Bitcoin Forum

I probably start with a question, have you noticed the decrease in transaction fee of average bitcoin transaction of today?

In the past 2017, the demand for bitcoin is nearly the same for today. And according to this resource (https://beincrypto.com/bitcoins-average-fees-0-50-now-compared-20-december-2017/), the bitcoin's average fees today is $0.50 dollars in comparison to $20 dollars wayback 2017.

Moreover, the reason behind this decrease and improvement we have is the SegWit and payment Batching. Before, it seems that SegWit isn't providing the best solution to solve the problem of huge transaction fees. But for today, we can see its effect since the transactions of this time is somehow the same with 2017.


In relation to the news concerning bitcoin-related searches, the demand for bitcoin seems to increase significantly over time. I just not sure if SegWit could handle an all time high and huge amount of transaction since we are near to a serious event of bitcoin halving.

There's no doubt that most of the cryptocurrency enthusiast are now suggesting a transaction using SegWit wallet address and since we now have the information regarding its effect on the bitcoin's transaction fees. I don't think we still have a reason to stay with the traditional bitcoin address.

Segwit and batching aren't responsible for a 4000% drop, i guess you're just comparing the fees of a large transaction in the middle of the 2017 spam attack (that fueled bidding war for fees) and the fees of a normal transaction right now.

A couple years ago, somebody was just spamming the mempool with thousands of transactions, so in order to have a decent chance of getting your transaction into a block, you had to outbid all those spam transactions... The fees were insane, but the attack only lasted a couple of months (if memory serves me correctly), before and after the attack the fees have always been very reasonable.

Correction by mocacinno (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=405464)
Basically it somehow depends on the amount of BTC you are transacting with, that's why it could reach up to 20 dollars at that time, plus, if the market is congested, transaction fees could significantly increase. That is why it is advisable that if we transact, we should make sure that the market isn't congested too much because the amount of transaction fee might be high. So, if we are transacting using batch and with the technology that Segwit could offer, our transaction will be more efficient.

The fee does not depend on the amount of BTC you're sending. It depends on the size of the transaction.
The size of the transaction depends on the number of inputs, the number of outputs, which kind of addresses were funded by the inputs and which kind of addresses you're funding with the outputs.

A transaction using 1 input with a value of 100 BTC creating one output of 99.9999 BTC will be a lot smaller (thus cheaper) than a transaction using 100 inputs of 0.01 BTC to create 99 outputs of 0.01 BTC (eventough only 1 BTC was transferred in total, vs 100 BTC in the first case). In this example, it doesn't even matter if the second transaction was between segwit wallets, or batched...)

No, the number is not the same a the peak in 2017

https://i.imgur.com/0vI7Gfk.png

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7

Those 50k transactions mean everything.
You have a maximum capacity that is not used currently, there are still blocks that are not full

617358   1.234.954 bytes
617357      753.964 bytes
617356   1.306.193 bytes
617355      943.467 bytes

When that capacity is reached fees will go up, and it all depends on how much the capacity might be exceded.
If it's only by 1% then people it won't affect the tx too much, just that some will start batching their transactions and stop spending dust, if it goes to 100% then expect an increase to the same levels as 2018. Although that would also come with more LN adoption.


Yeah, it was even worse (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html) for a brief period

The 3 causes for the high fees were the spam attack, the constantly big change in price (triggering various bots) and the lack of batching.
I remember that Coinbase and other "friends of Roger Ver" were accused to cause quite a problem (some have telling numbers of 70% or so for the transactions) by refusing to implement batching.. or at least delaying it.

Off-topic #1. BCash narrative is still sometimes based on "cheap fees" exactly because of this.
Off-topic #2. I don't know why bitcoiners still use Coinbase when they were known for favoring BCash and working against Bitcoin.


But I have to agree that excepting the spam attack period the mempool had its cooldown periods (sooner or later).
Even now a big variation in price causes a spike in fees, but it's smaller and it's usually getting absorbed within a day. We'll see what happens in the next FOMO bubble.

