Bitcoin Forum

Although I've taken a quick look, this doesn't seem to be discussed, and I think it should.

It looks like Binance has decided to consolidate their wallets/transactions last night. It's something they do now and then, but the current timing could not be worse.
And from CZ I do expect to be a deliberate move (usually in his favor, not ours), but I don't understand the reasons. Spamming mempool now means more panic to the average Joe in these days he's overly panicked. Does he want to make people change their minds about withdrawing from exchanges? Or does he try to cover some exchanges that can now claim withdrawing issues? I don't know.

For better info on the context, it worth looking on this tweet and the subsequent ones and also the images:
https://nitter.it/OwenKemeys/status/1592223269310328833

Or is he trying to combine his coins for when people start to massively withdraw from his scam exchange so he can charge his users massive fees and have transactions with fewer inputs, send out all of his withdraws at 1 sat/vbite anyway and they will be small and still confirm. In the end it costs them more or less the same, but it lets him screw over more people that way.

Either way, it's Tuesday AM where I am and it will still probably clear by the weekend so at worst it's a few days.

-Dave

It's either prevention for mass withdrawals, or the community became more paranoid after the second biggest exchange has scammed the community. For me, it's probably just coincidence. But if it's as a prevention for another exchange "bank run", then I believe the result would be a positive, not only for the exchanges, but for the community as well, no? We don't want another crash.

The massive waiting transactions in mempool only occured in less than 24 hours ago. Because yesterday, mempool is very clear and we can move bitcoin with 3 satoshis to 5 satoshis

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),24h,weight

Binance (if it is real) did choose a good time to create panic on newbies. They will feel more panic when their transactions need too long time to get a first confirmation. Taking this congestion, I remind people to use an opt-in Replace-by-Fee (RBF) for their transaction. So if their transactions stucked, they can bump the fee.

It is not to prevent mass withdrawals. Exchanges already charge very expensive withdrawal fee on users. Their fees are fixed and expensive because they over charge users.

Binance did not reduce or increase their withdrawal fee on Bitcoin. https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee

I just checked their current BTC withdraw fee and found it's 0.001BTC (about $16.9). I'm sure the fee was 0.0005BTC or lower few months ago. It's unlikely they perform consolidation with such high fees, so your speculation could be right.

The actual BTC withdraw fee is 0.0002BTC (about $3.4) for "Bitcoin" and 0.0005BTC (about $8.5) for "BTC(SegWit)". Thank you @DdmrDdmr for the correction.

https://i.ibb.co/j5YgKMv/binance.png

Those fees are a massive ripoff if you consider how cheap you can send bitcoins and also how important it is for people to move the coins from the exchange as soon as possible. So far it seems tja there are more coins flowing into the wallets than out of them.

Making money while ripping other people by forcing them to pay a lot or wait for days.

156 blocks? That is the biggest number I have seen in this year! And it seems still the consolidation is in process cause incoming transactions doesn't seems to be decreased.

Let's just hope we won't see another bad scenario again because the timing cannot be worse than this after the FTX has been hacked and its users are in panicked, some of the people are withdrawing their funds from exchanges all around the crypto industry to prevent the same thing happen to them. We cannot blame them because they are just being realistic and the result will be a disaster if Binance will become like that's why let's not assume the worse rather we just hope all goods for them.

As much as I dislike CZ and Binance, spamming is not really the word here.
I said it when the FTX drama was going down, with everyone rushing to get their $10 or even $5 out of that exchange you're going to have a delay, and if the same happens now at Binance they have no choice as to start consolidating all the deposits of everyone to either pay up or use the satoshis deposited.

Looking at this kind of tx:
https://mempool.space/tx/0672e85e5f95fe7ad3bc3c23d39c1c0d499d00e00be6015fbb1def102446bc4d
Imagine you have $1k in 200 inputs, and this is one for hundreds of deposits, if they are running low on coins they must do this, there is no other way.

If they touch the cold wallet there is panic!
If they touch the reserve deposit there is panic!
If they consolidate the wallets there is panic!
If withdrawals are delayed for more than a day, there is panic!

