a day.. and that is where they will VOLUNTARILY use LN as a NICHE side service.
but those that only spend less (once a week/month). will use bitcoins mainnet, as they see no benefit of LN

which if you look at world fiat spending stats. reveals that the IRREGULAR spenders vs REGULAR spenders ratio... covers ALOT more people
which if you put that ratio to the bitcoin mainnet tx count and do some maths of a months tx count.
means that in 36 years.. when technology naturally grows and nodes NATURALLY CAN COPE. and LN being just a side service. will all allow over 1billion users to happily hold bitcoin and spend regularly or irregularly without costing large fee's

now here is a little extra thing to think about.
bitcoin will not be a one world currency for 7-10billion people..
for many reasons.
imagine bitcoin only grabs 5% of the worlds population (relax, that is still making bitcoin one of the top 5 "nations" statistically)
you will see that bitcoin, in rational and natural growth, without having to push for large fee's, without having to force people to use LN. without having to halt bitcoin growth.. CAN COPE!!

That's why the bitcoin not friendly to be the massive adoption. The network of bitcoin is really terrible.

SegWit, BU stuck and the bitcoin network gets hurt. to delivery, my transaction in this condition must pay a dollar. The consensus is preventing the improvement of bitcoin network.

lol increasing the burden?
8 years of tx data can fit on a memory store the size of a fingernail
the validation of transactions and blocks can be done on a $50 device

yep we are not in 2009 no more.
we have larger capacity microsd card..
raspberry Pi is now raspberry pi 3.


technology has move way way beyond what was available 8 years ago but you advocate holding blocksizes back because........
oh the fake doomsday of gigabytes by midnight.
wake up to reality. it will be gigabytes in 50 years, not 5 minutes

nodes using consensus will naturally scale a dynamic block based on what NODES CAN HANDLE. so it grows naturally over time.. not leading to centralisation!. not leading to gigabytes by midnight. learn consensus

at which time a gigabyte block will have the same 'feel' as 1mb today. people will have petabyte data storage. and be laughing that 50year prior(now) people thought 100gb was HUGE.
much like right now we look back 20 years and laugh when people thought 3gb hard drives were huge

Holliday
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 and tell activision to never invent Call of Duty, because it requires 50gb storage on average per year(updates, patches, new releases) and the online mode needs atleast 20x dialup speed.

your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell apple to not invent facetime in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell microsoft to not buy skype in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed

We are already experiencing resistance to tiny fees due to eight years of block subsidies providing the network's security. If we kick that can further down the road, there will be even more resistance. I see nothing wrong with some healthy competition to get fast confirmations. The sooner this transition from block subsidies to transaction fees begins, the smoother it will play out over time.

Some spoiled brats are going to cry because buying a coffee with the most secure decentralized ledger on the planet is unreasonable.

Expecting censorship-proof transactions for daily, mundane purchases is a waste of resources, and unreasonable.

Increasing the burden of every full node operator, who must keep a complete list of every transaction in the history of Bitcoin, so someone can buy a coffee... is unreasonable.

Finally, calling everyone who disagrees with you a "corporate shill" is not an argument. It's as bad as assuming everyone who wants bigger blocks ultimately wants to increase the 21 million coin limit because inflation will be the only way forward to pay for network security when there is no longer any reason to keep the block size small since only a handful of corporate operated full nodes will exist due to the amount of resources required for massive block chain upkeep when every transaction under the sun is written directly into the fucking permanent ledger!

I am not sure why there is post after post of usually the same people posting within a thread and complaining about Bitcoin transaction fee's. You guys realize that you don't have to pay a high fee for Bitcoin right? If you really wanted to spend Bitcoin faster then you should've just transferred the coins and withdrew it from another payment processor and paid with that.

Bitcoin shouldn't be an object that can get spent, you guys are really missing the purpose. Sure, spending money is fine but when you look at the references within Satoshi's White Paper you would see why he referenced those links.
Bitcoin transactions aren't fast at the moment, you should already know that and have gotten over that fact.

Thank you for this display of humility. I must say I am in the same situation. This is why I bring this up.

However I would like to understand more the network to evaluate the risks of the situation and the risks related to Bitcoin's current governance.

Maybe increase of tx fees will be good for what bitcoin has to become, for exemple the most secure and robust digital store of value on the planet, which it arguably already is.
But nevertheless I am concerned with the unacceptable censorship that has been going on in reddit /Bitcoin, the opaque role and interests of Blockstream, the divide between SegWit and Unlimited, and more generally the lack of a properly incentivised consensus building mechanism for the governance of Bitcoin.