I wonder if the spam attack still happens or is it reduced? Been long fees went up that high.
I wonder exactly how that was fixed(assuming it has been fixed). IP ban? Or through some other means?

Well, it's been a long time since the mempool was flooded in such a dramatic way as it was flooded in 2017-2018 (don't remember the exact time period, just that it's been a couple of years). It's possible that the "spammer" is still creating transactions, but if he does, it's no longer to a degree that causes issues with other people.

There is no real way to ip ban spam transactions. Transactions are broadcasted trough the network, nobody knows who created them. Ip's are not recorded on the blockchain, nor are they transmitted together with a transaction. If you really wanted to ban "spam" transactions, you'd have a hard time, since there is no difference between a spam transaction and a "valid" transaction (spam transactions are valid aswell).

You could ban peers you suspect being the source of spam transactions, but all nodes would have to use the same blacklist (and the spammer can just use a different ip to broadcast his spam, so you'd have to update the blacklist every couple of minutes). If one of the nodes wasn't willing to ban the suspect peer, the suspect would still be able to broadcast to the node that didn't use the blacklist, and this node would still relay the spammers transaction unhindered.
A second thing you could try is to convince miners not to include transactions using unspent outputs funding certain address lists, but nobody knows the complete lists of all addresses belonging to the spammer's wallet, nor would the miners be willing to help you (since they're missing out on income if they do this).

Neither of these options is bulletproof or feasible, and all options would depend on incomplete, centralised "blacklists" that would have to be honored by the complete network (all nodes and all miners), and one option would even cost the miners a substantial amount of income, so it's not likely they would be willing not to include valid transactions that have a higher fee per vbyte just because somebody says it's spam.

If we put aside the assumption most people have about who the "culprit" is, and why he/she spammed the network, only a couple possible explanations could be given as to why the attack stopped:

Either the attack was deliberately, and it stopped because the culprit reached his/her goal, made his/her point or ran out of funds
OR
The attack was unintentional, and the "culprit" found out he was the reason why the mempool was filled to the brim (and the fees were out of proportion) and he/she stopped spamming... Or maybe it was unintentional, and the "culprit" just needed several thousand tx's confirmed, and once this was done he was content.

Yes i remember it was right after the price peak of 2017, in January 2018 a low fee transaction could easily take weeks or even a whole month, those days were very crazy, who knows if that also fueled the bear sentiment, and sure certain altcoin promoters have used that excuse ever since.

Still, after around March 2018 such a transfer fee crisis has never occurred again. And then came Segwit etc.

As for coinbase i'm sure i said it back then, it was a very American thing. Elsewhere its irrelevant, but Americans love it for whatever reason.


The other problem i see with transaction prices is that by then many wallets had the "auto detect the optimal fee so it takes n block(s) to confirm". Too many wallets have that enabled by default, so it isn't particularly difficult to provoke a chain reaction that feedbacks it self Its like the attackers have a wiling army of bots worsening the problem.

Yes, once upon a time wallets didn't guess anything, the transfer price was always manually set and things worked fine. But now they all want to "confirm within the next block"...

This is not even Bitcoin's fault but most Bitcoin wallets happily adopted the practice, contributing to the problem. This is why i keep telling people to always force the wallet to use 1 sat/B unless its absolutely urgent. If you plan ahead you can do 99% of your transactions without a hurry, relax and check again tomorrow and for sure your coins will be there, no matter if you paid 3¢ or 1$ in transaction fees.

And when the time comes when we can finally have 0.1 sat/B transactions, I'll switch to manually always use that too.

One welcome side effect of the LN adoption is that it should reduce the onchain traffic somewhat. Again, i would leave that only for exceptional situations (like using a credit card for emergencies only).

I've noticed that the transaction fee has been quite low for a year or so, but nothing special about the last couple of days. I am used to seeing that the normal fee is less than a dollar, and priority fee is a bit more than a dollar (when you send 0.02 or so). Yeah, it's a big improvement in comparison with 2017, but it seems to me that it's actually a temporary thing that is explained more by the network not being that busy rather than significant improvements. If the price jumps to $20k again and people get much more active, the same problems will come again... Scalability is still the biggest obstacle to Bitcoin's adoption as money, as for me.