Besides, isn't this what we're preaching for, for everyone rushing to get their coins out?

And if he really wanted to panic the markets he would have put something double, what's an extra 20 BTC for him, especially since his own pool will be mining one-seventh of it?

for the subject of 'consolidating assets'

i can understand that exchanges might have multiple coldwallets of that exchanges customers reserves. and sometimes for audits its best to bring them all into a super cold wallet to show control of all the wallet funds..

nothing against that.

i understand they also have thousands of hotwallets (the on exchange customer deposit addresses) which can take alot of "spam" tx to sweep.

my concern over all is if an exchange has had alot of customers funds in wallets of DIFFERENT exchanges where they were using customer funds in other exchanges for one exchanges corporate profiteering.. which should not be happening

..
if binance is just sweeping deposit addresses to fill mempools.. yea he should have done it periodically over time instead of an all at once.. but i dont mind it too much as in a few weeks it will settle down

but if he is sweeping. and then moving those same funds again the same day, repeatedly.. then thats an assy move and true spam that is unneeded and unwanted by the community

You do have a point, but they could:
* do much fewer batches of consolidation if they want to // no need to do all in one day
* do partial consolidations together with the actual user withdrawals (that would be imho a smarter implementation).


This is a good question and I will come with two thoughts (although one of them may need its own different topic) :
* many traders (ie not actual newbies) could think "if the mempool is this congested, why would I withdraw? I will have to pay a lot to send back when I want to sell" // maybe this is one of CZ targets?
* what if, while we were cheering this year for how much bitcoin has left the exchanges in 2022, this was more due stealing/working on fractional reserve than user withdrawals? (I know, this may be a bit paranoid though).

Could this be related to this.
https://i.imgur.com/PfwVcif.jpg

I initiated a transaction on my electrum wallet (almost 24hour now) and that has been the error message saying that ''my transaction fee is too low to fit into its mempool, that there are many other transactions with higher paying fees, and I should increase my fee.'' 

Yes, you should increase your fee for your transaction to get into the mempool.

Or you can try using mempool feature under fee tab instead of static or other so you can choose how much fee required for the next block.

Also you can use https://mempool.space/ to know required fee for fast confirmation.

As I mentioned earlier in another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5420897.msg61294946#msg61294946), it is not impossible that there is a malicious reason behind Binance specifically choosing to this now, when they could instead of done it at 1 sat/vbyte at a steady stream any time over the last many months, saving themselves a huge amount in unnecessary fees in the process. Perhaps that is what they were planning to do in the future, but are now in the midst of their own liquidity issues and are scrambling to consolidate everything they can to keep processing withdrawals.

Meanwhile, they bump their withdrawal fee to absolutely ridiculous levels - 100,000 sats! - to encourage people either not to withdraw at all, or to "withdraw" on one of their centralized scam IOU chains which are not back by real bitcoin at all. I've spoken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5394871.msg59882884#msg59882884) many times in the past (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5363717.msg58087898#msg58087898) about how Binance's withdrawal fees are literal robbery, and now they've doubled them!

Honestly, if you still have coins on Binance thinking they are "too big to fail" or some other such nonsense, not only are you wrong and risking everything, but you are also being massively ripped off by these charlatans.

CZ at it again, if he isn't covering up something... maybe trying to raise funds to help other exchanges that reached out for some financial help without using his emergency fund and this is certainly one way to cash in easy through TX fees.

If not this could be a monopoly game that is aimed to cause panic that will hurt smaller exchanges and will all be at his doorstep for financial aid.

Playing devil's advocate (with a disclaimer that I know my client is worse than satan  :D)

- we don't know how many coins they have that they can't actually spend, and we don't know if they are not scraping every satoshi at this point
- maybe the wallets are under different supervision? Actually, this does make a lot of sense to me as I would want to limit the access of every single individual.
Yeah, it's a stretch but this is the best I can come up with.


Highly possible!
I've said like ten times this week, all these companies have costs to run, if there is no money flow they will need to either take loans or find "investors", when these options run out, you touch the honeypot and you promise yourself you will cover the losses tomorrow, then next month and so on.

