Bitcoin Forum

Day to day the price of the Bitcoin is increasing but with this a big problem arising that is fee .
Can you think that with the increase of the transaction fee of the Bitcoin will results into less use of the Bitcoin for transaction from one address to another .
And people will move toward the other cryptocurrency .
Or there is chances to improve the block chain network​ and increase the size of block .

I request to everyone to give you thoughts and views at this big problem of fee .

I don't mind having a big transaction fee since why we feel this way is because of the current bitcoin price. Right now, the fees is still reasonable to me because the bitcoin price really considered as high.

My concerned is the confirmation time because sometimes even we are using the standard fees, the confirmation times still takes time. In the end, it's useless to pay a big transaction fees if the confirmation time still having a slow time before it was being confirmed. Really need something as worth to pay as paying $5 every transaction is not a joke so at least we are getting compensated.

yes it will on both cases but the problem is that they will face the ugly truth after the transition to other cryptocurrencies. the truth that most of these altcoins are pump and dump schemes with lots of things wrong with them.
and also the ugly truth that most of them have terrible issues with scaling. some of them even are going to have much higher fees than bitcoin if used more than just for trading.

That is the one thing hates by more users of bitcoin if the big transaction fees was continuous to increase i do not think if the adoption by more country even a people will also continue.
And i think they need to eliminate the slow confirmation in every transaction to convince some people to used bitcoin evwn it has i big fees.

I though the whole point of bitcoin is to do what banks can't do faster and cheaper?

If the fees are so hgih, what's the point? Why would anyone adopt a currency that is so prohibitive?

I think we need to get free under control or otherwise banks will win

and it's working for abroad transaction, can you send usd to someone else in another country at the same rate of bitcoin fee? i really doubt it and with the same speed, again i really doubt it

also bitcoin have another advantage that very few people remeber when they compare it to a bank, can you move 100M usd with a bank account without rising several alarma at your bank or IRS or anything?

you probably need permission to move big amount of money with fiat and you are traced...

no of course, with bitcoin you are free to move even billions in dollars, and none will say you anything, this is a big advantage for rich people that want to mvoe their capital from oen place to another of the world

I don't think the fees are going to remain within this high range as soon as a solution is found to the block size the fees are going back to a normal rate of 0.0001 but even then, 0.0001 is still highly expensive with the rise in BTC price since it's equal to $2.8 or so now, it would be better if the default fees than everyone use is lowered to 0.00005 or something.

Yes Maybe!  base on my opinion and experience high fee is losing my small percentage of using bitcoin
but since this is the only handy and easy access to use online transaction i will still using bitcoin.
i wish a lower fee as possible. some btc payment provider are taking advantage on this matter hopefully
they can't make any resolution to it. or else some user will migrate.

There isn't a "default minimum fee" that the network has to set. If the blocks are empty and/or the transaction sizes are able to be shrinked so that they take up less space each, then miners obviously have financial incentive to include transactions even when they have a lower transaction fee attached because otherwise it would be a waste of a found block. Some pools might rejects transactions like this but others will. It really depends on the size of your transaction and the amount involved. You can't say i've paid 0.0001 BTC for fee, so therefore i'm good.

And also 0.0001 BTC is $0.28 not $2.8. If we can revert to that as the average fee then i think most people will be very happy.

Another shit thread by someone purportedly wanting to hear forum members' opinions


Instead of doubting you can just go and check for yourself

Card-to-card payments that many banks are involved in don't distinguish between countries. Moreover, some of these are free of charge (that depends on the bank, obviously). Needless to say, these transfers are close to being instant. It usually takes a couple of minutes to receive the funds. Other than that, Bitcoin is global, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak about moving your coins from one place in one country to another place in another country since the coins still remain in the same blockchain. Basically, you are moving them from one wallet to another, while the concept of distance is not applicable here (and that's good)

Okay they use a large transaction fee to get faster on the confirmation of the bitcoin mining network, so with a small transaction fee you can not make a transaction, I feel there are big people who take advantage of this situation until the siza block rises above 1 mB.

