SegWit transaction: first confirmation within MINUTES with fee of 64sat/byte!

[BTCforJoe]

Call me a shiller, but THIS is what SegWit-enabled transactions are all about.


Received Time: 2018-01-21 05:19:55
Included In Blocks: 505296 (2018-01-21 05:23:32 + 4 minutes)

Transaction ID: https://blockchain.info/tx/e00079e38f8b038ac7d4a8afc4c2d01a7e440f332f1a529f001ba8ffd3bcd485


I decided to see how functional a SegWit enabled transaction was in a practical sense. I've made several transactions in the past at 125-150sat/bytes, which was always well under the recommended fees via https://bitcoinfees.earn.com, which provides an average fee based on the last 3 hours of transactional data, which cross-referenced to transactions that are currently in the mempool. Those previous transactions usually had it's first confirmation within the next block.

This time, I really wanted to try something new, so I decided to send myself a couple hundred bucks worth of Bitcoin with a super low fee of 64sat/byte. Unheard of, and risky, right? I expected that I would have to pay to accelerate my transaction in a couple days. I copied the transaction ID, closed my wallet, and pinned the tab of my transaction to my browser window so I could check on it periodically.

In no way, shape or form did I expect what happened next. My transaction was included in the next block. My low-fee transaction received its first confirmation within minutes.  

So with that, I encourage you to start adopting SegWit-enabled wallets. Start SegWit transactions. Your transaction does not have to be from a SegWit-enabled address to another one to be a SegWit transaction. As long as the sender has a SegWit-enabled address, the transaction is valid as a SW one. But please note that a legacy address sending to a SW-enabled one does not qualify the transaction as a SW one.

So please, start using a SegWit enabled wallet so you can help contribute to providing a solution to the current scaling issues. I'm not recommending that you use fees as low as I did, but I will confirm that EVERY single one of my transactions that I've used using my SW wallet has been less than half of the recommended fees, and every single one of those transactions have confirmed within the first couple of blocks.

I use GreenAddress as my SegWit-enabled wallet, so start there if you're new to SW: https://greenaddress.it/en/

I encourage you to share your experiences and technical knowledge (in layman's terms, please) in this thread if you truly want to take part in increasing user adoption of SegWit. Let's at least try to get members of this forum to make the switch!

Note: You can call it censorship, but I'll call it "pruning". This topic is self-moderated, as I am trying to do my part in providing a clutter, spam, and shitpost-free discussion regarding SegWit.
Sig spammers and shitposters, don't waste your time posting here. Your post will be deleted and you won't receive "credit" for it. GO AWAY.

[pooya87]

i also encourage you to start using SegWit and i am starting to use it myself and all that....

but you are being misleading here. the fact that you sent a transaction with low fee and it was confirmed fast has nothing to do with the fact that you used SegWit.
here is an example of legacy transaction with same fee and fast confirmation:
https://blockchain.info/tx/cbe94c54a14ebcf93947d5c230426c13001b3c5e125b268ccdfa42d4d4229cb7

check other blocks yourself. do it like this with a ?show_adv=true tag at the end, then go to the bottom of the page and start scrolling up to see the low fee transactions at the bottom.
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000000a150ab009ec10d90a31ad1eed18a93516ca72c076a47a?show_adv=true

mempool is clearing up, high fee transactions are no longer being made so it is lower fee transactions turn to be mined faster.

[BTCforJoe]

i also encourage you to start using SegWit and i am starting to use it myself and all that....

but you are being misleading here. the fact that you sent a transaction with low fee and it was confirmed fast has nothing to do with the fact that you used SegWit.
here is an example of legacy transaction with same fee and fast confirmation:
https://blockchain.info/tx/cbe94c54a14ebcf93947d5c230426c13001b3c5e125b268ccdfa42d4d4229cb7

check other blocks yourself. do it like this with a ?show_adv=true tag at the end, then go to the bottom of the page and start scrolling up to see the low fee transactions at the bottom.
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000000a150ab009ec10d90a31ad1eed18a93516ca72c076a47a?show_adv=true

mempool is clearing up, high fee transactions are no longer being made so it is lower fee transactions turn to be mined faster.

Well, rain on my parade why don't you?! 100K+ transactions in the mempool is still pretty high, if you ask me. What about some other transactions using a much-lower fee than what was recommended when the mempool was much more congested? Like https://blockchain.info/tx/2319238e88e2ccf005b4fc5eb92413e63ef99e7a4ccd2b8968066776526e8460

And here I was thinking that SegWit was the reason why this was happening. I'm wondering if I could achieve the same using a legacy transaction with the same fee at this moment... Either way, it could mean that Bitcoin is finally losing popularity again with the new influx during the last pump? I'm okay with that, as well. Whatever helps to decrease fees, I'm okay with.