SegWit really changed Bitcoin for the better. Compared to 2017, Bitcoin has become incredibly profitable in terms of fee

segwit came into effect in summer 2017

the highest fee ever seen came after segwit.. (december 2017)
why
because segwit forced many transaction types to cost 4x usual amounts.
so if someone sending a legacy transaction paid $20 in december 2017.. if the exact same circumstances and demand was to occur in 2016. they would have only paid $5

also the reason for the $20 was due to a exchange price of $20k(winter) compared to $5k(summer)
so again same situation as just described. but taking the exchange price into account when calculating sats per bytes.
if there was same demand.. but in 2016 and without the exchange price.. the most you would have paid was $1.25

yep. the peak price of fee's should have been $1.25. but DUE TO SEGWIT's 4x of fee's and the whole price  rise drama on exchange caused the TEMPORARY peak of a $20 fee.

this is not due to legacy transactions being bad. this aint to do with bitcoin being broke . nothing to do with segwit making things cheaper. but purely due to hype being glorified as how a temporal event being wrote out as a 'average' price.. (facepalm) to then pretend things got better..

no.. after segwit .. things got worse.. then it recovered
too many stupid people think the $20 fee and the $20k exchange rate are normal long term averages to base things off of.. sorry they were not. they were stupidly short term flukes and should not be used to base average expectations off of to then compare.

wise up people. stop jumping on the segwit hype train.

cant beleive people saying todays fee's of $0.50 is ok..
in 2015 people were creating hell when feels were over $0.20
yet strangely.. saying fees of $0.50 are now deemed as cheap

where did the 2015 promise of cheaper sub cent fee's disapear to.
come on 2009-2015 people wanted to pay under $0.01
devs promoted their 'fixes' to achieve that..
yet here we are 2020. being told $0.50 is acceptable.

screw it. lets take a $10k car. from 2015.. price it temporarilly at $200k for just a couple months.. and then start advertising that the car is at a great deal and worthy paying $50k for it..

or wise up and ask why the heck isnt it $5k or atleast the same $10k
soo many people are duped into the stupid advertising ploy without realising the numbers dont actually meet expectations when they really think about it

wise up people

If I remember correctly, spamming started around the beggining of 2017, as a preparation for SegWit2x, to force community to accepted a big block fork, but at that time the fees were around $1. The rise to $20 and even $50 per tx can't be solely attributed to spam, that would be insanely costly. There's a simple explanation for such prices - it happened at the height of 2017 bubble, so it's reasonable to assume that those were real transactions done by users who wanted to cash out their profits.

There's some truth to OP's statement, as spamming today would be much more costly, but it's misleading to say that $20 fees are gone because of SegWit. I'm sure we will see high fees again during another peak of the market, there's already a strong correletion between price going up and amount of transaction temporarily following it.

the memorable mempool backlogs in 2016 were likely caused by a sophisticated spam attack originating in august-september 2015. https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bitcoin-spam-attack-stressed-network-for-at-least-18-months-claims-software-developer

the mid-late 2017 backlogs were less likely to have been "spam" attacks per se. they were highly correlated with rising bitcoin price and heightened exchange activity throughout the year, climaxing in december when the bubble popped. bitmex, coinbase, binance and others were either drastically overpaying for withdrawal transactions to ensure next-block delivery, not batching transactions, or both.

this will happen again during the next bubble, especially since exchanges have done very little to optimize their withdrawal systems. 8 months ago, coinbase's CEO said batched transactions "should be coming out in a few months". *crickets*

everyday, bitmex clogs the network during USA business hours with its unoptimized mass withdrawal. https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490591264497664


it all started way earlier than that. in 2015, coinwallet.eu kicked things off with their "stress test" of the network: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1094865.0

this was shortly before the release of Bitcoin XT.

Didn't most exchanges start using both Segwit and transaction batching within this time? That's gotta account for quite a big drop.

