Topic: What's going on with Bitcoin???? - page 2. (Read 406 times)
if it reach to 20k then who know what will gonna happened to bitcoin it demands will increasing and doing more investment on bitcoin will help bitcoin to move more forwards
if I want to transfer $20 what would be your suggested transaction fee to make sure the transaction is actually confirmed? (not fast, I just want to be sure the transaction will occur)
Bitcoin has been called "Digital Gold", as an analogy.To use this analogy, how would I transfer $20 worth of gold? If I had a block, I could shave off a piece, but then I would have to have the weight of the $20 piece certified, as well as the weight of the remaining block. A professional would charge more than $20 for this. So I wouldn't do that.
A practical way of transferring $20 of bitcoin is to use a service. For example, I use LocalBitcoins.com. I have more than $20 worth of bitcoin there. I can transfer that to another LocalBitcoins.com user for 1%. Problem solved.
Fast confirmation time? if I want to transfer $20 what would be your suggested transaction fee to make sure the transaction is actually confirmed? (not fast, I just want to be sure the transaction will occur)
First of all, you can't transfer $20 with the bitcoin protocol. You can't transfer U.S. dollars at all. You can ONLY transfer bitcoins.
I assume you are asking about transferring $20 worth of bitcoins? But, since the exchange rate of bitcoins is constantly changing depending on current demand in the market, the actual amount of bitcoins will be different now than earlier or later.
For the sake of discussion, lets go with an exchange rate of $14500 per bitcoin.
So, what I think you are actually asking is:
"If I want to send 0.00137931 BTC (1.37931 millibitcoins) what would your suggested transaction fee be to make sure the transaction confirms?"
The answer to that question is also constantly changing, and it depends significantly on how you received those 0.00137931 bitcoins.
That being said...
Based on this chart:
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2h
It looks (given the network conditions at the time that I am writing this post) like you can expect to get your transaction confirmed if you pay a fee of at least 0.00000140 BTC (0.00140 millibitcoins) per byte.
Lets assume that you previously received a payment of exactly 0.00164811 BTC to a traditional P2PKH address (address that starts with a 1) which you have not yet spent. In that case, you could expect to be able to create a transaction sending 0.00137931 BTC which requires no more than 192 bytes and therefore a transaction fee of only 0.00026880 BTC (approximately $3.90 worth of bitcoins at the exchange rate of $14500)
If you received a slightly smaller payment to a SegWit address, then you could pay an even smaller fee.
If you are willing to wait a long time for confirmation (a few weeks), you might be able to pay a fee as low as 0.00000100 BTC per byte (only 0.00019200 BTC in the above example).
Its really disheartening to see situation get worse to this level and I see a lot of people getting shut out from investing into bitcoin. A lot of people would want to invest but want to try with little amount to have a feel of what it is about but now, that seems like a dream whose possibility to be a reality is only in that dream, yet I see a lot of people still making a case as to why that is happening. I guess the inflow that should come into bitcoin, will have to move on to other alternatives.
I think soon someone will be able to fork effectively, or bitcoin cash will ultimately take over ... I hope this moment comes soon
Its really disheartening to see situation get worse to this level and I see a lot of people getting shut out from investing into bitcoin. A lot of people would want to invest but want to try with little amount to have a feel of what it is about but now, that seems like a dream whose possibility to be a reality is only in that dream, yet I see a lot of people still making a case as to why that is happening. I guess the inflow that should come into bitcoin, will have to move on to other alternatives.
bitcoin will reach out from small investors soon and bitcoin will be used for big payment.
bcz its fee are so expensive now .but its still early stage if u want to buy bitcoin.
bcz its fee are so expensive now .but its still early stage if u want to buy bitcoin.
Apparently the bitcoin developers did not prevent this problem, high rates, perhaps at the time would not believe that bitcoin was going to have great growth in its price, now it has become a currency only to have it retained and not to do Payments.
Yes it's true it's no longer wise when you transact with bitcoin with this very high transaction fees I also try to do it but when I saw the fees higher than my transactions I'd rather keep my coins and till the fees drop. This is one reason why hardfork was introduce because somehow bitcoin is no longer relevant we need something faster and more reliable coin if this scenario continue to happen I will not be surprise everyone will transfer to a much better alts
I think what's happening is yet again another complication from our third parties. Yes, i think its better to stick to the white paper.
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree.
Greed does not cause excessive transaction fees.
The interesting fact of transaction fees is that the people who receive them (the miners) have no control over their amount.
Users (you and I) have demanded fast confirmation times, so the wallet developers have responded, with large suggested transaction fees, based on transaction fees of other unconfirmed transactions.
Bitcoin is becoming less useful for small investors.Large fees have now deterred many people from investing or using bitcoin. Its a rich mans game.
A small investor can use an exchange. Personally, I have made many small (~$100) purchases using LocalBitcoins.com, leaving my BTC there until I have accumulated enough to justify a transfer to my private wallet.
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree.
Greed does not cause excessive transaction fees.
The interesting fact of transaction fees is that the people who receive them (the miners) have no control over their amount.
Users (you and I) have demanded fast confirmation times, so the wallet developers have responded, with large suggested transaction fees, based on transaction fees of other unconfirmed transactions.
This is the answer that I wish to never have to see ...