[pooya87]

Well, rain on my parade why don't you?!

sorry about that but imagine a newbie read this and started using SegWit, then imagine fees went back up again to 400+. when he is forced to pay 400+ s/b for his SegWit tx he is going to be wondering what was BTCforJoe talking about then!

100K+ transactions in the mempool is still pretty high, if you ask me.

it is the amount of fee they are paying not the number nor the size. fee is a competition when blocks are full. and right now majority of the transactions in mempool are paying lower fees.

90% is lower than 30 s/b https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#24h

What about some other transactions using a much-lower fee than what was recommended when the mempool was much more congested? Like https://blockchain.info/tx/2319238e88e2ccf005b4fc5eb92413e63ef99e7a4ccd2b8968066776526e8460

https://blockchain.info/tx/92fe7f33eca8c3697c4a17825f9ced851e2497fec7afd28f87ef57c039377212

And here I was thinking that SegWit was the reason why this was happening.

it is and it isn't.
with SegWit there will be more room for more transactions => less unconfirmed transaction => less competition => less fees
but not when the adoption of it is still low and there is a spam attack going on.

I'm wondering if I could achieve the same using a legacy transaction with the same fee at this moment...

you can, but your transaction size will be a little bigger so your total fee will be a little bigger also.

Either way, it could mean that Bitcoin is finally losing popularity again with the new influx during the last pump? I'm okay with that, as well. Whatever helps to decrease fees, I'm okay with.

not necessarily.
i keep saying it is a spam attack but the fact is there is no way of proving it. here is the thing, to me the constant injection of transctions with higher fees to a limit (usually 400-500 s/b and stops when it goes beyond that) does not scream legit increase in "usage".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.40
https://melaurent.github.io/spamattack/

[romani245]

Good stuff. I've been consolidating outputs into my new Segwit wallet and actually just had a standard transaction confirm with < 40 satoshi/byte in fees. Fees are dropping a lot right now.

[stompix]

Well, rain on my parade why don't you?! 100K+ transactions in the mempool is still pretty high, if you ask me. What about some other transactions using a much-lower fee than what was recommended when the mempool was much more congested? Like https://blockchain.info/tx/2319238e88e2ccf005b4fc5eb92413e63ef99e7a4ccd2b8968066776526e8460

And here I was thinking that SegWit was the reason why this was happening. I'm wondering if I could achieve the same using a legacy transaction with the same fee at this moment... Either way, it could mean that Bitcoin is finally losing popularity again with the new influx during the last pump? I'm okay with that, as well. Whatever helps to decrease fees, I'm okay with.

self-moderated topic.... so comfy and fuzzy  

Now, I really don't want to ruin your parade but allow me to add some cats and dogs to this rain

I wanted to reply to you yesterday but I lost the tx and the block I was looking and just now I've managed grab the info:

So, as you were celebrating a fast transaction, this pachyderm of a tx got through also:
https://blockchain.info/tx/156b048dfa9f535009af9bf0ba08252def16c9bf270257bfa0d832d2f2083e53
A huge 75591 (bytes) with 34.37 sat/B

Of course it took it about 15 days to get confirmed but it is proof that ridiculous huge tx in terms of outputs and inputs with a similar ridiculous low fee are getting confirmed and the mempool is getting drained.
That block for example contained only 123 tx, that's about 15-20 the average, all huge tx with low fees.

And as the fees are going down and I start thinking, cause if this was only the effect of a spam attack...it leads to something I don't like, the part I underlined from your post.. That we have less than 200k /day real transactions.

[KobeBriant 24]

Good stuff. I've been consolidating outputs into my new Segwit wallet and actually just had a standard transaction confirm with < 40 satoshi/byte in fees. Fees are dropping a lot right now.

I am using my Ledger nano and it is working with Segwit right now.

I am usually using a fee of aproximate 100 satoshis per byte, and it is getting confirmed in 7 to 22 minutes after i send it.

It is not VERY fast, but anyway, it is cheap + faster than what it was a few weeks ago.

[Xavofat]

And here I was thinking that SegWit was the reason why this was happening.

It may be a contributing factor to transactions in general becoming cheaper - after all, more people using SegWit would result in the network having a higher transaction capacity, which would help to push down the fee market.

That said, the percentage of SegWit transactions seems to have plateaued since activation and adoption has been very slow.  It's agonising how slowly significant services are implementing SegWit support.

I'm wondering if I could achieve the same using a legacy transaction with the same fee at this moment

Maybe you could, but there's no point basing everything from anecdotal evidence.  IIRC, if you send a SegWit transaction the witness data is not visible to legacy nodes, which would make your transaction appear smaller, thus making it at least somewhat cheaper for you.  It's not exactly going to be cheap, but it's somewhat better.

[BTCforJoe]

I guess what has thrown me off has been the recommended fee on earn.com. One would think that they would reflect more accurate fee recommendations based on the data from the previous 3 blocks, but now I’m beginning to wonder if their data is actually accurate.