Also, most recipient addresses are Segwit these days.

But then again, trade volume has increased significantly, even since Bitcoin reached its peak back in December 2017.

Is it because most transfers are happening offchain now? e.g. virtual trades on exchanges, rather than direct wallet-to-wallet transfers?

The days of $50 transaction fees are likely long behind us in any case.

the huge drop came after the 2017 bubble popped. huge inflows and outflows from exchanges (at inflated fee rates) ceased after that.

side note: this has a lot do with really bad fee estimation/overpayment by exchanges and wallets. it's not all about transaction volume. people tend to assume there is a linear relationship between transaction volume and fees but that isn't true.

a lot of exchanges (including the biggest ones like coinbase and bitmex) still aren't batching transactions.

Well, in the past there are this jerk/s that spam transactions. At that problem, people are paying large amount of transaction fees so they could be quickly approved. At that time a lot of people are really pissed with the transaction fees and transaction time, I think that is the reason of this drop. It is not that profitable when we talk about fees since there are still a lot of complains regarding to fees especially to exchanges.

Let us wait for a major FOMO before deciding what's what. There is at least some batching and no Bitmain spamming but there is a hard limit that can't be gotten past and no sign of the madness that descended during that period. Fees have spiked violently upwards for brief spurts in recent times and that's a possible harbinger of it only being a matter of time before it gets sporty for long periods again.

The high transaction fees in 2017 was occasioned as I read by Mempool attack. So then we had a lot of congested transactions. I suffered this then, couldn't just sell my bitcoin whenever I wanted because of fees and slow confirmation. Some custodian wallets worked fine then but with a fixed fee, I have never been a fan of Custodian wallet because of the risk they pose no key not your money. In 2017, viabtc came to my rescue by using their free service in speeding up my transaction. 

I love the silent truth in Tones post that scaling is working as regards bitcoin but scammers refuse to admit it. Maybe he regards some altcoin founders who always lash out on bitcoin because of high transaction fees and slow confirmation in the past as been scammers.

SegWit is active since 24 August 2017  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit) ;)



Quite bad if they care more about their "american things" than Bitcoin itself.



The problem is usually the trading/arbitrage bots for which the time is indeed critical. They trigger on every significant price change and cause a spike.

The wallets are indeed badly set, some of them even having some automatic big fee, especially services. Of course, they need to make sure the transactions go through in a matter of hours, to keep the service credibility, but the big fees may be also a mix of laziness and bad programming which cause everybody some loses (and bad publicity to Bitcoin too). Just they are used all day long without big effect on the mempool size, so the spike problem is not there.



I see LN still as a beta. I was over enthusiastic about it when it started getting used, but the time is passing and it's still not final/used at a big scale.
The next version of Electrum having it may (or may not) be quite a leap forward, but we are still far from paying in the supermarket with Bitcoin and LN (which is imho the goal).

Oh yes, I remember those crazy times when to send a block, you had to pay 100,000-150,000 Satoshi. Then I personally used LTC and ETH for transfers, use BTC  was very expensive and very long, it seems that transactions took 2-3 hours. It’s good that these days have passed.

Time by time the price of the bitcoin increase and also the same with the transaction fee, we experience today that the market price of the bitcoin came from the lower price that is below five thousand dollars has a low transaction fee but now the price coming back and reached over ten thousand dollars but that increase also the platform that supports the use of crypto currency will now increase their transaction fee because they know the possibility of the bitcoin transaction fee will be increased too. As an investor, it is better if we make some trading to avoid having lost of money too because this method can help to lessen the transaction fee.

I still remember that time lol, when I almost gambled away or lost most of my holdings and when I had like 0.002 btc or something, more than half of it went for a simple transaction and before I could see it I broadcasted the transaction and the fee was deducted haha. Glad the fees are so low now :D it feels good!

Yeah, I sent a transaction 2 weeks back and it costed me $0.35 (0.00003612) for a $250 transaction which is almost 0.1% of the amount and confirmation took 5 minutes while earlier had to pay minimum $5 in Nov 2019 while 2017 was expensive where each transaction had to have $10 fee attached. It's cheaper than ETH transactions.