I agree with you that big transaction fees became huge problem for bitcoin.
Before several months I didn't even think about it.
I will simple send btc and accept recommended transaction fee.
When I had to wait 3-4 days for confirmation, I realized how big problem we have in btc network.
I really think that some people may give up btc and invest in other crypto currencies if we don't find solution here.
In such scenario, some other crypto currency can replace btc so hopefully we will see some resolution soon.

No. If you pay the fee for inclusion into the next block, you don't wait for anything. The very fee that you include at a specific time in combination with the status of the network, decides how long it will take for your transaction to confirm.

I have to repeat this countless amount of times: This is uneducated bullshit. No cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin has found a solution. If we all hop onto [insertScamCoin] the same [scamCoin] will have the same problems.

---

Note: This data is outdated now; fees are higher.

You seem to be underinformed

I don't really know what you mean by "no cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin", but Litecoin, a Bitcoin copycat by and large, already has SegWit and Lightning Network activated (there are even a few startups involved with that). Therefore, we can't possibly have the same problems with it. So if it runs out of raw processing capacity provided by regular miners, LN payment channels should kick in, and then we will be in an unchartered territory for the most part. In fact, it would be particularly interesting to see how payment channels work in real life under real load

Nope.

Decentralized, trustless, peer-to-peer currency (although more adjectives can be appended). You can easily create a semi-centralized or centralized altcoin that has a high TPS limit.

Of course you can. SegWit with LN in combination with the block size limit of LTC are also capped at a fixed TPS. Even though, you can argue that once payment channels have been established that they have *infinite* TPS.

So I guess Litecoin cuts it pretty well as a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency

If so, how can you then claim that it will have the same problems? As far as I understand it, payment channels are created to specifically address the issue you are talking about (i.e. running out of processing capacity). Therefore, it is not about me arguing that payment channels can have infinite processing capacity. This is basically what they are there for in the first place. In this way, your whole claim is not valid (that no cryptocurrency like Bitcoin has found a solution)

You can argue centralization problems, but yes.

That's the thing. You don't understand it. Three assumptions are made, and all of which are implicitly understood by those who understand the model of LN. They are:
1) A single payment channel is enough for you to transact with everyone (routing).
2) Everyone that you want to transact with is on LN.
3) Everyone has already opened a payment channel.

---

Assuming 10 million users (random metric), calculate how much block space it would require for each user to open a payment channel. Please post your results. :) Anyhow, it isn't exactly recommended for high value transactions at this time.

I don't quite see your point

If a single payment channel is enough for me to transact with everyone, why would each user be required to open a payment channel, and why would it require block space at that? As I understand the technology behind LN, its main advantage consists specifically in lowering the load on the blockchain since transactions made via payment channels are off-chain transactions, right? So why is there a need for the block space at all if these transactions are never to show up on the blockchain?

Ya the fee is getting a big pain, last time I tried to send 0.84$ and I was shown a fees of 3$ approx, which was ridiculous I don't even know what to do. I am not leaving Bitcoins but ya I hope the block issue is solved soon. Fees irritate us but the stability and the price rise no one give, so for that reason I won't ever give up on Bitcoin.

You don't understand LN.

How exactly do you plan on paying me via LN when you have a channel with Alice, and I don't use LN? ::) Do you even know/understand what opening a payment channel means?! It requires block space.

Payment channels which are opened and closed on the blockchain.

Sigh. Nobody said anything about those transactions, but yes they don't show up on the blockchain.

Yes indeed, the amount of fees we can set in accordance with the wishes. Usually those who want transactions faster then they spend more fee. While for those who want a cheap fee then bitcoin delivery will be longer.

If the bitcoin transaction fees continue to increase, people will start to feel bored, then they will find another potential currency to store their money, however, transaction fees are just a problem. The anxiety of those who regularly trade in bitcoin, in contrast, those who want to store bitcoin will not be affected, and they can profit from it in the future.

Yeah i guess fees will be a thing in all people who is using bitcoin but i guess as long as bitcoin price is growing to i guess they will not mind if the fees go a little bit high as long as we have high bitcoin price also we know that fees depend in how fast the transaction in the blockchain so i guess it is really fair so some reason and i know it is not a thing to down bitcoin in the future.

I think not. Bitcoin is rising so its fees increase is normal. While you make a lot of money from Bitcoin, that fee is not much

   Big fees for big transactions are ok, but for us ordinary people it`s unreal to pay $4 fee for $10-15 transaction. High fees will make people think about sending bitcoin anywhere, I don`t understand how blockchain technology works, but when I need to pay a lot just to send my money from one to other place that I understand very good.
   If bitcoin technology is here to make a better world, why would we pay so big fees? How is that helping us, this is making bit[Suspicious link removed]d just for rich people.

What makes it so impossible for people to wait like 4 hours for a certain Bitcoin transaction to receive a confirmation? I guess that people don't really know that they can spend Bitcoin with a very low transaction like 0.0001 BTC and have their transaction confirmed within 4 hours if they accelerate it.

Maybe people don't really send Bitcoin other than just paying someone money, I am sure if they do a few test transaction spending then they would see that they can send payments with a small fee.

Depending what you are doing but 4 hours in not an acceptable time frame. When you say "if they accelerate it" are you talking about service like ViaBTC tool? Then there is nothing funny to use bitcoin is we have to use an external tool to get a decent confirmation time. It's like telling to your bank I you want you can use my laptop power to make the bank transfer faster. I dont know any other tool than ViaBTC, but once or twice i tried to see and always busy because their hourly limit was reached. If on the top of that such tool are always busy that you can't use, it is very very less funny

I think there's a huge impact of this problem to bitcoin. Who would want to transfer funds with huge fee? Theres are a lot of altcoins out there which is more faster and more cheaper than bitcoin. We have no choice but to find alternative way to transfer funds with ease and cheaper.

Definitely we are going to force to use alternative way to tranfer funds with cheper fees.

I'm curious if you understand how that invalidates your whole point

If they don't show up on the blockchain, it essentially means that these transactions can make up the bulk of all transactions, and thus it is reasonable to claim that Litecoin will never encounter the issues that Bitcoin now faces. In other words, as soon as it starts to feel the pressure (Bitcoin style), more and more payment channels will spring up, thereby effectively removing the overhead. If you need just 1 payment channel to embrace 1,000 separate transactions, that's pretty much it. Litecoin may in fact encounter a lot of other issues (I don't really know), but this is certainly not what you have been claiming, right? I may not understand the gory details behind LN mechanics, but all I need to know is that it allows to massively move transactions off chain in a systemic way

It is possible that the number of transaction per day will decrease because of the increasing transaction fees needed. That is especially for those who cannot afford to compromise and pay higher fee. With this in mind, there will be less micro transactions in the blockchain.

People might lean to alts just to lessen the fee needed. They will just do that to lessen their fee but they will convert it back to Bitcoin so Bitcoin is still the dominating crypto currency.

There are various solution for these issues, we have the Segwit that shall happen on August. However, its end result is still uncertain so no one really knows if this is a solution or another problem.

i hope when time cimes that btc can be able to perform well and can use efficiently when its value really grows and when massive adoption happens.

Yes, this is one of issue important Bitcoin need fixed soon!
Look the defaut fee setting in my electrum wallet, every month the price Bitcoin highest more and the fee raised up too, from 100 sat/byte is best choice in January-2017, now the fee is 700 sat/byte if want confirm with next block :-\

i think nothing can take down bitcoin...neither this big fee for transactions...

Are you desperately wanting me to call you an idiot? I can't hold it much longer with these idiotic statements. I would really appreciate learning from someone with superior knowledge, but you are not such an individual.