Either way, I’m fairly new to segwit, so I’m grateful for all of you who have responded here. I’m learning more and more about it, and the knowledge shared here has been phenomenal.  Keep it coming. Maybe someone can post about the common misconceptions about segwit?

[bitart]

I guess what has thrown me off has been the recommended fee on earn.com. One would think that they would reflect more accurate fee recommendations based on the data from the previous 3 blocks, but now I’m beginning to wonder if their data is actually accurate.

Either way, I’m fairly new to segwit, so I’m grateful for all of you who have responded here. I’m learning more and more about it, and the knowledge shared here has been phenomenal.  Keep it coming. Maybe someone can post about the common misconceptions about segwit?

I usually check fees here on blockchain.info:
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-state-by-fee-level
and on fork.lol:
https://fork.lol/tx/fee
There's a difference between the two kind of fee calculation, I know, but using the two kind of information, you can make a better guess about the fees you have to use to get the tx into the next block (if you need that speed).
I also think that there are less transactions these days, there are less and less posts with "help me my tx is stuck" and there are also less and less threads opening in the Bitcoin discussion board. In december, there were new threads in nearly every minute, now it takes hours (or a bit less) so it seems that bitcoin became less interesting since the price drop, but who knows...

[digaran]

Can I post here? I might be a part of your family if I beg don DarkStar_leone. I have the same story to tell, so far I have paid less than $6 for a 255 bytes transaction sending from a segwit address to a legacy address. sending from a segwit to a segwit address should be cheaper. 2 or 3 transactions I've made, were confirmed in 10 minutes, with the fee slider on 10 blocks.
I'm happy with $6 if I can continue support my country to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Lol before rofling.

(don't delete my post, I have an excuse, a man has got to eat right?).

[Jating]

Let me chime in my experienced using Segwit transaction. A created a GreenAddress wallet (Yes they are Segwit enabled wallet) and try a few experiments and I was quite happy with the results. Wasn't able to recall how much I paid, but I think its around $1.50 and my transaction went very fast to my surprise.

So I really don't understand why people are still not getting the hype around Segwit. You will hear alot of people bitching around the high cost of bitcoin transaction and slow confirmation. I must say that you need to try and get a Segwit enabled wallet (https://greenaddress.it/en/) or Electrum 3.0.5 to understand what I'm saying here.

[BTCforJoe]

Can I post here? I might be a part of your family if I beg don DarkStar_leone. I have the same story to tell, so far I have paid less than $6 for a 255 bytes transaction sending from a segwit address to a legacy address. sending from a segwit to a segwit address should be cheaper. 2 or 3 transactions I've made, were confirmed in 10 minutes, with the fee slider on 10 blocks.
I'm happy with $6 if I can continue support my country to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Lol before rofling.

(don't delete my post, I have an excuse, a man has got to eat right?).

From my understanding, a transaction counts as a segwit transaction as long as it is sent by a segwit-enabled address. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I am under the impression that a segwit-to-legacy address and a segwit-to-segwit address costs the same. Receiving address shouldn’t matter, as I thought it was only the minimization or inputs that was responsible for reducing the transaction size. Doesn’t this mean that it doesn’t matter whether sending to segwit or legacy address?

[pooya87]

but now I’m beginning to wonder if their data is actually accurate.

their fee suggestion is accurate like in most of the times NOT always. this site is known to give high fee recommendation when the fee comes down.

Maybe someone can post about the common misconceptions about segwit?

the damn thing is too complicated
i am currently trying to import Bech32 to c# and play around trying to understand how that works. suffice it to say that i am stuck midway through the BIP...

anyways there was this https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup but it seems it is down now.

Can I post here? I might be a part of your family if I beg don DarkStar_leone. I have the same story to tell, so far I have paid less than $6 for a 255 bytes transaction sending from a segwit address to a legacy address. sending from a segwit to a segwit address should be cheaper. 2 or 3 transactions I've made, were confirmed in 10 minutes, with the fee slider on 10 blocks.
I'm happy with $6 if I can continue support my country to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Lol before rofling.

(don't delete my post, I have an excuse, a man has got to eat right?).

From my understanding, a transaction counts as a segwit transaction as long as it is sent by a segwit-enabled address. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I am under the impression that a segwit-to-legacy address and a segwit-to-segwit address costs the same. Receiving address shouldn’t matter, as I thought it was only the minimization or inputs that was responsible for reducing the transaction size. Doesn’t this mean that it doesn’t matter whether sending to segwit or legacy address?

i may be wrong since as i said i am still trying to figure it out myself but when you pay to a Bech32 SegWit address your pubkey script is 22(?) bytes but when you are paying to a P2PKH (regular/legacy address starting with 1) your pubkey script is 25 bytes and P2SH is 23(?) bytes