Yep, and still the (brainwashed?) Bcashers continue with their false advertising even in this thread, and now I'll even answer to that.



One blue has similar or higher fees, one is a worthless shitcoin that has low fees because nobody is using it and the third is not a proper decentralized coin.

The far majority of those are dApp transactions. Not native Ether transactions. Makes a big difference.

One address's spam transactions accounts for over 50% of those 40,000 transactions.

Price fetching data and weather fetching data.

I don't know exactly what the ratio is between operations that are marked as transactions and actual transactions, but I can say that not all of them are actual transactions.

It's such a desperate attempt to talk down on Bitcoin. I do however agree that there should be more on-chain throughput, but that's a matter of time only with Segwit gaining more adoption and Schnorr hopefully this year.

Also, services are batching transactions to save on fees, which means that the actual number of transactions does go down, but the actual value transacted on-chain not.

Transaction fees are pretty low these days, but how do these things happen? Let me remind you guys that people are holding rather than spending and trading because of so much speculation this year as bitcoin halving is awaited by many. Confirmed transactions today are 292, XXX almost 2x of the highest in 2017 which was at 450,XXX. The congestion really affects it that's why we have low fees now.

Lol. I even paid around $20 back in 2017 for a small scale transaction and that was really really embarrassing for me. But do not celebrate yet, I think the worst and higher is yet to come.

Bitcoin halving is about to take place and in this situation, the fees would gradually lower in amount.
There is nothing new in this actually because the halving process is going to reduce the fees for each transaction to broadcast which is going to increase the demand for bitcoins which gradually would also rise the price for bitcoins.
This is going to bring the bull runs soon so we all should remain close to bitcoins as we already are.

Now because of the bitcoin halving there is a lot of changes will happen because of lacking the supply of the bitcoin there is a chance that the transaction will increase highly but still, the price of the bitcoin are in a low market price the transaction fee becomes more favorable to the people.

There is no technical correlation between the halving of the block reward and the average fee (in sat per vbyte) one has to pay in order to have a decent chance of getting your tx included in a block.

It's not the fee that's being halved, it's the block reward. Read some more here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

you are making a couple of additional mistakes too. when speaking of transaction fees you must never talk about them "per transaction" because it doesn't make any sense that way. instead you must always talk about them in terms of "per byte" or more accurately "per virtual bytes". then the numbers you report become more meaningful. secondly the values must be in bitcoin or a smaller unit such as satoshi to make sense. for example if i say i paid $1 for a tx you have no way of knowing whether i over paid or underpaid or it was ok. my tx size might have been 1 MB and i paid $1 for it or it might have been 170 bytes.

and finally comparing the current fees (ie. normal times) with the peak of a spam attack (abnormal special time) is not a fair comparison.

But, one of my friends paid up to $7 for a transaction as of recent. I couldn’t really tell why he was charged that much for a transaction I know for sure that I would have paid less and the reason he gave that caused it isn’t I am going to believe easily.

He claimed its because he received too many micro transactions and that’s why the fees he had to pay increased. He’s a retailer and he receives a lot if cryptocurrencyevery day and he also sends out a lot. So he claimed it was as a result of that, but I told him it had nothing to do with the fees, or maybe it’s true? ???

His analysis is probably true... Loads of micro transactions = loads of unspent outputs.
If you spend these unspent outputs (so use them as an input), you'll end up with a big transaction (in size), so you'll have to pay a big fee in order to entice a miner to put this transaction into the block he/she is trying to solve.

You can play around with this wizard for a while if you want to run some simulations: https://coinb.in/#fees
You'll see the wizard NEVER asks about the monetary value of the transaction you're creating. The only things that determine the fee are the number of inputs, the number of outputs, which kind of addresses were funded with the inputs and which kinds of addresses you're funding with the outputs... That's all

At current optimal feerate, it was probably a transaction with ~50 inputs and ~2 outputs, unless he's using more "exotic" addresses, like multisig's, timelocked, p2sh's,... It doesn't matter if he was transacting $70000 or $70, a transaction with ~50 "normal" inputs and ~2 "normal" outputs would cost around ~$7 in fees

The last time I noticed the transaction fee is so high was only during the bull run, so basically we are not yet in a bull run right now and we might see this abnormal increase of miner's fee if the bull run will come.

actually I didn't notice that decrease of fees, in the past few months, my transaction fee was just around .50 usd to 1 usd, using the highest fee transaction with my electrum wallet.

Well, in all honesty, it's very rare for me to use a high fee... Usually, i manually edit my fees, and the last couple of months it only happened once or twice that i chose a fee > 1 sat/byte. High fees are only necessary when you buy an item from a shop that uses a gateway like bitpay, and they force your transaction to be confirmed in 1 or 2 hours. If you are sending funds to other peers, or to your own wallet, a low fee is more than enough.

LOL you guys are hilarious!!! BTC tx fee ONLY 0.50$ LMAO

1. The real Bitcoin that is Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already 1500 times cheaper in tx's
2. Can scale to VISA level transactions levels and beyond
3. BSV blockchain usage has already SUPERCEEDED BTC. (see below graphs).
4. Fees in BSV network are only going down as usage grows!!! (see below graphs).
5. We have Satoshi. Craig Wrigth. Nuff said.

https://i.ibb.co/d7MZJqZ/BSV-fees-1500-times-less-than-BTC.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/n0zfDh7/coin-dance-bitcoinblocksizes.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/mDShVYF/coin-dance-bitcointransactionfeesinsatoshis.jpg

Digging deeper even the number of tx might be irrelevant in some cases..
We can have 1000 tx with a single output and 20 transactions each 100 outputs from exchanges batching their withdrawals.

Coinbase for example, when they finally started doing that they cut their outgoing tx by 20, so probably a better way to look at what is happening right now with transactions in the chain is to look at active addresses in the last 24h and number of outputs.

Outputs:

https://i.imgur.com/ynJcyd9.png

Transactions:

https://i.imgur.com/9m3cktp.png


Based on the number of tx 2018 was the peak, based on outputs it was reached in 2019.


le:

Bitcoin: 
Transactions last 24h         321,096
Active Addresses last 24h  682,080

Shitoshi Failure:
Transactions last 24h        565,839
Active Addresses last 24h   31,743
Median Transaction Value   0.0026 BSV ($0.797 USD)

My first question to guys like these are (and he's saying he is only paying 50 cents now as compared to $20 a year ago) is, Tone Vays, what the hell are you paying 5,000 satoshi fees for?

And agree with pooya, these influencers always rub me off the wrong way because they insist on talking cents and dollars which simply doesn't give you any context of BTC price.

I pay, when consolidating (so that's >10 inputs usually) still a lot less than 5000 sats.

On a normal tx, I'm paying little more than 120 sats... 1.2 cents. OK, so like 2 days ago I wanted to get a tx asap so I spent 10 times my normal fee (10 sats/byte) and that still ended up little more than 10 cents for next-block confirmation.

Is Vays using Bitpay all the time or does he just arbitrary say to miners, here's 50 cents?

it's true, bitpay is ridiculous. i was buying a gift card yesterday through the bitpay wallet and they tried to charge me > 0.0002 BTC (> $2) in network+miner fees. if there is a very small increase in network congestion, they exponentially increases the required fees.

i imported my seed into electrum and saved by shopping elsewhere. it's too bad reliable amazon gift card vendors are becoming so hard to find.

Yeah, seriously. I never really pay attention to all these influencers but when I happen to read their stuff like I am now, I have to wonder. If these guys are all bitcoin experts, and they're actually making knowledge of this their living and getting income from all this, how is it they're still massively overpaying fees, for example, or talking in dollars and cents instead of satoshi, therefore failing to give anyone actual context?

I use Bitpay too, quite regularly actually, because food delivery in my place accepts btc but through that. Have a specific wallet just for it too, that has RBF unchecked and single inputs cause I know these guys overcharge but I know that's BitPay charging excessively and not Bitcoin fees being "too high".