This post is absolute false garbage that is built upon your skewed and extremely elementary understanding of LN. I asked you for a calculation and you've provided to create that one because you don't know how to calculate it, because you do not understand it. LN alone is NOT ENOUGH for "never encounter the issues". This is every written in the whitepaper, which you have not read.

---

How to use LN ELI3 (&& tl;dr)
1) You open a payment channel. This takes up space on the blockchain.
2) You transact 'n' times with other parties. This data does not space on the blockchain.
3) You close a payment channel and the funds settle. This takes up space on the blockchain.
Examples:
1) Opening a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/8ab2d0600d324967f1758f9ed9ad90946ba4e4cab9d4211d2fe4a8df1e50b5c6.
2) ...no data.. irrelevant.
3) Closing a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/e0406d03eece0f82e11756b290ec2db2c0f62c020548a6364bf785979df6fd0e

180 bytes * 10 000 000 open channels = 1.8 GBs to open to open 10 million channels only ONCE. Then you need another 1.8 GBs to close these 10 million channels. What happens between the opening and closing channels is irrelevant to my point. In Bitcoin (without Segwit factored in), it would take: ~12.5 days worth of blocks to only open 10 million channels once and this assumes that there are zero transactions of any kind.

If you think that you will open 1 channel and use it forever or for extremely long periods of time, then your understanding is even more greatly flawed. If you plan on locking all your funds into LN, I wish you good luck as you will need it.

---

For those complaining about fees, i.e. actually posting worthless garbage for their signature money. ETH fees are already above $1:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-eth.html

You should understand that I'm not of the type who can be so easily swayed

First of all, the issue you are describing now has nothing to do with what you have been claiming. This is not the problem that Bitcoin is facing now, i.e. high fees and slow confirmations. This is an entirely different story, even if it is true (and this is a big IF on its own). So you may want to think twice before calling someone an idiot and then think again (personally, I don't care, I just want you to check your reasoning first how well it adds up in and of itself). But this is in fact irrelevant, and you can discard this point altogether. What is of real value here is that Lightning Network is set to specifically address the issues mentioned, so it can't possibly encounter them if it is created to solve them in the first place ("capable of millions to billions (https://lightning.network/) of transactions per second across the network"). What are you arguing with?

Which makes it worse considering that your whole knowledge is completely false.

Bullshit. Trying to make up excuses so that you don't look like an idiot.

On its own, LN solves nothing and requires block space (i.e. bigger blocks starting with Segwit) to enable a high number of users to use it. Now, I actually would prefer franky1 to pop in. His, often flawed but sometimes correct, views are much superior than your Utopian fantasies.

Instead of debating whether one solution will solve anything or not in the long term how about we adopt something even if its not the ideal one right now. The end result from lack of consensus is only going to be bitcoin losing its dominance and I fail to see how that helps any of us.

I'm a big fan of segwit and lightning but I'd rather see BU than no solution at all, everyone needs to dig deep and accept there must be a compromise or we all lose.

Is this all what you can come up with?

Are you now going to claim that the major issues that Bitcoin now faces are not high fees and slow confirmations? Are you now going to claim that it was not you who asserted that these are the issues that every coin is inexorably set to face eventually (if it gets as used as Bitcoin now is)? You know, you may call me an idiot as much as you please, but you have to come up with something more substantial if you want to actually prove your point. As to me, calling people names is not the proper way of doing that. Hope this helps

LN is a separate network
LN can only make payments to other people within LN (emphasis: people with LN channels)
this means you have to have a LN channel open, infact most will have to have more than one channel open if they want to do the (hop/route/spoke) method or have their single channel with a well established hub if they only want 1 channel
anyway lets explain the hop/spoke/route method.

