Topic: What is the plan to fix slow transactions and high fees? (Read 2913 times)

I always pay recommanded fees and it only takes 3-4 minutes to confirm.

No, no it does not.

why some people disagree it?
fast transaction and low fee will bring more people to use it

I think segwit is plan to fix slow transaction and high fees from developers,
unfortunately it is not activated because there are some people ( what I know the miners )
who disagree with activation of segwit and they won't update the software.
So we must wait and see other solution and what is the best can be accepted
by all of comunity of bitcoin until this problem finish.

This is where litecoin or dash comes in litecoin has 2 minute blocks and dash can instant TX, the owner can shapeshift to bitcoin without worry later.

I was just thinking if china holds that size of bitcoin and you addressed most of the owners to use to work out of government control or censorship. Seeing the indirect control of bitcoin by the chinese government. Can we still consider you statement to be void? or bitcoin is not serving that purpose anymore among the large users.

This is where litecoin or dash comes in litecoin has 2 minute blocks and dash can instant TX, the owner can shapeshift to bitcoin without worry later.

.
They mostly use it because it works outside of governmental control or censorship.
In fact, its origins and revelation was within the cypherpunk sphere which has no
interest in e-cash, but the idea of true unrestricted e-exchange.

It hasn't happened to me yet, fingers crossed, but even transactions where I have paid low fee's have gone through eventually.
Im not saying that block size isn't a problem, just that its doing bloody well considering!
Maybe Im one of the few lucky ones.

Centralized bitcoin payment processors are miracle workers for things like this, the only issue is they're centralized, so you're back to using bitcoin like Paypal. This is a great band aid approach, but I feel like we'll need an official fix to bitcoin core at some point.

So, currently in electrum, the recommended fee to get a transaction included in the next block, is 0.001835 BTC/kb. Thats 1.85$ PER KILOBYTE.

Now, to be fair, that is the recommended fee to get the transaction as soon as possible, but think of it this way:
I go to buy a cup of coffee and want to pay in bitcoin. I pay them but need to wait  some time for the transaction (obviously the coffee shop would want to receive a few confirmations on the transaction so they're sure I don't leave with a free coffee). Lets say I pay a high fee to get the transaction done soon, for this example lets say I paid a 1.85$ fee (and remember that is the recommended fee is per kilobyte, that's not the recommended total fee), now I've got to wait like 10 minutes and pay a dollar or two just to pay for a coffee with bitcoin (and remember that a few dollars is a high price to pay as a fee to buy something for a few dollars).

And this is in the current network. In order for me to pay for a coffee with bitcoin we'd probably need the mass adoption everybody seems convinced will happen. With mass adoption mean WAY more transactions on the network than now, and I feel mass adoption would cause the user base to grow much faster than the network (most of the people using bitcoin now are probably good with technology and would consider mining or hosting a node, if everybody joined then we probably wouldn't have a user base like that). Think of the kind of fees then.

I'd think that this should be a problem that is on the minds of the developers, and it probably is, so, what's the plan? Or perhaps there's already a plan coming to action and I'm just unaware of it. Anyway, please elaborate on this.

Increasing the bitcoin blocksize .
There are have planted to fixing the problem of bitcoin as you can see. SegWit, BU, 8MB blocks.
coin.dance/blocks
 

But its competition is really strict.

the problem of fee's is the old 'priority mechanism
and
how the fee 'estimate' has replaced reactive fee's

but lets concentrate on a proper solution. by looking at the "priority" formulae..

(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
target = 57,600,000

where someone with say 10btc($10,000)

100000000 *144 / 250 = 57,600,000 - gets priority

but someone with just 1btc($1000) with the exact same 'bloat' has to wait 10 days.
but someone with just 0.1btc($10) with the exact same 'bloat' has to wait 100 days.

i see a new 'priority formulae' being used onchain of bitcoins mainnet.
this is what i see as the logical punishment for bloating/respending spammers. whilst rewarding moral normal transactors, whether rich or poor

one which includes a CLTV voluntary option. where users gain priority points if they voluntarily agree to put their funds into a 1-day maturity. but those avoiding the one day before respend or have bloated transactions pay more to get into a block sooner.

EG
if you really need priority you agree that once confirmed you cant respend for a day.
it also means you can be selective of priority. by only putting a 142block wait if your happy to wait a couple blocks because it wont be priority for a couple blocks by not paying quite enough fee. allowing the age/maturity/fee variables to give a better flag of desire.

obviously those moral users that actually need to spend more than once a day could see the niche of LN as a way to transact often and cheaper.
and those that dont spend every day get priority and not need LN or to CLTV mature funds, because they are not spending everyday, anyway.

here is one example of a formulae that does not care about how much people are spending (not a rich gets priority, poor are victimised old formula), but rewards people willing to wait a day, have lean transactions. and penalises those that want to respend often or have bloated transactions



basically
if your transaction is 2x a lean tx. you pay twice as much. if 44x a lean tx you pay 44x
if you dont want to mature your funds for 144 blocks and only want to wait 1 block you pay 144x.
if the tx is both 44x bloated and wants to respend the very next block after getting confirmed then it costs 44x*144X


though my formulae is not finalised or perfect for every utility. i see how changing the priority formulae can cause more benefits for good people and penalise the bad, without making it used just to be snobby about rich vs poor. due to it no longer rewarding the rich with points just for being rich, which the old formulae done

As a creative coffee shop owner, I would find ways to work around that, for instance : I will train my staff to educate people on signing up for a service like Xapo where the transactions are instant and basically free. My regulars will then have no problem paying for their daily coffee and I would help with adoption.

I will even give discount on people paying with Bitcoin. < 10% less per cup of coffee and first 10 cups free, if you signup for Xapo >

This is not the ideal solution but it is a option until they solve the scaling problems.

You dont need to wait until the confirmation will finish and the payment in bitcoin will appear in your balance. What it needs is that there is a transaction that has been done and the transfer is ongoing. If I am a merchant I will not think of it as a problem I will give my products to him even if the transaction is unconfirmed. Sooner or later it will be confirmed and will appear on my balance.

Transactions are almost instant. Confirmations depend on the competition to be included in the next block. That competition is what is going to have to secure the network moving forward. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.

The days of free and ridiculously inexpensive Bitcoin transactions are slowly coming to an end. Many early adopters have turned into spoiled brats thanks to the early days of large block subsidies.

Bitcoin's unique properties allow censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. There is going to be heavy competition to access these unique properties as authorities around the world continue the war on cash and proceed to implement increasingly strict capital controls.

People are going to have to compete to have their transaction included in the global decentralized immutable ledger. That is a good thing for everyone (as it will pay for network security) except those crybabies who think Bitcoin was designed for fast, cheap micro-payments.

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. Pay for your coffee with something else.