So all of that means that segwit had nothing to do with lower fees?

The only reason why it is getting difficult to find amazon gift card vendors is because of this huge fees they need to pay for each transaction. There are wallets which charge minimum fees and why shouldn't we consider using them rather than going for some platforms which usually charge heavy fees as compared to the current mining difficulty?

As far as I know BitPay, they keep a constant fees no matter what the difficulty level is for mining. This might usually get your transaction confirmed a bit sooner but you have to pay for it. I never pay any invoices on bitpay only because of the fees. I find some other wallets reliable for myself.

You lucky, lucky, lucky thing so you are. O the envy I feel.



Of course it does. It allows more transactions in every block. That reduces fee pressure. It doesn't eliminate it but there's that much more headroom than there was before.

demand for btc on the year 2017 is much bigger than compare to the demand today . i can prove that if you take a look at the price . price now is only at 10k max but prices back then are at 18 to 20k  usd  .  that is the reason why you see decline on the fees  but i agree that segwit and batching helps because people could be using it which means lesser traffic on the traditional sending of btc  . i know that if a network is congested , the fee are also becoming high because miners only prioritize bigger fees  ,

The demand can not be the same.
If 4 times more TX per block (and thats not realistic) it would cause 5 Dollar instead of 20.
Believe me if demand is high enough fee will be very high again

Yes, segwit is a reason, price has vastly dropped of bitcoin compared to what is was in the 2017 it is true that that reducing the fee of transactions will attract more user to use bitcoins and use it to transact money. I think the price dropped because of the increase of users when many countries attempt to banning BTC, but for the bitcoin lovers out there reducing the fee this much will be a good decision in favor of them.

Bitpay charges heavy duty for each platform. Even if we have to pay a invoice which is less than $10, we would have to pay the same heavy fees for the same transaction. This actually makes a lot of people to stop using bitpay only because they lose more than they earn in fees.

But, I do not really think that this might be the case in the coming times. Bitcoin halving is about to reduce the transaction fees by 50% and hence bitpay too has to consider this in order to stay in the market or else none of the people might ever go for bitpay if they have the same fees even after the halving process is completed. There is no problem for us to pay some fees if the transaction is in huge sum but for minor transactions, I personally hate paying such fees.

I would say the fee is , the fee was still the same , it is never dependent on the amount of bitcoins you are sending , you could have been sending only 1% more then the fee itself and the price will stay the same still.
It is an average , but if we are talking about the everyday matters , it is still not less , the amount is still the same.
SegWit and Lightning did reduce some but at the same time when you try and send BTC from a normal address to these or vice versa , you actually have to pay the same :')

Well yeah, the network fee that BitPay charges is per transaction, regardless of amount, or eventual size of tx (since you still have to pay the actual miner fee), but the thing is, because of the way its algorithm overestimates the fee required for next-block confirmation (which is the only way to get your invoice paid, other than to have no RBF or double spend detection), you're also forced to pay really high miner fees.

And because it's the merchant that uses BitPay, I have to keep using it.

On the other hand, BP's use of invoice makes it quite easy for refund as I've found...

Also, halving doesn't reduce tx fees at all. You sure you understand what btc halving is?

transaction fees will always remain the same from year to year it's just that the exchange value is different because the exchange value of bitcoin which always has an up and down movement so that when compared with 2017 when bitcoin prices still touch $20k the transaction fee will expensive because of the increased exchange value.

It does to a smaller extent, larger sums probably come from more sources than smaller sums, and the more inputs the higher the fee.

Still, you shouldn't be worrying about it, if you manually use the smallest fee (1 sat/B) you would always be paying a fee in cents. Whats the hurry? Check back tomorrow...

Just don't let the wallet decide the fee for you and you will never have to worry about "high fees" ever again. Besides, them wallets can be fooled easily by doing that network guessing at the wrong moment, such as when an exchange decides to move stuff around...

Just don't. 1 sat/B is good for most situations, plan ahead, most transactions don't need "Lightning".