EG
A(0.1)<>B(0.1)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)

now if A(0.1) wants to pay 0.05 to D.. and there was a 0.0001 payment fee

EG
A needs to pay B in the first channel...
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
B then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay C
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
C then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay D
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.05)<>D(0.15)

now if lts say E had no channel.. E could not be paid by anyone because he has no (channel/contract/route) to anyone else

hope this clarifies how LN works for the layman

---

now what you have to realise is that to set up these channels
A one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel
B two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
C two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
D one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel

so thats 6 onchain tx's to set up 4 channels
then to settle the channels at closing session
another 3 onchain tx's are needed..

thats 9 onchain tx's required for 4 parties to use LN........... (which requires ONCHAIN blockspace.. and costs ONCHAIN FEE'S)
yes while ln channels are active those 4 parties can do lots and lots of LN payments between each other.

but that does not mean that suddenly any new people (E) dont need a channel or more to be part of LN.

It's known as the quadratic issue. As fees in satoshi's double, and the price of BTC doubles, the fee in fiat terms goes up quadratically.

Does it mean that if I want to transact in an LN network, I need to open only one payment channel with someone (say, a payment hub) and then I can make any number of transactions with anyone who is potentially reachable in this network (i.e. A->B->...->N), thereby completely bypassing the blockchain? If so, that, as to me, proves it pretty consistently that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has. If I got everything right, I open a payment channel, pay the network fee (which I would still have to pay anyway to make a transaction) and make as many transactions as I need and as fast as transactions propagate through the network. In other words, if opening a payment channel is essentially equal to making a regular transaction, then there is nothing to argue about

This is basically what the LN site claims (https://lightning.network/)

IF that other person has multiple channels yes.. other wise there is no 'route'.
but remember to set up and close  a channel IS requiring onchain transactions

if its just A<>B
they all a and b can do is private trades to each other.. no one else....
as i shown in examples of other post, B would need to be more of a minihub, involving also connecting to C.. for a route to be possible for A to be able to pay C

this is also where the (hop/spoke/route) falls apart as it will cost people a payment fee per (hop spoke/route) to thank them for being part of the (hop/spoke/route)

what ends up happening is B may decide to be a bigger hub
A<>B
C<>B
D<>B
now A can pay D by only paying 1 hop fee to B
EG
A(0.0499)<>B(0.1501)
B(0.5)<>D(0.15)

then new users just contract/channel to B
E<>B
F<>B
and now A can pay E just via B, and only costing the 1 hop fee via B to get to E

---

last thing to add
in a hop method.. the average 'cost' is ~ 2-3 onchain transactions
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
C= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

in a hub of a,b,c,d method
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 3 in an 3halves out (4.5)
C= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

so imagining a onchain fee was still ~$2  (a=$3

so lets imagine A wanted or wished that on average their fee's only cost (on average) $0.02
even if each hop was $0.01.. even doing 300 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.02
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

if A only done lets say 10 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.34
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

yes it is because many users get mad on the high transaction fee. If this problem does not solved soon. It can be the reason to disappear or bring down in the near future.

Whitepaper section 12: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

---

Note: This is somewhat different today due to e.g. Segwit on testnet.

Fees have rose significantly recently in terms of both satoshi per byte of transaction and fiat. This increase in fees have made it impossible to make micro transactions with bitcoin but fee is comparatively low if compared to other payment gateway when making bigger transactions. But yes either block size should be increased or more versatile solution like segwit need to be activated to keep bitcoin as cheapest and fastest payment method.  

other things to take note.
no one will be foolish enough to put their entire hoard into an LN channel.
no one will be foolish enough to lock their entire hoard into an LN channel for a year

blackmail, CSV revokes, and other issues of possible attack vectors can make people lose funds offchain..

what you find is that channels will not remain open for 12 months.(no one can predict spending habits of 12 months)
people will only for instance open a channel with starbucks HUB and deposit enough for maybe 1-3 months of coffee
so the reality would be