To be honest, this is so messed up I don't know what will be good or bad for the ecosystem right now, I'm wondering if those morons have played with a fractional reserve, and they don't have our coins if a bulls run starts, we hit 100k and everyone rushes to sell and take the profit, will the inflow be able to cover the losses or they won't be able to buy back the coins and honor the deposit, triggering a drop worse than ever?

The other possibility, which I thought of while sitting in the bathroom, what if they are really so messed up on the back end they don't know how much money they can pull together.

They have a database that says we have X, they have wallet addresses that say they have Y, due to crap programming they really have Z. Because they have a bunch of addresses with dust that can't move and a bunch more with such small amounts that even at 1 sat / byte it just does not pay to move them.

They have done this before, the combining of a massive amounts of coins, and unless it is for security or audit reasons there is no point to do it except for manipulation or profit.
I will say that security and audit are both weak in my opinion. Security should be the same for 1 sat or 1000BTC
Audit should also not matter you either have the funds or you don't.

-Dave

This is possible, especially as in certain places they work with less digits after decimal point (was it 5?) instead the normal 8 (where I would use actually 9 to be on the safe side).
But:
* I don't think that those satoshi make much of a difference, even if it's for audit
* it's clearly not a good enough reason for such high fees for so many tx, they could have been doing it with minimal fee

It is true that they loose way to much money on this for it being just a normal process. If I would be a user of Binance I would not touch them again. Maybe it is their plan to scare people into withdrawing and accepting the very high fee for it. In the end there is not a problem at all, but they made a huge profit for doling exactly nothing of value. But since nobody knows I would still not leave any Bitcoin in their wallet.

I believe that the image is actually showing the Minimum Withdrawal amount, not the Withdrawal fee, which on the Bitcoin network is 0.0002 BTCs (3,39 $).

I’ve gone over some of the recent achieved pages on TheWayBackMachine, and at least since May 2022, BTC fees are the same on the Bitcoin Network (no so on other chains):

https://web.archive.org/web/20221113214837/https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006095230/https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee
https://web.archive.org/web/20220813163621/https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee
https://web.archive.org/web/20220512162950/https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee

Who remembers what the circumstances were the last time CZ did the same thing - it seems to me that he also chose a moment that was not exactly the best?

Regardless of the fact that it is the legitimate right of everyone to create as many transactions as they want, it could still be done in a less extreme way, and considering everything that has been happening in the last few days, what CZ is doing can certainly raise suspicions that it is not about ordinary consolidation, but trying to hide something or cause even greater panic.

I found a similar topic from 2019 -> ~80 MB transactions with 1 s/b fee were just injected into the mempool (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201697)

I've made the full/correct image with headers too, using data taken now from https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/14/blobffbc62efa2e151c0.png


The way those pages load up are kinda strange, I fear they may be accessing something from Binance actually, but I don't have the tools to check that.

I know why I make screenshots and save them, seems like also the archive.is sucks at loading pages.
No header but the columns are easy to guess, so at least in April, the fees were the same!


Seems that neither the fees nor the other thing in that post did change.

Binance doesn't want my KYC (as did the fallen FTX), so good riddance with them.

Time to reboot discussions for alternative layer 2 protocols, or even better, to work on advancements in technology speed and space capacity that would enable a frighteningly fast & decentralized L1 blockchain. (When ARM?)

Paranoid indeed even with those veteran or old timer here on crypto space cant really be able to ignore about being paranoid because we've seen already seen the worst thing that happened which it did really
result into crash. Its totally that the truth that funds is never been safe to be stored on exchanges and now that we've seen these exchange drama then it cant really be avoided not
for you to take action and i dont know about that spamming mempool which it cant really be that possible for a single entity would able to flood out the network
just to stop the massive withdrawal.It is really just too obvious that the community will really be having this impression.

