Bitcoin Forum

I tried to sent a payment of 0.011 btc and the cheapest miner fee on jaxx wallet (slow) cost 0.032 which is like 30% of the total cost. Is there something wrong with jaxx wallet or its just bitcoin network being congested?

How many inputs were used to create the transaction, and how many outputs were generated?

If you have no idear, you can use option 3 on my website http://www.mocacinno.com/page/feeestimate to calculate if the fee is appropriate based on a list of addresses managed by your wallet and the amount of BTC you wish to send.

0.0032BTC (i guess you made a typo in the original post, as 0.003 =~ 30% of 0.01) can range from waay to much to not enough, the fee is based on the transaction size, not the amount of BTC that is transferred. The size is based on the amount of inputs and outputs, not their monetary value... This makes it impossible for us to tell you if the fee is excessive based on your OP :)

Nothing wrong with the wallet, its fees are based on what you need to pay for quick confirmations.  The Bitcoin network is pretty congested but this is a very extreme fee, probably because you've accepted a lot of dust payments.

The current recommended fees:
So you should be paying around 0.0006 for a normal size of transaction, meaning that you've accepted a lot of small payments or are sending to a lot of output addresses.

We could be sure about this if you post the transaction ID.

I sent yesterday a transaction of 962 bits with a $0.50 fee and until now it didn't finish... I used that site https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ as reference, yesterday the spectative was to finish it maximum in a bit less than one day, now the spectative is "infinite"...

When this happen, no chance to finish the transaction, will it be canceled?

Whats your transaction? In an ideal situation, nodes will start to drop your transaction out of their mempool as soon as 72 hours. However, if your client or anyone else rebroadcasts the transaction, the transaction will not be dropped.

I've seen the current level of congestion at least four or five times in the past 6 months, but never the recommended fee this high - practically double what it was the last time it reached this number of unconfirmed transactions. What has changed?

The fees are really painful.

Been seeing some 2BTC transactions having to pay 0.0006BTC fees, and 5BTC transactions were 0.002+BTC fees.

No wonder Jihad & Roger want this to last as long as possible, the mining farms are making a bomb.

https://blockchain.info/tx/37737b363c94389dd165cbcbb2649be7901d303e2f62e236fc71001a841c4283

Looks it will never be confirmed, would be nice to have an option to cancel it instantly and send again.

That option does exist. There is an opcode for allowing transaction to be replaceable. I don't know of any wallets that let you use it however.

This "too many inputs" concept itself is absurd. What the fuck it has to do with the inputs in the first place? Why did they design it that way?

So if a merchant who sells hundreds of coffees every day for 5$ and accepts bitcoins as payment basically has no choice but to get fucked? Sounds retarded.

You pay fees for the data you put in the block chain. The more inputs a transaction has, the more data it takes up.

A bunch of $5 payments will end up with a reasonable fee. It's when you try hundreds of $.01 payments that you'll end up with massive fees. Bitcoin was never designed to be a micro-payment network.

Your wallet tries to put your transaction as a high priority one based on current market standards. You coyld always pick a different wallet that'd let you pick smaller fees by hand but that wouldn't guarantee transactions confirming on a timely manner.

Electrum already has "Replace By Fee" implemented... and I'm fairly sure that I have seen it in action once or twice... but I've never used it myself. Granted, it doesn't actually work "instantly"... and isn't even guaranteed to work at all... but is better than having your transaction sit around for days.

Your other option is "Child Pays For Parent"... basically you use the output of the first unconfirmed transaction in a second transaction with a MASSIVE fee (big enough to pay for both the first and second transactions) and the miners will include both to claim the "prize" ;)

It isn't really the wallet trying to put it as a high priority. It is because there are multiple dust transactions included that push the transaction data size up (in MrCash02's case to 962 bytes, a "standard" transaction is around 226 bytes). As fees are determined on a satoshi per byte basis. The more bytes you have (ie. the more space in a block your transaction takes) the more you will pay in fees.

This is why a transaction for 100 BTC that has 1 input and 1 output can be sent with a fee of only 0.0005 BTC (~160 sat/byte at 226 bytes) and confirm fairly quickly. But a transaction for only 0.01 BTC that has like 10 inputs (ie. a bunch of faucet dust) and 1 output will need a fee of around 0.0016 BTC (~160sat/byte at 1024 bytes) to confirm in the same timeframe.

People need to realise it is NOT the "value" of the transaction that determines the fee required... it is the "data size" (ie. how many inputs and outputs)

Is there any solution to make the inputs and outputs easier to be processed?

The dust transactions disturb a lot, but they are necessary as there are people paying cheap items on their daily life, if Bitcoin can't correspond to their daily necessities it's not completed yet. We can't say Bitcoin is only to pay expensive things.

They aren't necessary. Bitcoins aren't for buying your damn coffee and they never were. People need to get over it.

That is not a solution, you are hiding the issue to say everything is ok... We can forbid the dust transactions and it's all fine, it can help, but won't solve the problem at all.

Bitcoin is a currency to buy anything as I understand, doesn't matter the price. Now it can look a bit absurd, but in the future it won't.

Electrum does. It's called opt-in Replace by fee. The option comes with a big limitation. The merchant will no longer trust your *unconfirmed* transaction since it can be replaced easily. The best solution is to just pay an average fee when you send it. The transaction should confirm within a day without issues.

Well, if they could fix the malleability issues (aka. get SegWit implemented) then we could have the Lightning Network, which would allow "offchain" transactions... where you transfer coins from your "Offchain" account directly to someone elses "Offchain" account... 3rd party hubs track and validate all the transactions... and settlement occurs when you withdraw/deposit into an actual bitcoin wallet and the transactions end up in the blockchain.

A bit like how if use a coin exchange like Poloniex... when you buy/sell coins, you're just moving stuff around accounts on Poloniex's servers... it doesn't create blockchain transactions until you withdraw/deposit.

It can only be replaced while it still has ZERO confirmations... as soon as the transaction has at least one confirmation, it can no longer (realistically) be modified using "RBF"... so it isn't like a Merchant will suddenly stop accepting transactions from you if you use RBF. It just means you'll need to wait until at least 1 confirmation for them to provide whatever service/product you're trying to purchase. Which is what most merchants do now anyway.

Well, my wallet have 24 inputs (small amounts ranging from 10000 satoshi - 100000 satoshi). Does this contribute to the insanely high miner fee?

BTC Address : 1MMSZrmgcs6ucq2PgevN8YQjcxTb9BydnZ

Technically, no. The number of UXTOs you have in your address doesn't affect your transaction size at all. However, the more inputs and/or outputs you have, the larger the transaction size will be. With the larger transaction size, you have to pay more fee since miners go by the fees/byte.

How to check input and output?

If the transaction has been propagated you can check through a block explorer. Otherwise, it should be the job of your wallet to pick them in order to formulate a transaction.

That all depends on how much of the total balance you want to spend.

If you only want to spend 0.001, then you should be able to use just 1 input and 1 output (as your largest UTXO is 0.011)... and you'll end up with a transaction around 200bytes and can probably pay "just" 30000 sats fee (~150 sats/byte)...

However, if you are wanting to send all of it... well that is 24 inputs and 1 output...

worse case (Uncompressed key addresses) is: ((24*180) + (1*34) + 10) = 4388 bytes
best case (compressed key addresses) is:  ((24*148) + (1*34) + 10)) = 3596 bytes

Using the ((Inputs * 180 bytes) + (outputs * 34 bytes) + 10 bytes) formula for a guess at transaction size... Either way, with current recommended fees being well over 100 sats/byte, you're going to be looking at something like 500,000 sats (0.005) to send your 0.01 with "recommended" fees... yes, ~HALF of your balance as a fee.

Your other option is to wait until the mempool count is really low, like at least under 10,000 unconfirmed transactions... stick in a fee of at least 10sats/byte and try using ViaBTCs TX accelerator... and then just wait and hope.

In the meantime, I suggest you stop collecting dust... it is only going to make things worse for you... see if the people sending you these amounts can collect them into a minimum payout amount of like 0.001 or higher.

f its cost is very high is there anybody want to mine?

If it is me, the important result is its equivalent that has been issued.

I'm not sure every time someone points that out... when Bitcoin was first designed, it didn't even cost a cent, and yet foresaw that it needed 100 million smallest units (satoshi), allowed for large batch transactions, and LN also provides support for sub-satoshi payments. What on earth would all that be needed for if they did not consider the possibility for micro payments?

From what I can see, the fee would have been relatively high, but not as high as 0.003. it should have been around 0.0005-0.0015. Maybe the network was especially congested at the time? If you try resending it now, does Jaxxwallet come up with the same fee?

I have been collecting many micro payment from faucet android apps. The mining fee is 0.0032368 btc to send 0.0688584 btc which is insanely high.

The LN was designed for exactly this reason... to move micro payments offchain.


Do the math... at best case his 24 inputs will only require 148bytes (if they all use compressed key addresses)... 24 inputs * 148 bytes + 34 bytes output + 10 bytes = 3596 bytes....even using btc.com's estimate (https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx) of only 75 sats/byte... that still equates to 269700 satoshis (0.00269700). bitcoinfees.21.co is saying 180 (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/)... which would make it 647280 sats (0.00647280)....


It isn't insanely high... you are trying to take up 0.3% of a whole 1M block for your one transaction... it is almost 15x the data size of a "normal" transaction (3596 bytes vs 226 bytes). Fees are based on data size of transaction, NOT bitcoin value.

STOP collecting dust... or accept that you are going to end up paying a large chunk of your faucet payments to move that money around.

For the record, there are only around 10K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool (https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count)... if you want to gamble and try and transfer using a fixed fee, now is probably your best time (or even wait until it drops even lower, like under 5K)...

If your wallet (Jaxx?) doesn't support manual fees, then export your BIP39 seed, import it into Electrum, use manual fee and put in something like 50000 satoshis to make sure you hit the 10satoshis/byte minimum, mark it RBF (Replace By Fee), send it all in one go and then use the ViaBTC TX Accelerator (http://viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/) to try and push your transaction through.

Does not seems to be correct since jaxx is showing me the miner fee costs 0.0002992 btc to send 0.0011 btc(biggest UTXO transaction in my wallet).

jaxx should offer more flexibility with fees.   That being said , there's obviously a huge problem with high network fees in general.

It doesnt work like that, in blockchain network your transaction are rejected only in special cases, but you can find all these transactions and block over here -->  https://blockchain.info/en/rejected
To make it easier for us to help you, I suggest pasting your transaction ID over here, we will be able to see what is exactly going on.

To avoid very high fees like that, you should notice to not send many payments with bitcoin dust, that will just increase the fee you will have to pay later.
I suggest stacking your money into bigger sums, to send them all in one transaction. You will save money, time and resources.

That is because if you try to send the whole 0.0011, the wallet will need to include other UTXO's to cover the fee... and as your other UTXOs are small, it needs to include a lot of them to be able to do that. That is why I suggested trying to just send 0.00100000.  That way, you have 10000 satoshi's to use as a fee... but I suppose even that wouldn't work, you'd need to send like 0.0009 or something.

Anyway, it looks like you managed to send it all... 44996bc2b9235fc374649c2f6b596547f8bf8e3c1073ef5fb68f8249a50809f5 (https://blockchain.info/tx/44996bc2b9235fc374649c2f6b596547f8bf8e3c1073ef5fb68f8249a50809f5)

as predicted, this transaction with all the dust UTXOs was HUGE by btc standards... Size: 3766 bytes... but you managed to get away with a 77 sat/byte fee... so it "only" cost: 0.00291648 BTC  :-\


I hope you (and others following this thread) have learned a valuable (and expensive) lesson... try not to accumulate dust, it'll end up costing you more to move than it is worth... especially if fees keep going up! ;)

In a previous version of blockchain they had a function to check inputs and outputs. Electrum provides the amount of inputs and ouputs and give the number of btc which you can pay, or wait for transactions to ease 

It somewhat depends on what you consider micropayments. Micropayments were considered, but they weren't a focus of the design. Let's see what the designer had to say.


Notice how Satoshi is considering .01 as an overly small micropayment. We got people today expecting to transfer .0001 around without paying fees. That's 100 times smaller than Satoshi's micropayment. It may change in the future, but as of today, it's simply not how bitcoin was designed.

If you ever notice a lull in network congestion and fees you might try emptying your wallet to a single address just to reduce the inputs down to one. Or wait for Segwit/LN/increased blocksizes to reduce the congestion.

How much of that will be issued this insanely miners.

Don't like the miner fees? Support bigger blocks.

its not like there is something wrong with the wallet,it is common and this system is wrong.It depends on the no. of inputs and outputs craeated,in mycelium wallet it is 139 satoshi per byte at normal i.e. 30 mins,this is a huge amount even if u go to transact 3.7 usd it would take u 4.2 usd now imagine this for a 1000usd,this is the trend mate we need to rise against this :P :P :P ???

You seem to understand that is is about the inputs and outputs... but don't seem to understand how the fees are calculated? It has NOTHING to do with the "dollar" amount being sent in the transaction. It is purely related to "data size" of the transaction.

If you have a "standard" transaction with 1 input and 1 output... it will be around 192 bytes in size... I could be sending $1,000,000 worth of BTC or I could be sending $1 worth of bitcoin, it is still 192 bytes... and so if I pay the "normal" fee, it will cost 192 bytes * 130 sats/byte = ~25,000 satoshis...

Now, if you try to create a transaction like the OP did here, that has 20+ inputs because you've been collecting faucet payouts... all of a sudden, your simple transaction is now 3500 bytes or larger...

3500 bytes * 130 sats/byte = 455,000 satoshis... again, it doesn't matter if I'm sending 1000 BTC or 0.011 BTC, if the data size of my transaction is 3500 bytes because it has a lot of inputs and/or outputs in it, then the total fee required will be large.

If you don't like miner fees, support SegWit and help get the Lightning Network up and running... then you can start sending your dust size transactions around for minimal fees off-chain... and you're likely to never have to worry about the miners fees again :P

This is stupid, anyone supporting trasactions offchain are supporting not a crypto-currency, neither a blockchain coin, they are supporting a useless digital currency scheme just as paypal, liberty reserve or anyone of those failed payment systems where anyone could issue an unlimited amount of currency.

The only solution is to scale on-chain, if you can't do it then let the ones who can do it do the job, because I see plenty of cryptos with bigger blocks and smaller txs fees.

Core Devs triying to fix Bitcoin with off-chain txs is like triying to fix the hole in the tire of your car by changing it for a wooden wheel instead of just patching it.

So scaling by making the blocks bigger is a solution so that you can put every cup of coffee transaction into the block chain? How much will fix it? 2MB? 4, 8, 16, 32? If you really wanted every coffee purchase to go into the blockchain you'd need approximately 2GB PER BLOCK. That means you're proposing a solution where the blockchain eventually grows at 2 terrabytes per week. Sure, we're not going to put every coffee purchase into the block chain today, but what if there was a solution that actually allowed you to do it? We're looking to create a transaction system that replaces the existing monetary one, not just supplement it. Note, I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't make the block size bigger, just that your solution doesn't fix microtransaction scaling. Off chain microtransactions (and note that LN as proposed will only allow transactions up to 0.0042 BTC so it IS being designed with per-coffee transactions) require an on-chain transaction to open the channel. Now if you really don't want bitcoin to be able to handle coffee sized transactions in one way or another, then that's a different argument all together. However it really doesn't matter what you want, LN will be implemented regardless on either core as is at the moment, segwit core or BU. There's nothing to stop an off chain payment channel system from being developed that works. Everyone is concentrating on segwit as though it's what will make LN possible - it improves what can be done with LN but there's nothing preventing LN being developed even with the current blockchain.

Ummm what??  ???

You realise that to be able to transfer coins in off-chain transactions, you first need to front the coins in an on-chain transaction right? You don't get to magically start sending coins to people because you feel like it... and the LN participants can't just issue coins to people from nothing.

I thought the difficulty in implementing the LN was due to the malleability issue (one of the things which SegWit addresses) ??

Correct it will be limited in feature set without segwit because of the malleability issue but that doesn't mean LN can't be implemented.

but this does not make sense increase block size increase adoption, get way more even at lower fees?

What is the cheapest if all there is a very high increment fee ???

You have to be careful with all your transactions and check the sum in the beginning and after all counted fees before to finish the operation. Last time i was trying to cush out pretty big sum of money and cause of some site's problem when I wanted to cash out 10000 after all fees the final sum was just 1000! maybe cause of slow internet or slow work of the site, thenks God i looked carefuly on the transaction numbers and noticed it in time. So I have waited a bit and tried again and everything passed nicely  :)

This is probably why bigger blocks are now supported by majority hashrate:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools)

My question to miners especially, and other users is why do we need to wait until 75%? If the majority hashrate forks the chain the capped minority chain will be forced to switch or become a useless network. They will be mining worthless coins.

So many reasons, but I'll mention just one. Hysteresis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis) With a couple lucky blocks, fork A could become the majority, then a couple lucky blocks fork B could become the majority. It would be chaos while miners switch back and forth between forks to try to stay on the winning fork.

Back in the early days, pre 2016 or so. Micro payments were not a big deal.

Wooow  so big fee omg now I know that I dont need to do some retarded small transactions because later it will cost me more then I earned with that transactions.

The thing is very easy: Increasing size will not be a solution, only temporarily.
We should accept that bitcoins Blockchain is not made for some million transactions a day.
So time for micropayment is over  and fees will be high.

Even bigger blocksize wins only a few months time but centralizes nodes forever.
This makes BTC unsafe!

For Micropayment we dont need blockchains that are secured with that energy.
Altcoins are good enough for that.

Nobody would pay a drink with  precious gold.
But many people invest high sums in gold. 10 gold-trades in a lifetime are enough.

Daily payments are not good with bitcoin.
Or, better said: they are not good if they are on any blockchain.
So now its time for service agencies to provide more offchain-crypto-solutions.
Given excample: Inside LBC or Xapo, you can send coins offchain from one user to another.
But there is a trust in the company necessary, other if onchain. No problem, if its micropayment...

There are no dumb people would make such micro transaction which the fee is high because it will surely compromise the profit on that certain transaction specially when you do have online deals with other people and stuff.Its better to wait for those amount to be piled up and send it on bulk amounts so that you wont really feel too much the high fee when you do tend to send the amount on other wallet.

that is true just send big amount in every transaction in order to save fees.
don't transact small amount.

No matter how big or small the amount you are going to transact, The fee still a percentage of the total amount so can't save fees by just sending in bulk. The best way to avoid expensive fee of bitcoin is to change currency. Ethereum is more faster and cheaper compare to bitcoin. And many site are already adapted this currency.

Well that is just wrong... the fee is not a percentage of the total amount at all... in fact, it has NOTHING to do with the amount of bitcoins you are trying to move.

Miner's Fees are measured in "satoshis per byte"... it is the data size of the transaction that is important. If you have a transaction involving 1 input and 1 output, it could be as small as 192 bytes... you could send some HUGE amount like 1000 BTC... and you'd only need to pay 192 * whatever the current recommended fee is... so if it was like today and 450 sats/byte... you'd want to pay 192 * 450 = 86400 sats = 0.00086400 BTC.

However, if you were collecting all your faucet dust and had 15 inputs and 1 output, your transaction would likely be closer to 2250 bytes... so to send your 0.01 BTC of faucet dust you'd be paying 2250 * 450 = 1,018,800 sats = 0.01018800 BTC... that's right, you'd be paying MORE in fees than what you are trying to send...

Paying in bulk helps reduce "some" of the overhead of numerous inputs/outputs... and it will certainly reduce the number of change addresses/UTXOs that you generate... but if you collect dust, you're going to get slammed sooner or later...

This "too many inputs" concept itself is absurd. What the fuck it has to do with the inputs in the first place? Why did they design it that way?

So if a merchant who sells hundreds of coffees every day for 5$ and accepts bitcoins as payment basically has no choice but to get fucked? Sounds retarded.

Every input makes the transaction larger. Since blockspace is a finite entity and costs the network to use up and mine into, the more inputs the more it costs the whole network to mine your transaction. Just look at the blocksize issues we're all discussing at the moment and see why that matters and how transaction size based fees are appropriate in light of that...

If you want every cup of coffee purchased mined into the blockchain a'la visa worldwide, each block would be around 2GB at the moment instead of 1MB.

There are surveys that show that the number of unvoluntary forks, that means unvalid blocks, rises with the size of the blocks. It is not possible so scale the blocks bigger if needed.Well 2MB would make no big difference, but 20MB would.
And we would reach filled 20MB-Blocks very soon, if they were possible now.
If too much car traffic is on the streets, it does not help to build new streets as city developpment shows. It helps to build other concepts of traffic like public transport.

The probably only solution are offline transactions or using multiple blockchains, wich means many different coins.

I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the jaxx wallet. It may have been collecting unconscionable fees, but it is perfectly working out just fine. It is just that mining fees get really costly nowadays because of too much Bitcoin transactions. Miners would have to work tirelessly just so all transactions will be as smooth as possible.