A pays (if onchain fee was $2)
$3 to open and close channels with starbucks to deposit $180 (to cover 3 months of coffee)
buying a $3 coffee once a day, 5 days a week for 3 months.. costs 60cents of fee for 60 payments
which average $0.06 per payment(average after including setup/settlement fee)

so all these 'best cases' are in reality
average fee being more like 10cents if used daily for a couple months
blocks required being 4-6 times higher than the 12month example. due to people wanting to move funds in and out every couple months.

infact its suggested that many merchants will want to close out every couple weeks.. not once every 12 months. which could mean blocksizes needed would be 26x more than the 12month utopian blocksize. which also would raise the average cost pr customer fee

EG $3 setup/sttlement + 10 weekday payments of coffee per fortnight =$0.34 average fee's
and
 it would require 3.4gb blocks for fortnightly channels (instead of 133 MB blocks per 12month channels)

That's basically what I wanted to hear

In fact, this is what I correctly assumed myself. So, to open (and close) a payment channel, I would need two otherwise regular transactions, and after that I can make any number of transactions between LN nodes which can be routed to me (and me to them). In other words, with just 2 LN transactions I can make literally thousands of near ping-time transactions which otherwise (without LN) would require me to pay insane amounts of fees and likely wait infinite amount of time to confirm, right?

emphasising the bit i emboldened for you

if you can get routed.. then yes. but there is no guarantee..
this is why i said some users end up being hubs with THOUSANDS of contracts connected, just to allow average joe to not need more than just a couple channels.

without hubs, users end up needing more than a couple channels to be able to ensure reliable routing.. (research 6th degree of separation theorum)

also if doing the hub style.. lets say EVERYONE was contracted to starbucks. so that it only cost you 1 hop fee to pay anyone.
1000 payments =$10 being eaten from the amount you deposited

but imagine it required hop style because not everyone was directly connected to starbucks.. and the routes were on average 4 hops apart
that 1000 payments would = $40 being eaten from your deposit amount.

...
also if you only deposited $180 in your contract to starbucks, you only have funds for 60 coffee's so only able to do 60 payments.
if however you were 4 hops away from starbucks. requiring payment more fee's per hop. you may only get 59 coffee's/payments.

worse.. if the route require 20 hops you make less payments/less amount of coffee's you can buy due to hop fee's eating up your deposit a little more.

...
in bitcoin there is a big difference between 'technically possible' and 'realistically possible'

TL:dr;
just having 1-2channels does not guarantee 'thousands of payments'
its dependant on how reliable/complex the routing is
how much funds you deposit
how often the channels open/close

That's the point that I addressed right at the start

I specifically pointed it out that LN will likely kick in exactly when it will be most needed, i.e. as soon as we "start to feel the pressure". As I said, Litecoin, as a coin which has already implemented both SW and LN, cannot possibly run into the issues that Bitcoin is now confronted with, i.e. high fees and slow confirmation times. Payment channels will pop up just when it makes sense. It is an effective solution to the problem faced, and just because we don't need it yet (in Litecoin, obviously), it doesn't mean that it is not viable or applicable. Therefore, any claims that any coin will inevitably have the same issues as Bitcoin (if it rises as high) are unfounded and invalid

I don't really know if I am stuck or whatever. I have an unconfirmed transaction of 0.025 btc that I sent out pending since 12th June till now. That's close to 72hours and I am at loss on what to do. Can someone help me out on what to do here. This Bitcoin lag in confirming transaction will definitely lead to its death...

Dude I know that you are seasoned bitcoiners but have you used low fees when sending the transaction? I haven't checked the fee's but last week its around 400 sat/byte. So I guess it may have something to do with the fees' you used. I suggest you used viabtc to help accelerate you transaction and maybe you got lucky and it will be pick in the next 6 hours or so.

Fees can really be painful. Yet when i came to think of it i have realized that  i was still able to gain more profit now because of the price hike of course even if i do send a higher fee so basically this is quite reasonable because the opportunity also increases

Day to day, week to week Bitcoin price is increasing but with this arises a big problem that is fee.