It seems that Binance is trying to do some tricks now and they are trying to take everything in their hands. And since the bankruptcy of FTX they have got another big opportunity to do their job and they want to dominate the market alone. And they are trying to increase their reserve fund by taking huge profits from the current market using several other strategies including high Withdraw fees so that they never end up in the same situation as FTX.  CZ_Binance is a very smart guy

Yesterday, their withdrawal fees are much lower:

• 0.0005 BTC for Bitcoin Legacy
• 0.00025 BTC for Bitcoin Segwit

It means they increased withdrawal fees to two times (Legacy) and four times (Segwit) after spamming the mempool (assume it's actually Binance spam, not from others).

Wayback machine recorded it on 13th November as follows

• https://web.archive.org/web/20221113220344/https://www.binance.com/en/fee/cryptoFee

Oh ok, that's why I was surprised yesterday that when I try to withdraw using my Electrum, I'm getting errors message that I need to upgrade or increased my fees, which I haven't touch for a while, but yesterday it says the mempool is full and my fee is too low for miners to pick it up.

Not good Binance, not sure what's cooking behind, but they might give a wrong impression on their users for doing consolidation as the timing is bad.

If you use Electrum, you will never have to make any withdrawal which is more relevant to exchanges. On exchanges, you will have to submit your withdrawal request, wait for their approval before they proceed it for you.

With Electrum that is a SPV wallet but non custodial, you simply broadcast your transaction to Bitcoin network, with fee rate is chosen by yourself. You don't need approval from Electrum wallet but have to get confirmations from miners.

It's understandable that plebs like us would be more paranoid after the crash of FTX, the owners scamming their own users, but we shouldn't panic. It's just mere coincidence that Binance consolidated their wallets. Why would Binance want to cause another panic? They definitely DON'T want a bank run starting in their own service. It's what the government wants.


I know.

Some people on Twitter are implying that maybe Binance is leaving behind the legacy addresses and moves everything to pure SegWit.
If it's so, it may be great, although the timing was awfully chosen.

By my calculations the mempool may clear up before Monday. Let's see if other dramas will surface until then.

Just want to point out I'm not paranoid about anything, because I don't store a single satoshi of my money on a centralized exchange. Every exchange in the world can go bankrupt if they want - my bitcoin will be just fine. :)

I don't think it is. Binance started to publish their "proof of assets" bullshit last week. Then it all went silent. Perhaps they are scrambling to consolidate everything they can because right now they don't actually have proof of reserves. Or perhaps they are also having a liquidity crisis due to mass withdrawals, and are rushing to refill their withdrawal wallets. They could have done this gradually over the last several months and paid 1 sat/vbyte for it all, but instead they choose to do it all right now to do it and spend a huge amount on unnecessary fees to get it done? Not a coincidence.

If that is really the case it would just prove that there are idiots working there. For one the timing is bad and for two they are spamming the whole network instead of doing it over a longer period of time.

It could also be because as I said earlier their coding is so bad, they don't know what they have. Lots and lots of wallets all over the place, a database out of sync with them, knowing they have 'enough' in cold storage but now they are all in a panic because they have to be sure. I know it's an old saying but never attribute malice to something if incompetence is just a likely.

"Real" financial institutions have more security and programmers working for them then binance has staff.

They have been hacked several times, had the issue on the cross chain bridge last month. And so on.

They might have the funds, they might not, they might not even know....

-Dave
 

Of course, 0.0005 for a withdrawal to SegWit btc address seems very expensive for those who only have small amounts of bitcoin. The withdrawal fee is equivalent to $8.27 for the current bitcoin price, obviously it is very expensive and seems so discriminatory for SegWit.

The only thing that is going to be popular nowadays among small traders not to withdraw their bitcoin from binance is the expensive withdrawal fees. Really, I would think this is not the right time to withdraw $100 in bitcoin to my electrum wallet.

If that is the case then I do agree that it would be a great deal. I understand that there are still a few people who rather use the legacy ones, but they need their hands to be pushed in order to either move to segwit, or just not be involved with the mainstream crypto anymore.

There are still some people who like to use monero and such privacy coins as well and want to hide their wealth too but that doesn't mean that they would be good at it neither. Which is why I believe that we shouldn't be really focusing on those people and look at what the general public uses. Segwit is what almost everyone is using and Binance should promote that a lot more.

I rather think it is no coincidence when it comes to Binance.  They sure know what they are doing and it is not the first time they are doing something that logically triggers panic.

If the people wanted the change, Bitcoin would of had the change by now.  Is this not the reason Bitcoin split into Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash years ago?  Everything happens here with consensus of the community, and while I also wish Bitcoin had smaller fees and an increased capacity, the majority decided they want Bitcoin to stay Bitcoin.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

majority didnt.. mandatory code activation decided along with a coalition of economic nodes(exchanges and corporate sponsored devs). and it was that small(in numbers, but large in social popularity) that caused the split..
try to read bitcoin blockdata of july/august 2017
try to read bip and code.. then you will learn what actually happened

Good finding and previously I did not notice it too. Just thought the last information in the table is for Withdrawal fee for both horizontal and vertical views!

If you use mobile and see it horizontally or vertically, you will have different tables with different formats and details. I can confirm by making screenshots below.

Binance did not change their withdrawal fee for both Legacy and Segwit addresses but their spam on mempool in this period is suspicious.

They can go with a hack and an exit that can be a scam exit too. In the past, many exchanges were hacked and shut down a few months later. From Cryptopia (https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/02/20/cryptopia-exchange-currently-in-liquidation-gets-hacked-again-report/) to Livecoin (https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/01/18/livecoin-exchange-announces-closure-after-december-hack/) exchanges (more definitely).

More information about exchange hacks and exchange graveyard. I want to share a proactive warning  :)

• Exchange graveyard (https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchange-graveyard/). FTX is in the list already.
• Hacked Exchanges since 2011 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5090869.0)

If you would read around, you would have been seeing this explanation of mine:


Also, if you would have been looking on the actual topic, you would have seen that people are trying to see what are Binance's reasons for this move, not actually about the congestion of the mempool.
But instead you chose to be political. And lame.


Indeed, it would be great, although I still have a feeling that this move was meant to hide something under the carpet.

And I don't agree fully with your stance on legacy addresses. They are still good and should still be used by people. Many have old wallets they don't change for security reasons, many have collectible items funded on legacy addresses. Of course, many use legacy simply because they lack certain knowledge, but they will learn. So the individuals still using Legacy are okay imho.
On the other hand services like Binance, services that create a great number of transactions should have been migrated to SegWit long ago. They would have saved quite some money with that. Actually now they should already implement LN. So it's a good step, but already late.

A distinct possibility. As I mentioned, perhaps their attempted proof of reserves (which doesn't actually prove anything) has exposed a hole in their finances, and now they are scrambling to figure out if they are actually solvent or not.

Let's just point out again that such a ridiculous withdrawal fee is completely artificial; an arbitrary number picked by Binance which could be 99% lower and still cover the network fees.

Which is exactly the point of these fees. They don't want everyone withdrawing because they can make more money if you don't, and they might run in to a liquidity crisis if you do. So set astronomically high fees and know that the majority will just leave their coins on the platform.

segwit is not actually real harddrive/bandwidth byte data length much different to legacy.
the code manipulation of miscounting certain bytes is just a couple lines of code of /4
segwit is not cheaper due to actually being 4x less bytes per transaction (the lame 1990's hard drive/bandwidth bloat excuse of why bitcoin should not progress)

its just cludgy math to try to promote people to use segwit out of a faked discount devs decided on as their arbitrary numbers of their dev politics. rather than actual numbers of real decision basic on physics/reality of real world utility

if you read the code its not a discount. instead all that cludgy math is doing is making legacy a premium by doing the tx fee policy of *4 legacy costs
....

the 2 main demands/requests the wider bitcoin community (outside the exchange economical node and sponsored dev mini "community") was:
a. fee's not increase to amounts the unbanked(3rd world) see as daily wage
b. more transactions per block to allow more users to use bitcoin without congestion

checking the fee's chart of the last 6 years(2016+) and the transaction count of same period
transaction counts have not grown. but fee's have

thus segwit did not solve either
segwits real purpose and need for activation was not more onchain tx and less fee request solution.

instead it was to have a tx format that allows gateways to alternate networks. to push people away from using the bitcoin blockchain for utility. meaning they have no real need to be full nodes due to lack of daily use of the bitcoin blockchain. thus also causing less full nodes to be used. and yep that includes pruning nodes so that there is less of a pool of full nodes able to offer blockchain data to other nodes that are initial block downloading
the ratio of USERS:businesses of full nodes has filled more to the business side due to segwit than any data scare store has

..
as for binance charging fee's for withdrawals. (0.0002)
if they were doing solo tx of 1in 2out to pay out to a user, then they could charge 0.00000226+(~1sat/byte+) 1000x less
of what their fee is (or 1ksat to cover their internal deposit sweeping to cold and then cold to hot for withdrawal movements)

because they 'batch' withdrawals where the outputs only account for ~33bytes(+ a % share of the input data) they could be charging as low as say 0.00000040 per withdrawal as a representation of 1sat/byte
when doing a 2in 100 out tx(3700bytes / 100=37)

but if looking rationally
they would want to re-coup the costs of sweeping deposits from hot to cold and then cold to hot prior to the withdrawal. which would just be a 2-4x of the amount.
so lets call it a 160sat per withdrawal at a rate of 1sat/byte to also give them a lil small profit margin(the round up) on fees
which if looking at the congested rate of network fee of 100sat/byte
is 0.00016000, which is not much different to the
    0.0002 (disclaimer.. they are the cause of the congested 100sat/byte. thus this 0.0002 should be the exception.. not the rule (max not min))


..
as for those saying exchanges should implement LN to the off ramp people out of an exchange and into LN as oppose to a self custdy bitcoin utxo.. are you friggen kidding me

having value locked in exchange "hubs" is like saying you want to givve people WBTC (sidechain) value.

the purpose of actually withdrawing is for true self custody. not some new altnet co-custody arrangement system that requires middlemen to be only to process payments

seriously. it seems people dont understand what real bitcoin network features are, and trying to find convoluted ways to push people away from using the actual bitcoin network features and also trying to prevent the bitcoin network from expanding to allow more utility with silly 1990's excuses, pretending that hardware bandwidth is 20 years ago. and smart contracts of 210 years ago are the solution to bitcoin..

Withdrawal fees increases, or decreases in Binance depending on network congestion, and because it is said that Binance is spamming the mempool, causing congestion, I change me opinion. It wouldn't be truly paranoid to say that they're doing it on purpose to stop a bank run. But we don't want another bank run. It's probably good to slow everything down for a few days and stop make everyone calm.

Whatever you think why binance is doing this, i would call this a shady move. We know they have a lot of bitcoins and they can do anything from hunting stop losses to now spamming mempool. Some people might get confidence that since funds are moving in binance, means this exchange can be trusted to keep your funds in this exchange.

Do you think is this a good move by binance  ??? Faking volume and faking funds in exchange cannot be good for long term and will not be a sustainable move.

I should have brought up this topic before now but I choose to keep quiet because I believe everyone is already aware of the shady approach used by Binance to take the advantage of the situation just to increase their own benefit and I have a reason to believe CZ is the one behind it all after I read some of his promotion tweet about Binance and Trust wallet ever since the FTX issue happened.
I believe this is the CZ approach to misappropriate and also gain people's trust.

if binance(CZ) was spammng the network by respending the same coin alotment every block. then yes baaaaaadd

if he is just sweeping lots of different coin allotments and its a case of there just being say 25m users deposits to move.. then thats just bad management of not doing it progressively over time instead of rushing it all in one go

as for the FTX stuff
FTX dun goofed and defrauded people. binance just whistleblew it

yes as a business i see him taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves. but wht business doesnt

FTX caused the problem because FTX was running a broken fractional reserved business that leeched/syphoned its customers funds away

yes other businesses should sweep deposits regularly into cold wallets instead of periodically
yes they should also show reserves (bitcoin addresses) clearly at all times of said cold wallets
and ultimately yes users should withdraw coins after they have done their in-exchange activities

but here is the thing. if binance was to release its customer coins as withdrawals to all users of 25m customers just once a month..
the congestion would be 3x the usual tx count for that entire month

meaining it would take 3 months for the congestion to settle

bitcoin network tx count cant cope with an exchange sweeping daily
this ends up that exchanges can only sweep once every 3 months to reduce/prevent congestion

bitcoin needs to scale to allow 100m people to even just p2p daily or just weekly without congestion
yep if you add coinbase 60m customer and binance 25m plus other popular exchanges. and one day say lets all just get coins off an exchange and just p2p it from now on.. thats 100m+ people that need to use bitcoin network regularly

As of now 3:45 PM EST on 19-Nov-2022 1 and 2 sat TXs are confirming and there are about 30 blocks till the mempool is empty.


No they ran a 0 reserve. Fractional implies there was SOME money there :-)

As for the Binance TXs. I am starting to really think their coding is just really broken. I just did a withdraw from another exchange and it came from what was a deposit from someone else. Only had 2 confirms before it was sent to me. How much back end coding does that really take.

User 1 sends 0.1 to exchnage

User 2 does a withdraw for 0.025
User 3 does a withdraw for 0.025
User 4 does a withdraw for 0.010

Send users 2 3 and 4 coins out from the 1st users deposit. Send the rest (minus fees) to the storage wallet.
Coin control it's a thing. Accurate accounting so you know what addresses you control have how much BTC in them with a quick database is also a thing.

-Dave

This has been evident for quite some time. They regularly broadcast both withdrawal transactions and internal consolidation transaction which pay fees up to 100x higher than necessary. It's taken them 5 years to finally start to update to segwit and save themselves a third on all their fees (although I'm certain they won't pass any of that on to their users). It's easy to run a horrendously inefficient system when you are ripping your customers off to the tune of 50,000 sats per withdrawal, when 500 sats would more than cover it though. They can continue to pay their ridiculous fees and still simply pocket 95% of every withdrawal fee as pure profit.

Never ceases to amaze me that Binance users put up with this. It is theft.

People have been putting up with crap exchanges since exchanges existed. But, so long as people use them they will keep doing what they do.
Really starting to wonder how much of why people think BTC is a scam / ponzi / whatever is because people like us give them a decent understanding of it, how it works and so on. And then they see something like Binance and wonder what the f--k is really going on.

Pick your saying, "there is a sucker born every minute", "there is an ass for every seat" whatever.

Either way, the mempool is empty now so outside of a few days where it cost a few cents more to move money it's all over, for now, until they again do something stupid.

-Dave

Had no idea Binance was responsible for fee spike the last couple of days (though I've been getting by still with very low fees and waiting and it is a far cry from 100 sat estimates of years past).

Not sure I understand why that causes panic and fear? Won't people be happier if Binance does batch txs for withdrawals from larger inputs? More txs in a batch, less space taken up when the Binance bank run happens if it does?

Don't know enough or can look at data far back enough to say this is deliberate or just periodic or intermittent. Still feel like it's posts like that that do more to spread FUD (since people wouldn't otherwise be aware anyway), which is a shame as they're really quite informative.

As pointed out above, exchanges don't really care about fee overestimation either since the cost is passed on to the consumer (not to mention majority of fees for the past 3 years at least are pure profit).

Popcorn on standby. ;) Let's just ignore the fact that they are desperately consolidating everything because they aren't sure if they actually have "proof of reserves", or the $2.7 billion in Tether they moved out of their "proof of reserves" wallet less than 24 hours after they published their "proof of reserves". ::)

Of course it is better for them to batch their transactions, but they way they do it is moronic. There is no need for them to consolidate everything at the same time while paying a fee far higher than needed. They could very easily have a system which broadcasts a large consolidation transaction every 10 minutes paying 1 sat/vbyte, instead of dumping 200 vMB of transactions paying 14 sats/vbyte all at once. But as I said above, they don't care because it is the users who are getting fleeced here, not Binance. There is also nothing stopping them from creating a batch transaction which consolidates deposits and pays out withdrawals at the same time, rather than create twice as many transactions as needed to consolidate first and then pay out later.

They have done this kind of thing before, but I think this the largest they have ever done and the timing is obviously not a coincidence. There is stuff happening behind the scenes we are unaware of. As always, get your coins off exchanges and in to your own wallets.