This article talks about why increase tx fees might be good : https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.9hpssyuv0

Still I am not convinced and I am getting some uneasy feeling about this sharp increase in tx fees and network slow down.

in a couple decades!! not any time soon

stop faking the need for high fee's as if your trying to hug up to pools. they dont care about the fee's, they see it as a bonus not needed income
stop trying to be subtle about promoting commercial services like LN.

you will end up being the sore loser later when you think you can make income being a LN hopper, but no users will use LN hops due to the fee's per hop.

the scripts are becoming too obvious. the bait and switch doom and utopia stories are too obvious.

higher fee's hurt users.
higher fee's hurt the unbanked adoption
higher fee's are just a bad and rotten way to convert people to think commercial services as the future.

i feel sorry for how badly you have sold your soul to centralist corporations.

that is just ridiculous, we need to do something about it, it is going to be soon cheaper to move money via the western union than bitcoins, what is really sad

Maybe you guys who know what your talking about can help this guy: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17942850

Your bank work 24h/24 and 7 days since 8 years ?
no.

Bitcoin ?
yes.

...

frankuestein, unamis76, Holliday

Thank you all for your insights into the way that BTC works in these circumstances.  We are now entering into terra icognita for me, beyond my limits to intelligently (?) comment.

Higher fees are not the whole solution (though perhaps an important part.)  The system itself must get more robust.

Many of us have been complaining (when the system is under stress) for at least as long as I have been here at bitcointalk.  I am perplexed and dismayed that the developers and miners cannot or will not FIX this.

With my original message I just wanted to clarify that bitcoin addresses don't expire the way you think. Services set their own time limit for payment requests but addresses don't expire.


As you can see in this message quoted from official BITMIXER account, they keep private keys for some days after that 24h deadline. Maybe they wait for 7 days, 14 days, 1 month or whatever... we don't know
In conclusion, the unique expiration that exists here is the time they decide they'll offer a service for you. Anyway, I think that this is completely third-party service offtopic and my intention was just to clarify the expiration concept.

I think that the point franckuestein wanted to make is that the Bitcoins are still there, at the address they were sent to. If that service deletes the private keys, well... Taking franckuestein words, "you'll have to follow their rules"


Yes, at least partially, in some point in the distant future. Here's to hoping there are enough low fee transactions in the network to support pools and/or the stake big players and miners have in Bitcoin is enough to justify hashing regardless of people paying big or small fees

I do think the high fees are a problem and unnecessary. Nobody wants their Bitcoins to be lost. It is not cool, when you can not be certain to get confirmed within 24 hours, but this is not alone Bitcoins fault. Mixing services should be aware and response to this. Just blaming Bitcoin is not a good course of action.

Yes, transaction fees must replace the block subsidy.  So under which scenario would more fees be generated?

a) a full 1mb block with an average fee of .0015

b) an almost full 2mb block with an average fee of .001

If you can fit more transactions into a block, the fee can be a bit lower and still generate more revenue for miners and have less congestion and waiting for the average user.  So let's get SegWit done and then when blocks start getting full again (and they will), let's have that moderate blocksize increase.  Running at 100% capacity only delivers a poor user experience.



There are also potential issues with Lightning where a timelock could potentially expire, enabling coin theft by the counterparty if a transaction takes too long to confirm.  Whatever scaling solution we opt for, it needs to maintain an equilibrium between the ability for those who want to being able to run a full node without incurring significant cost and the ability for users to transact without the possibility of losing equally significant sums due to delays caused by traffic.

...

frankuestein just wrote:

"BTC won't be lost forever.

Some third party services, merchants or even people like you and me using a wallet like Electrum can set an expiry date for a payment request. An example of a use case could be to prevent customers from submitting payments after the quoted price is no longer valid.

That's why your bitcoins won't be lost and wallet addresses don't expire. In case you send bitcoins to a third party service like kraken or you use a payment gateway like coinbase, you'll have to follow its rules and this is not bitcoin's 'fault'."


Bitmixer.io for one has addresses that expire in 24 hours.  They then DELETE the address & account info.  As far as I know, that means any BTC arriving late is GONE.  And that would be terrible for the unwary who might lose a big chunk of money when the blockchain is stopped-up...