Don't ask the questions if you don't want the answers.
negletting problems is the worst way to deal with it!
You stated a few things that weren't true, and then asked why bitcoin was no longer doing what the whitepaper said.
I pointed out where you were wrong.
That has nothing to do with "negletting problems".
do you think it's normal a fee of $60 to transfer $15?
No. I think you are foolish to spend a $60 fee to transfer $15.
However, I support your right to waste money in that way if you wish to.
Do you think it's sustainable?
Think what is sustainable?
Bitcoin fees are designed to be self-sustaining.
If the fee is too high, then less people will send Bitcoin transactions. If less people send Bitcoin transactions, then there will be more room in the blockchain at lower fees. If there is more room in the blockchain at lower fees, then more people will send Bitcoin transactions. If more people send Bitcoin transactions, then there is less room in the blockchain at lower fees. These opposing financial incentives force the blocks to fill up with transactions at exactly the fees that are sustainable (because if they are not sustainable, then there will be less transactions and therefore cheaper fees).
When you pay with cash you need to pay a 600% fee on the transaction? (or 6000% if I want to buy an icecream?).
I don't buy icecream with Bitcoin.
You are welcome to do so, but that seems like a poor choice of transaction for a system as important, significant, and expensive as Bitcoin.
So it's cash but I can't buy icecreams or even a new iphone would be too expensive to buy since I'm not going to pay a 10% premium to pay it with bitcoin. In Venezuela it would be too expensive to buy a house with bitcoin! what's your definition of cash?
I don't like him but given this answers Roger Ver is so right in what he says and as much I don't like the project Bitcoin Cash it is much closer to the whitepaper then what Bitcoin Core now is ... there are thousands of people sharing my same concern and instead of receving answer with convincing solution we are considered stupid ... I hope someone else will be able to take on this project
Hi Guys,
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
Quote
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Evolution is always happening on everything. The whitepaper that you qouted is the defination of what bitcoin should have been but to coup up with the demand and the competition on cryptocurrency, it should somewhat upgrade and find ways to be on top. Right now bitcoin may not be defined as what it was stated in the whitepaper you qouted but it is still the most reliable cryptocurrency.
This is the answer that I wish to never have to see ...
Don't ask the questions if you don't want the answers.
negletting problems is the worst way to deal with it!
You stated a few things that weren't true, and then asked why bitcoin was no longer doing what the whitepaper said.
I pointed out where you were wrong.
That has nothing to do with "negletting problems".
do you think it's normal a fee of $60 to transfer $15?
No. I think you are foolish to spend a $60 fee to transfer $15.
However, I support your right to waste money in that way if you wish to.
Do you think it's sustainable?
Think what is sustainable?
Bitcoin fees are designed to be self-sustaining.
If the fee is too high, then less people will send Bitcoin transactions. If less people send Bitcoin transactions, then there will be more room in the blockchain at lower fees. If there is more room in the blockchain at lower fees, then more people will send Bitcoin transactions. If more people send Bitcoin transactions, then there is less room in the blockchain at lower fees. These opposing financial incentives force the blocks to fill up with transactions at exactly the fees that are sustainable (because if they are not sustainable, then there will be less transactions and therefore cheaper fees).
When you pay with cash you need to pay a 600% fee on the transaction? (or 6000% if I want to buy an icecream?).
I don't buy icecream with Bitcoin.
You are welcome to do so, but that seems like a poor choice of transaction for a system as important, significant, and expensive as Bitcoin.
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
There is no purpose for any of this! None of this is ideal! The problem is a decentralized group of developers not willing to agree on a single direction. That's why we've seen several hard forks, coup attempts, trying to evolve Bitcoin to something better.
What's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Bitcoin hasn't drifted from the whitepaper, it's just matured and grown such that it needs to be updated to evolve with the growing demand.
At this moment it is not suitable for micro transactions anymore, but that doesn't mean it is not what it was meant to be anymore.
If you want a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, use altcoins or keep it on exchanges to prevent running into the high fees.
If you want a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, use altcoins or keep it on exchanges to prevent running into the high fees.
Doesn't this still beat the main purpose of Bitcoin? Also, converting to alts has fees too, right? Some recipients also don't have such alternatives.
We do support bitcoin and it's main purpose but you don't really have a choice. Continuing with the scaling problem will make you lose what could have been your own profit.
Using altcoins could give you cheaper and faster compared to bitcoin today. It's for your own sake too.
Maybe someday when problems are resolved, we may continue with lesser pain. But for now, hundred dollars or less worth of bitcoin transaction is not practical.
Bitcoin is still a good long term storage though. Nice to have some alts used as a helping hand nowadays.
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree. It should be no surprise where there are hundreds of millions and billions of dollars there is some form of corruption. I wish we could live in a utopia that didn't do this but this is the way the world is and you would be naive to not expect it especially in this industry.
I totally agree with what you have said ! At this moment it is not suitable for micro transactions anymore, but that doesn't mean it is not what it was meant to be anymore.
If you want a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, use altcoins or keep it on exchanges to prevent running into the high fees.
If you want a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, use altcoins or keep it on exchanges to prevent running into the high fees.
Doesn't this still beat the main purpose of Bitcoin? Also, converting to alts has fees too, right? Some recipients also don't have such alternatives.
Jump to: