Bitcoin Forum

Can we please do something to speed up transaction time and the high transaction fees?

This is getting absurd. I just spent $10 USD to send $7500 but my fee was too low. It may take a week for my transaction to process. Who knows. I should have spent 3x that figure to get processing within 1 hour ($30). With that same fee I could have just used a wire transfer from a bank online and it would have been just as fast as bitcoin. The selling point of bitcoin is that it was supposed to be 'better' than traditional banking services. It's not.

IMO, the following things need to happen.

#1) Block time decrease from 10 minutes to 1 minute. (and decreasing reward by / 10 per block)
#2) Difficulty readjustment period from 2016 blocks to 720 blocks. (2 difficulty readjustments per day with the decrease in block time from #1)
#3) Apply a system of master nodes where there are 10,000 nodes that receive an equal split of 1% of all bitcoins generated. (Comes out to about $200/month at current USD rates, enough to pay for a dedicated server or colocation space to host the node in a good environment almost anywhere in the world.)
#4) Reduce the amount of read/writes to disk on a bitcoin full node. I stopped running a full node because it lags everything else my computer tries to do. Not because of the disk space it consumes.

We just went 50 minutes between blocks as I was writing this!

We did something, it is Segwit. I think it is tomorrow when it should activate.

#1) I don't know about this. Some cryptos do this to get rid of mining pools. There might be some drawbacks, but as other proposals it would definitively require a hard-fork and we know that this can take a lot of time.
#2) I don't think that differences between blocks have as much to do with daily changes in hashpower as just with luck. I don't think that this would help at all. This readjustments are representing the change in network's hashrate and I don't think that there is a significant change in hashrate on a daily basis.
#3) Woah there, this sounds like centralization to me. Nodes are represented by IP addresses and that means that whoever can get most IP addresses has that 1%. ISPs and therefore the governments would love this.
#4) Any suggestions on how to do this? I think that reducing block time would just increase the rate at which disk is accessed.

Activation of segwit2x is the best possible solution which the developer of blockchain suggested. And I believed their opinion was credible that's why I'm supporting BTC no matter how many hard fork happened.

#1) There are a ton of coins that have low block times. They do it to make fast confirmations. Who wants to wait 50 minutes for a confirmation? Or even 10?
#2) Faster difficulty readjustment periods prevent nefarious actors from pushing difficulty up and leaving the network. This creates longer transaction times as time between blocks would be higher than it should be. This would have been helpful during the BCH split. Difficulty would have readjusted in a little over 12 hours.
#3) No, The way DASH did it was to require the people to keep coins in the wallet. Anyone can setup a full node, but the number of master nodes, aka, the number of people who are able to get a payment for their node would be limited. It guarantees a minimum number of full nodes on the network. As of right now, I don't know anyone who runs a full node and your concern about nefarious actors setting up a large number of nodes is true even without master nodes. I could go setup enough master nodes just by myself, right now, to cause problems on the bitcoin network. I'm honestly surprised no one has done this yet. Master nodes will be necessary the larger bitcoin grows. It will come to a point where only exchanges and pool servers run them.
#4) UTXO commitments ? There are some not so insignificant issues with this on bitcoin though.

You will have to wait almost exactly 3 months for segwit2x to activate. I believe that November 23rd is when the hardfork is scheduled.


#2) There is really no incentive for people to do this and it is quite costly. Either way, there needs to be a limit and in practice I haven't heard any real problems from an significant hashrate drop for now. I don't see an urgency for change just in case of very rare forks that don't affect the network in any major way.
#3) I really don't see anything that such an implementation would fix. The one who can get most IPs the quickest is still the one who gets the coins and there is plenty of full nodes already, they are not costly at all. Everybody should run a full node for their own security. I run a full node and have been running it for years, I haven't experienced any lag, network-wise,CPU-wise or disk-wise. You can run it on a less then 500$ PC that you bought 3 years ago and a 1 MB/s Internet connection without even noticing that it is running.

It takes 1 MB of network and disk every 10 minutes. It is unnoticeable. You do need couple of GB of RAM for it tho and maybe some modern CPU. Otherwise you are fine. Getting a 8 GB RAM PC is not that hard these days and it will be more then twice that you need.
#4) To be honest this is the first time I hear of this. Did some quick searching on the Internet and it seems like it has been discussed back in 2013, if you are refering to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=314467.0 . I would assume that it is not that simple gain or it has already been implemented.

The block time was not chosen because satoshi liked the number 10. The 10 minute confirmation time reduces the number of orphans that the coin would have. With the larger number of orphans, block reorg will happen more often and most services requires a lot more confirmations.
I'm not sure if there is a good way for Bitcoin to implement this without having people cheating the system. Anyway, who is going to pay for it? It is going to require some protocol change and miners probably aren't in favour of this. Its pretty useless for this system since it really just takes the centralisation even more. Not sure how this would help the confirmation time either.\
You can easily restrict the number of nodes that can contact you and your disk activity would drop exponentially. It's likely more of a problem with your computer than anything else; I run my node on a laptop thats about 10 years old and it doesn't affect the performance that all. The only time you are likely to experience any effect is when a block is mined (If your computer is really really bad).

Bitcoin is not necessarily "better" than traditional banking services, if you choose to compare it by cost and speed of transaction. But it is an alternative currency with a lot more advanced features and controls that banking does not typically offer, some miles better.

I do think you're right to say that speed and cost must cater to average Joes like us but rest assured, things are being done to improve the network, just as banking had to increasingly improve theirs.

However, you do realise you only paid slightly more than 0.1% of your transaction as fees, don't you? Had you spent $30 as you said, it would still have been 0.4%. You'd be lucky to find an international wire transfer that would cost you only $30 to transfer in one hour, or a remittance service charging you less than 0.4%.

Also, average block times are still about 10 minutes, the way it was designed. As I am writing this, it was 15 mins between blocks, and I've easily seen three blocks within 10.

Apparently a lot of people. Ask yourself this: Why are these fast blockchains not being used?

Take litecoin or dogecoin.

Litecoin exists for, what? 6 years? It's a well established coin with over 2bn in marketcap (what bitcoin used to be a few years ago). It's not very volatile so it's not like its value will plummet by the time you broadcast the tx and the time the receiver gets the money. Yet it has very few txs - despite the lure of virtually zero fees (it has plenty of transactional capacity)...

Litecoin last transactions:

Recent Blocks
Height   Age   Transactions   Total Sent   Total Fees   Block Size (in bytes)
1262932   12 seconds ago   1   0.0 LTC   0.0 LTC   322
1262931   14 seconds ago   13   7,183.193 LTC   0.114 LTC   4,448
1262930   a minute ago   26   29,050.847 LTC   0.368 LTC   8,650
1262929   2 minutes ago   5   16.614 LTC   0.001 LTC   1,198
1262928   2 minutes ago   1   0.0 LTC   0.0 LTC   327

Why do you think people prefer the slow bitcoin and there is so limited transactional demand spillover to altcoins for faster transactions?

To create a transaction you would first need somewhere to send your coins. Since no one accepts alt coins there's no where to send them to. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the chain itself. Take BCH for instance, it split, now it's a new currency. The only people who support it are exchanges. They have no transactions because there's no one to transact with. Simply because something is the most dominant doesn't mean that it's the best technology. Just because something has better technology, it doesn't mean that it will become dominant. In the meantime, I'm stuck with a $8K transaction that probably won't ever process and having to figure out how to respend those inputs on a blockchain wallet (which probably isn't possible). And, if I had made my transaction for a larger fee, I would have been better off just transacting through traditional banks which defeats the entire purpose of bitcoin. It would have been CHEAPER and FASTER for me to wire the funds than to pay the larger tx fee. Cheaper because wires are only $20/pop regardless of the amount, and faster because 50 minutes between blocks.

Definitely agree with you on this. But decreasing the block time is probably not the most ideal solution.

That's why you should never use Blockchain.info wallet. I can't emphasise enough on that, if you're using Blockchain.info you're probably just waiting for a disaster to happen. Use a desktop wallet, they give you full control over your coin.

If you had made your transaction on a desktop wallet, you can probably stop the rebroadcasting or at the very least be able to extract/sign a new transaction that replaces your $8K transaction. It would still be cheaper and faster than wire transfers. The reason why your transaction is not confirming is also partly due to the VERY infrequent block interval right now. Its literally 2-3blocks/hour.

Litecoin not being dominant in transaction has nothing to do with technical, but everything to do with Bitcoin came first, and Litecoin came 2 years after Bitcoin was invented.

If people could choose between 2 chains with equal acceptance now, they would overwhelmingly choose the chain with faster blocks. The fact that Bitcoin has minority marketcap now, is probably related to its high fees and high block time. 99% of altcoins has faster blocks, it was one of the 1st advantages altcoins advertise, eg. Litecoin, think about that.

come on for 7500 $ fee 30$ are very  good any bank take 0.5% fee why all tinking btc need no fee or low fee is normal pay for withdraw money come on

Btw, something I noticed when figuring out how screwed I was.. There are less than 10,000 full bitcoin nodes already. If someone wanted to do an attack they would only need to fire up an additional 10,000 nodes to control 50% of all full nodes. They could probably do some nefarious stuff at that point. I'm sure someone has done the math to determine what percentage of nodes a nefarious actor would need to mess with the network. (Ignore transactions, Ignore new blocks, Make nodes only communicate with nefarious nodes, Publish bad data, etc)

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

We're now up to over 400 sat/b to get a transaction in a block (It was 300 sat/b earlier today). My 118 sat/b transaction has no hope in hell of getting confirmed. I guess I'll pay btc.com $65 to 'accelerate' my transaction and then start using some other block chain to move money around.


Kidding? I pay $20 for wires of any size. If I wire $100,000 it costs $20. If I wire $1000 it costs $20. Funds are available immediately during banking hours or on the next business day outside of banking hours. Bitcoin should beat this.

No idea who you use for banking... But they're scamming you..

Yet BCH launches as an altcoin (it's not even pretending to be Bitcoin) and instead of doing "faster blocks", goes "bigger blocks"... Note that if it went the 1 block per minute, it would go 10x the block size, while also being 10x faster.

Yet the market values this equally slow altcoin of 10-min blocks which was just created out of bitcoin, as a 10bn usd market compared to faster solutions that have a multi-year advantage over it.

Then you have senseless who says that no one accepts altcoins yet they have 55% of a 144bn marketcap. So 80bn usd is a useless bubble compared to 65bn of BTC which has all the use? Is it all speculative bullshit?

My take on the situation is this: Genuine crypto transactions are few because they are too geeky/nerdy. The whole interface of wallets, the knowledge required to use them safely (without getting hacked or doing an irreversible mistake), etc etc, is generally out of sync with average joe. So crypto transactions in general don't really "exist" in terms of mass volume. BTC stands out because

a) it is a trading vehicle (a lot of money from/to exchanges)
b) it is the crypto-hub for all altcoin trading (see a)
c) it has a lot of spam by bad actors that want to make block size a political issue
d) it has a lot of coin mixing by hackers, gamblers etc to legitimize coins

...and then what's left is the rest of the "space" to transact normally. And that space is typically non-existent due to (c) and (d) filling up low-priority fees. So regular users have to outbid (c) and (d) in terms of fees in order to send money in an exchange, pay someone, etc etc.

Now altcoins came after bitcoin was invented, but bitcoin's inflation and security model was already baked in. What this means, is that bitcoin can't hope to outbid altcoins in terms of "cheap transactions". As block reward drops, fees have to replace this drop. This was the way it was supposed to work. Altcoins come in and do a flanking attack on the security model of bitcoin, in terms of fees - promising almost zero fees since their value is low and their blockchains underutilized. Yet Bitcoin has to maintain some level of fees to be secure. Even now, these fees are being used to attract hashrate... without the fees, BTC reward per block is 12.5 and with the fees it goes to 15.5 - 16 BTC, which is ~25% higher.

What I think will happen is this: In the long-long term (decades), we'll be able to do everything on-chain. In 20 years a 1gb block might be more than feasible. Right now though it isn't without centralizing bitcoin into a data center and altering its peer-to-peer nature into a client/server model, so we have to play it differently, like LN on top of BTC, "disposable" altcoins that are bloated by microtransactions and then rendered useless for most, etc.


It's already beating it. Bitcoin is global/international, your wires are national. Bitcoin is 24/7/365, banks are ...bank hours (and bank days) only. International wires have extra delays of a couple days. Even the fees are much lower than 20$ - it's just that your tx probably has a lot of inputs and hence larger data size.

I can send any amount of money international for $20 -- it arrives instantly. It needs to be sent during banking hours for my source. But the destination (usually, depending on the bank) makes the funds immediately available even outside of banking hours. So I can send money at 9AM in the US and receive and use immediately at 9PM in asia. I always wire international. I have no reason to send money around inside the US. As I said, bitcoin needs to step up it's game.

The inconvenience of waiting a couple of days (over the weekend) is nothing compared to the stress and lost time dealing with this stuck transaction. I will likely stop using bitcoin for any transfers after this until something major changes.

..

And now we're over 450sat/b for txns. lol. At this rate we'll be at 1000sat/b by the end of the week. Nothing wrong here, carry on.  ::)

I've never received an instant wire from abroad, ever (I live in europe), even with SEPA (our swift-like system for fast transfers between european banks). Are you using a regular bank or something like Western Union?

Bank to bank with swift. Your sending bank needs to clear the transaction on swift immediately and the receiving bank needs to update your account as soon as it detects the transaction. As long as both the sender and receiver are setup this way you can do instant swift transfers. I do have another bank account here that takes 3 days or so for the swift to clear. I don't use that bank very often for obvious reasons.

Oh ya, some banks don't have their own swift access. They use an intermediary bank to process the swift and that usually happens in batches. Only big name banks are able to clear swift transactions instantly. I'm using Chase in the US and BPI in the philippines. HSBC is also a great bank to use for international wire transfers. IIRC, they offer FREE international wires for certain account / status levels. It's called HSBC premier??

..

Up to 3.5K pending transactions > 421sat/b

Something needs to be done about this, ASAP.

Bitcoin has many advantages over the banking system, it isn't all in the fees and confirmation time.
Like a lot of people, I got interested in Bitcoin due to it's decentralized, pseudo-anonymous and secure nature.

That is why using an online wallet is, for me, defeating the purpose of Bitcoin, since you lose all of the above benefits.
It is ok to see something else as the main benefit of Bitcoin for you and if you are not pleased with how it is doing, then you are free to not use it.

High fees are not intended for Bitcoin and that is why the scaling debate took place in the first place. Tomorrow segwit should activate and fees should drop so you might be happy with Bitcoin anyway, if not, you are free to leave. I don't think that Bitcoin will change so much just to lower the fees, since a lot of people don't see that as the Bitcoin's purpose here.

Nodes were never a backbone or representation of Bitcoin's security and never will be. There is nothing in the protocol that gives the nodes such power and it should stay that way. Bitcoin nodes are not and should not be important in Bitcoin.

I would calm down about the fees, if I ware you, Things are being done and no one is going to put such a stable and secure system in a state of emergency just for the higher fees. No one really cares that much about it to make such a quick and radical change.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Altcoin have 55% combined, there's a few hundred active altcoins. So combined they probably do have better acceptance than BTC, but non of them have nearly the acceptance of BTC when evaluated on their own. Therefore non of them can currently overtake BTC even with superior block time.

But their combined dominance does speak to me that faster blocks is the way to go.

There are more than a few hundred altcoin. There are a few hundred on Coinmarket cap alone. Not all altcoins are on that site. And when you add tokens into the mix we are talking closer to 1,000 coins/token which have existed, probably more. Sure a lot of them are dead, but I would say at least 500 are active right now.

Bitcoin reference clients connects to one IP per /16 block. Good luck getting that many IPs in the different blocks such that you can completely isolate someone from the chain. Even one node that connects to the victim would ruin your plan completely. Hence, you would probably need way more than 10,000 node to guarantee a reasonable success rate.
It's honestly not the fault of Bitcoin if you didn't bother to check the average fee using one of the sites or at the very least use a reliable client. You can't push the blame to Bitcoin protocol if the reason your transaction isn't being confirmed is because of it. Honestly, at that time, the fees were at the 300 sat/b range.

It's not as difficult as you'd think to get 10,000 IPv4 addresses on different /16 blocks. 10,000 on different /24 is even easier. A previous response was saying that it would be 'centralized' by offering a payment for running a full node when there are already less full nodes than he thinks there are.

I never said it wasn't my fault for not paying the fee. The fees have skyrocketed in a period of hours. Even if I had placed the fee at 300 sat/b there's no guarantee it would have processed by now. There are still many unconfirmed transactions around that range. Fees went from 300sat/b to over 500sat/b in 2 hours yesterday.

I'm guessing this is due to so much hashrate switching over to BCH. Now we're stuck with very slow blocks until the next diff change. It looks like BTC lost around 20% of it's hashrate, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. If difficulty adjustments were faster this would be a non-issue.

Hmm? Given that an IPV4 address can cost up to $10 per, for a /16 block. For 10,000 addresses, that can cost up to $100,000. That is, without factoring in the resources needed to run a node. The cost is one thing, having the nodes to connect and only connect to your node is an entirely different thing. If a separate node that is not controlled by you connects to that node, your attack has failed. Sybil attack isn't the thing that we're concerned about right now.