Can you think that with an increase in Bitcoin transaction fees will result in less use of Bitcoin for transactions from one address to another. Because it saves the cost for the expense of the fee.

And people will move towards other market competition Or there is an opportunity to repair chain block network and increase block size.

I ask everyone to give you thoughts and views on this big cost issue in the future.  :(

not just a big fee but also the length of the transaction confirmation even if using the default fee. some users also complained about it and hoped there was an opportunity to repair the chain block network and increase the block size. but this may be proportional to the profit for user due to the rise in bitcoin prices.

There are multiple points in solving this, First of which is the effort by the developers and the network to make larger blocks and hence accepting and verifying more transactions and the fees to let a transaction pass would become lower.
The second would be focusing on sending transactions in bulk and including higher amounts with small amounts like how coinbase and paxful do, sending dozens together, the size is bigger but the fees are bigger as well - this isn't a solution though, since it would still be +100s/b.
So the main thing is waiting for a fundamental change allowing more transactions and hence less fees.

Useless shit post?

There is no such thing as the default fee.

With a surging price, even a stable fee-rate will end up causing high average fees. In Bitcoin specifically, the price rise was coupled with a decent rise in the fee-rate which made it worse.

Yet another example of uninformed people spewing nonsense. If people move to other coins -> other coins have the same issue -> people whine again. Increasing the block size is not a solution.

Well, indeed it could just be a reason in it. Because of the nature of the problem it is already go on and don't have much the best way out, just give me the high fee was the best way for now. But I think in this case it will certainly become a bitcoin can make into the trash, because now they have a lot of problems and if the original owner didn't show up and find a way out in the future price of the bitcoin will quickly go down
 

Ok, I did as you directed me to with the viabtc guys sine yesterday. But the transaction is still not confirmed. Does that mean my coins are stuck now forever? Will I not be able to retrieve my Bitcoin from this failed transaction or what?

I think it's really a problem for bitcoins to have a big transcation fee many users are complaining about the high fees of transaction i think this is one of the big problem of bitcoins but i may say this will not gonna bring down the bitcoins eventhough the users are complaining about the fee they can't do anything they just deal with it because bitcoins run the crypro world because of its high value in the market but if a crypto comes around with high value but lower transaction maybe that's the time that the bitcoins will fall.

I know that it is just normal for money transactions to have fees but sometimes you might get into thinking that maybe the fee is higher and you think that it is too much. I can’t say that the transaction fee affects the future of the bitcoin but I do really think that it would be great if the transaction fee is lower. It would really be a big help if we can now transfer, send and received money with lower transaction fees.

Everyone has to report yes to transaction fees.

It is so simple. The transaction fees are high because BTC users are ready to pay them. It's actually only them, who are responsible for high fees. As a matter of fact voluntary fees can kill the whole BTC, because they are driven by greed which can be endless (because of people's nature). This is a real issue in BTC protocol that must be resolved, sooner the better.

I do understand their purpose (reward for miners in the future, instead of newly mined BTCs), but the fees regulation is really needed and should be set to constant - e.g. 1 satoshi per 100KB. No matter how big the transaction is, all transactions would be with the same priority, with no possibility for any of them to be "forgotten" in the space.

That leaves plenty of room for debate

It is like claiming that victims of robbers are to be held responsible for the robbery since, first, they have money which could be robbed, and, second, they were given sort of choice (to give up money or die). As the proverb goes, the stronger always blames the weaker. Regarding regulation, this can only be changed either by moving from the PoW model to the PoS model (which is highly unlikely) or by setting up payment channels in the way Lightning Network does which allows to completely (well, mostly) bypass miners and the hefty fees they tax

That's normal. Bitcoin's price increases mean that transaction fees will also increase. However, the higher the transaction fee, the faster the transaction will be. This is true. You must pay the right amount for the work of the miners. Instead of lamenting, you should focus on finding BTC. Besides, I am confident that Bitcoin is the most rewarding currency, making you the fastest richest.