I definitely feel your frustration, having a $500 transaction being stuck in limbo right now. The worst part is that its sent from a service and not my wallet.

Nope, the hashrate isn't the main problem here. The more glaring problem is the substantially higher volume of transaction that I'm currently seeing. Block intervals aren't super slow but the amount of transaction is extremely high. Faster blocks doesn't work, faster difficulty adjustments doesn't work, the block interval can be affected by varience and its better to have a larger sample size for the difficulty adjustments.

Btw, let me know your TXID. I will try to rebroadcast it continually using my node and try to get it confirmed.

I like the node part. Dash at the moment has both hash mining and nodes, that require 1000 dash to run and they receive around 8% per year i suppose. This is first time i notice the transactions going further then 87000 as unconfirmed, for two days? Txid accelerator is full, so no other possibilites.

For $10 it should include the node. Who is charging $10/month for just the IP? That's crazy. I've never paid more than $2-$3 for additional ips and at least 1 public ip is included per node when I fire up VMs.

More transactions on top of increased block time. Once we had some bad luck and blocks went to 30-60minutes per block things got real bad (thats when it jumped to 500+sat/b.). If we had faster blocks, it would be fine, if diff readjustment happened faster, it would be fine. Since we have neither, we get 500sat/b tx fees. I really expect it to increase to 750-1000sat/b over the next 2 weeks. It's just lucky that this happened at the end of a diff adjustment period. We're only 100 or so blocks away from the next diff adjustment. It won't trend down as much as it should but it will improve a little. We'll have to wait another 2 weeks for the full correction in diff.

Thanks, txid is f229ec6a9072fc1c49d9340ffc1d3b0064a2599b6b60d9a81ef3abf3e9f8182d
 

If you observe carefully, you should realise that they are in the same /24 blocks, especially if they were from the same location. If you're trying to get IPs in different /16 blocks, it would be much more expensive, or you need a lot of service providers. Most of them charge $8+ for even 512mb, depending on the quality and where the servers are from (eg. colocrossing). Still, you have to control a significant percentage of the network nodes or its pretty useless.

The whole community probably wish that the problem can be solved this easily. There are definitely several trade-offs with faster blocks. With regards to the difficulty adjustment, if an attacker were to have a limited budget, they can easily place in large amount of hashpower for a day, lets say and the difficulty would increase significantly. The network would pretty much take more time to readjust. Same goes for varience.

That being said, I really doubt the possible decrease in hashrate was the main factor in the frequency of the block yesterday. I would guess that varience did play a part too.
Confirmed :).

Genrally It Does not Looks that much of easy but you can make it easy by concentrating for long time.

It doesn't really matter how easy it is to make thousands of nodes. We should assume that the government can do it. The security of Bitcoin shouldn't and doesn't rely on it.

Even if you have 99% of the nodes, it is your client that chooses which and how many of the nodes it connects to and even then, no one can really trick you that a transaction is confirmed when it isn't, since that attack requires hashpower and your client won't accept new blocks if they below the difficulty. That is another reason to not decrease the difficulty period, otherwise an attacker has to keep you in the dark for a lower amount of time, but still it would be quite suspicious to have such a drop in difficulty so suddenly.

Bottom line is that difficulty adjustments can't protect against a sudden drop in hashpower due to the outside forces. The drop can happen in an instant and when it does it can be suspicious, since the above attack could be happening, so you shouldn't run to readjust it.

Default on Bitcoin Core is for your client to connect to 8 other nodes and any additional that try to connect to it. Even if it does it randomly, and usually it just uses the ones you ware previously connected to that it can trust more, then you need to have luck to control all 8. If at least one in 8 is legit, that would mean that on average legit network is 12.5% , means you have to control 97.5% nodes on average for your attack to be successful. But also you can be lucky, or have no luck at all. But a user can always be more careful.

Also, I believe that on the next difficulty readjustment Segwit should activate. So that 100 blocks shouldn't only be when you get more regular blocks, but when they will be more space in them as well, since transactions will be able to take less of the space in them.

Just have space in blocks, get rid of replace by fee, bring back trusted 0 comf.
Doesn't matter how long blocks take then.

As it was.

This problems has been debated for years, we know all of it, high fees, long time to be confirmed, spam attacks and so on.
But the thing is, core developers thinks and treat bitcoin from technical or engineering perspective and bitcoiners demand for better user experience which can't be fulfilled for now because there are some people called miners which always looking for profits, as long as we have to pay higher fees > miners always like it and trying to prolong the process to upgrade bitcoin nodes for a better user experience.

But how do miners choose their fee? if I was a miner I would choose the highest fee but that would make me against the network. The fee would be alright if wasn't slow with confirmations, but be like ethereum.

86 hours and counting to send $400 with .40 fee from my blockchain wallet to coinbase

still 0 confirmations , anyone else experiencing long wait times?

wtf is going on?

I'm hearing a bunch of noise out there about congestion , segwits , forks , bitcoin cash coins wtf

it's simple

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000000c3a0457533235d504f13750e334addd858dd7b7ce5cb17

outside of some priority transaction or miner preference,

this block, if you had a fee higher than 384.43 sat/B, you would have been in it.

and if you look in this block, yo u'll see someone spending several thousand dollars to make some 100KB transactions that move about 1 bitcoin at the cost of 0.3.  

...... and perhaps at some point, these places like Antpool, will come to the realization that while it's great to get an extra $20k out of a $50k block,   in the long run, this is going to be detrimental,


here is one :

https://blockchain.info/address/13khWZhS5wv7a5tCdTmtJtRmvwouK67Nci


let's be honest now, the more important thing here is how intelligent this person is with the address 13khWZhS5wv7a5tCdTmtJtRmvwouK67Nci (or persons, I don't mess around much w/ bitcoin anymore, so haven't studied this situation in depth)...  presumably, the goal would be to push the transaction fee up while having as few of your transactions included as possible, and continue to gradually increase it like this.  to exit,  drain this balance entirely w/ a final transaction & a large enough fee that you know it will be included in next block.

it's not like we're talking about tens of millions here... though i wish they'd just send me $10k instead.  i think I could do it more efficiently

...  & feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here

ed: do any mining pools  even keep these transaction prioritizations anymore?

ed2:  it also becomes a problem if these handful off conglomerates with the ASICs decide to either stop mining, or mine something else.  Mentioning this some 4 or 5 years ago brought me nothing but grief though... you know, because more hashpower means the chain is more secure!.... vs these bastard hobbyists and their graphics cards.   

god forbid another Haicheng that knocks everything offline for an extended period of time (like, say, right after a difficulty refactor)

What you're suggesting is pretty much the goal of BCH and many altcoins that already exist. If you aren't happy with the state of Bitcoin then abandon it and move to an altcoin. That will speak much larger volumes than just a post that the devs and most of the community will ignore. Core devs and followers will never accept these changes, many of the core devs actually want to decrease block size (which would make transaction times even slower).

Sure, that could be true.

It still answers his question.

Wow, so all of that "were better than the banks" they were using to market bitcoin for 4 years, really was, bullshit. I even remember a bunch of talk about how versatile it was, and able to change with the times, implement new features. Just more bullshit I guess. I'll start supporting and using DGB.

Using bitcoin core wallet  v0.14.2. I made a payment yesterday with transaction fee set to 1h/6 blocks. 24h later, still unconfirmed. Something must be done, it's way too slow...

I must admit that reading this becomes funnier as I look at your avatar Mr. "Bitcoin Foundation Lifetime Member" and all those coins, Ethereum, Waves out there you decide to support DGB? You need to rethink what you are investing into my friend.

for me never take more the 30 minute my wallet take how much fee need fpr fast transaction

Ya, I added that back in like 2012? Back when everyone was like 'were going to take over the banks!', 'this will be the best money transfer service!', 'it will have lower fees than anywhere else!', 'smart contracts!', 'decentralized', 'fastest money transfers!', bla bla bla.

I don't invest. I've been mining DGB for quite awhile. I wasn't really fond of it at first but it grew on me. It doesn't have the adoption level that's desirable but it does have a lot of potential IMO.

It's exactly what I did. Transaction fee was set to the default wallet value of 1h / 6 blocks.

Status: 0/unconfirmed, in memory pool
Date: 24-Aug-17 15:48
To: 13eFYA8CFxbYNKKQyr3rvPTN5Qxn5VyAzz
Debit: -0.00295600 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.00049787 BTC
Net amount: -0.00345387 BTC
Transaction ID: 2e62e198087f75abc010ea350c93e9bfa9e00d9c80594f93aae06040c9bb6b0e
Transaction total size: 226 bytes
Output index: 1

Nearly 30 hours later still not sent. Anyway ~ 100K unconfirmed transactions are in the pool at the moment and growing.

Strange that the last transaction i've sent was under a hour with its 5 confirmations happening within 50 minutes. It does have spikes and rush hours i suppose.

The fee reached today nearly 20 percent of sent amount (0.029 BTC, 0.0041) but the transfer time was only around an hour.

Back to school, boy.
You clearly need to get some education about why an open, borderless, decentralized payment network like Bitcoin is superior to ANY fiat banking system.
After study time, come back here. If you still think it's bullshit you are welcome to buy some tin, or copper, or well, shiny gold is what people seem to like best. Or DGB of course. Good luck with that - I mean still better than USD. ;)

Yesterday i do my last transact for 15$ with 12s/mb and it's was fucking crazy 10 validation in like 5 minutes just how it's possible ?

The fees are mad, mycelium forced me to pay $3.4 to send $27, how is this viable? I noticed my transactions with blckchain.info were much lower. Is it a Mycelium thing?

If even after the increase of block size to 2MB and Segregated Witness introduction Bitcoin fees are exorbitant and tx times are so long, then we can safely say it is high time to switch to lighter algos, ltc and eth are good alternatives.

Or just add the lightning network?

LN is like the https of the internet. There is no reason we shouldn't embrace this innovation. Imagine transacting any amount you want, as much as you want with essentially 0 fees? It would be like starting Bitcoin all over again. In my opinion this is what we need, and asap because fees are way out of hand at the moment.

Bitcoin transaction time doesnt matter a lot nowdays
But I believe in future we can make it faster

People are completely insolent. 30 dollars fee already too much for them.

Hopefully that problem will be fixed once segwit is more accepted, i'm still waiting on ALOT of wallets to start implementing segwit transactions.

i think the changes during august 1 or on what we so called the big one was the answer for you inquiry. as a bitcoin user, i already felt what changes the Segwit has. i experience faster transactions lately after that changes.

There is nothing that you can do other than up the TX fees. This is going to happen from time to time and it will work itself out over time. It usually changes form day to day and I have seen many fast TX's today and last night, so there is not a system wide issue and there is not a real problem. If people think and believe that the system is going to be instant, then there is going to be a sad level of disappoint there for those folks and it is not going to change anytime soon. A faster turn around means something else is being compromised to fix it.

I think the Bitcoin transaction time is 10 minutes per post. But to make sure that your Bitcoin account will avoid the block is to make sure that your time interval is range from 30 to 45 minutes in every post that will you make. You must remember that when your Bitcoin account is block, it is hard to get it back. As a simple reminder, make a post in every 30 to 45 minutes to avoid blocking you Bitcoin account. And last, make a table of time for you to assure that you follow the correct interval time of posting in Bitcoin.

You misunderstood something here. I don't know what you mean by "post". There are no "posts" in Bitcoin network. I thought you might be talking about posting on this forum, but you said transaction time so that makes no sense. Also there is are no time intervals defined in the Bitcoin blockchain, it is just mathematical puzzles that are likely to be guessed by the network on average with 10 minutes of guessing. These puzzles are readjusted every 2016 blocks to adjust to the current guessing speed of the network.

Some people refer to Bitcoin addresses as accounts, so I guess that is what you are talking about. There are no blocks on your address. You can send whatever amount of transactions you want and your address will never be blocked by the network. Anyone can make as many addresses as they want as well in a fraction of a second. Blocks aren't necessary since you pay a fee for every transaction to be included in the blockchain.

You also don't need to do anything every 30 or 45 minutes or anything like that. Neither on the network nor on this forum.

Only Ethereum has any relevant transaction volume, thanks to its ICO market.

It's obvious Bitcoin it's still the king.

Out of interest, how have people found things since segwit activation?

I've noticed that fees seem a lot lower and things seem to happen faster?

I think to some extent the big block crew are correct.  Ethereum works great with quick blocktimes mostly, other than during ICO peak periods, which bitcoin doesn't really have.

Coinbase take  30 minute :( >:(

Segwit only got activated on the network. That means it is possible to use it, not that it is being used. There is still no difference that Segwit made, since almost no one uses it yet. Wallets need some time to start implementing it and Lightning Networks need to pop up as well in due time. There might not be any drastic changes over night, we could just see a gradual adoption.

Fees are lower, but that is just the network. Maybe due to some Bitcoin Cash users leaving Bitcoin, since the split, other then that, just business as usual. Sometimes fees are high, sometimes low, but they are definitely better now.

It's all about fees, not about blocks.
Maybe your fee is too low for that amount of money.
I had trouble a few months ago - same as you, and it was because of fees.
Too low fees made me waiting 3 days for my BTC to get transacted.

Cheap people will watch the chain, while those that tip will watch their money grow. It is that simple and it is a perfect system to destroy and rid the chain of those that refuse to spend their money, money moving is a good economy, money stagnating is bad, and anyone that refuses to get with the program will suffer and die. It is perfect and it is working perfectly and it has gotten yet another, at least it was a small TX.

This topic is relatively old and with the activation of segwit the majority of this problem has been fixed. Transaction fees tend to be at the lower side as of lately and are getting confirmed relatively fast. I personally think spending 10$ on a transaction fee alone is too high for bitcoin. Especially since the point of bitcoin was to allow for international transactions for basically free. I don't see how low fees will eventually kill the system. I think that's a little bit of an outrageous statement.

I agree Bitcoin fees are getting ridiculous. It's now expensive to send and receive payments if you want to receive them in a timely manner. Something has to be done about this and I'm sure they will think of something.

I personally prefer to use DeepOnion to send and receive payments as it's practically instant. I just hope more people start to adopt it and it becomes more popular in the upcoming future.

This is a dilemma on btc transactions, the transaction times were decreased but we still facing with a comparibly big amount of fees keep paying even if the transaction amount is small

agree, some of the concern of op  has been fixed and improved now after they have activated the segwit lately but i also agree to some rants of members here that transaction fees is still expensive plus the transfer of bitcoins moves frigin slow , so lets  just hope that developers will improved this soon or after the  upcoming fork has been established on mid october and november.

Yeah, segwit2x was one of the best branches that grew on tree called Bitcoin

just a case of how quickly you want it sent and people who want it done quickly are simply willing to pay higher in miners fee. to be fair, $30 for $7500 transaction is not unreasonable considering a lot of other means of sending the same amount of money

   

     A transaction is confirmed when it is permanently included in the bitcoin block chain.The time taken for this is quite variable, some time
confirmation may be tens of minutes and some time it may take two hours or an average it will be about an hour.Currently bitcoin network traffic is unusually high due to increase in demand for transaction per block.Block sizes are limited that means transaction which exceed the capacity for a block get stuck in a queue for confirmation by bitcoin miners.

do you think with segwit2x fees are gonna get cheaper ?

Segregated Witness (SegWit2x) increase the speed of transaction, but right now they won't charge less because they have to earn for their new invention, as they increase the size of block to be solved upto 2MB so it would  not easy for them to solve the hash codes. But in future many new invention will take place regarding to transaction , so that is why the price get cheaper.

Yes, the development team continues to improve the blockchain chain in order to facilitate the user to perform various transactions, although the transaction time can be reduced from 10 minutes to 1 minute then it remains ascertained by the system developers not to pay a large fee.

You can go to services section and there you will see many threads for accelerated services, its free as well. do it thr.

The blocks decide how long
Sometimes 10min sometimes over 2h

Bitcoin is a little slow , No doubt but we need to change it . #REVOLUTION

I agree! Bitcoin's main purpose is to have better transactions than what we have today. A free transaction that let's our personap information behind the codes and addresses. But what's happening now is the increase of fees and the time it takes to transacr. Bitcoin price is very volatile so a long transacting time whether in trading or just transfering Bitcoin might be as fast as an instant click. I believe they are already working on this as the Bitcoin is now being recognized and is continuing it's development.

It is hard to say what is Bitcoin main purpose, especially since no one is in charge of deciding what it is. It is undefined. We can speculate about why it was created and what the creator Satoshi had in mind, but Bitcoin now belongs to the people and they can do with it as they please. A free transaction is obviously impossible and not intended as mining fees are planed to be the only way of miners getting payed when the block supply goes to zero in about 100 years.
It is hard to claim that it was mostly about lower transaction fees or anonymity, since the creation of Bitcoin happened right after the financial crisis and during the bank bailouts that decreased the value of fiat currency and effectively taxed the people for bank's mistakes and greed. The first Bitcoin block, the genesis block has references to the bank bailouts as it holds the headlines of British newspapers that read "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" along with the name of newspaper and the date as to prove that block wasn't premined.