Bitcoin Transfer Fees Will Go Up With Time - How Can This Affect BTC Market

[HeroCat]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up. How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

[1715568361]

1715568361

[Pursuer]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up.

and fees were once 0.01BTC for a normal size transaction so this means fee is going down
https://blockchain.info/tx/ec0efa594f5d71ca0863d43643f0820e51b2159548b59310ab97fa6ac0c11e33

How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

WHAT

amount that is paid for fee is determined based on the price of bitcoin and the cost of mining. it is paid for the job miners are doing so in the future it will be adjusted to be compatible with the price and the block reward miners are getting.

so if price goes down to $1 fees should rise
and if price goes to 1,000,000,000 price should go down.

[franky1]

0.0002 is $0.12 at this moment
which is the equivalent to over 1hour minimum wage for atleast half a dozen countries.

knowing people complain about visa/mastercards 2% fee, means that people are kind of happy with 1% fee(preferably less). thus spending anything below $12 is treated as having more than a 1% fee, which makes bitcoin not a good/useful tool for transmitting value, where people actually wants to buy things for less than $12

in short trying to buy things up to a value of 100 hours minimum wage in a number of countries can be seen as expensive to use bitcoin in developing countries

but developed countries treat this with ignorance by saying they dont want people making small payments, thus making things that may be 1-100 hours of minimum wage in developing countries, be treated as annoying spam by developed countries.

its the same mindset of a richguy in a suit thinking he has divine right to not wait in a shopping queue, purely because his $200 bottle of champagne means more to him then a poor mother counting out a handful of change to buy food for her starving child, and has the mindset to argue with the the shop to enforce a $100 minimum spend to sort out the riffraff/underclass so he can buy champagne without waiting. rather than suggest the shop opens up another cashiers aisle

one solution is supposed to be, when bitcoin fiat value goes up, the fee goes down (fee used to cost a tenth of an american cent, now 12cent) so that solution has gone..
another solution is supposed to be, to increase capacity over many years (20-30+) where instead of having a block with 2500 tx's for 0.0002individual fee, capacity grows so that 5000 tx blocks have a 0.0001 individual tx fee (which totals the same 'income bonus' for pools so no loss)

after all pools main income is from rewards, not fee's and the flip where fee's become more important and rewards become less important wont occur for atleast a predicted 20-30 years, and fee's dont become the sole income stream for well over 120 years, so forcing fee wars right now is not 'needed' by pools

in short, delaying capacity growth, forcing a fee war are not good for bitcoin. it does not help users and does not help bitcoin as a whole
slowly bitcoin has/is reduced in its utility and many bitcoiners are stupidly happy for this to continue while they twist bitcoin out of the open currency for the world to use without borders and restrictions, and into a more centralized reserve currency for altcoiners to hop in and out of.

[Senor.Bla]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up.

and fees were once 0.01BTC for a normal size transaction so this means fee is going down
https://blockchain.info/tx/ec0efa594f5d71ca0863d43643f0820e51b2159548b59310ab97fa6ac0c11e33

How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

WHAT

amount that is paid for fee is determined based on the price of bitcoin and the cost of mining. it is paid for the job miners are doing so in the future it will be adjusted to be compatible with the price and the block reward miners are getting.

so if price goes down to $1 fees should rise
and if price goes to 1,000,000,000 price should go down.

0.01 BTC was what in $ at the time? 0.01 cents? anyway, just yesterday i was cleaning up some smaller wallets and the fees are to high to make small (not micro) transactions. if i buy a coffee and have to pay 5-10% fees, then bitcoin is doomed. and do not tell me those are peanuts still. in some countries this is worth a whole days work.
so my hope is that the fee will go down. my best guess is that we need to crank up the volume of transactions per second. 

[philiveyjr]

Why do you think it would affect the Bitcoin Market in the future ? Bitcoin fees is anyways too low compared to any other payment means. I don't see in the next 10-20 years it would be at a level we would be affected by it.

[talkbitcoin]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up.

and fees were once 0.01BTC for a normal size transaction so this means fee is going down
https://blockchain.info/tx/ec0efa594f5d71ca0863d43643f0820e51b2159548b59310ab97fa6ac0c11e33

How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

WHAT

amount that is paid for fee is determined based on the price of bitcoin and the cost of mining. it is paid for the job miners are doing so in the future it will be adjusted to be compatible with the price and the block reward miners are getting.

so if price goes down to $1 fees should rise
and if price goes to 1,000,000,000 price should go down.

0.01 BTC was what in $ at the time? 0.01 cents? anyway, just yesterday i was cleaning up some smaller wallets and the fees are to high to make small (not micro) transactions. if i buy a coffee and have to pay 5-10% fees, then bitcoin is doomed. and do not tell me those are peanuts still. in some countries this is worth a whole days work.
so my hope is that the fee will go down. my best guess is that we need to crank up the volume of transactions per second. 

you can find the price of that time (2011) at any bitcoin price chart.

and also i have to say, whether you are paying for a cup of coffee or buying a house you will have to pay the same amount of 0.00013000BTC fee which is nearly 8 cents so if you think that is for a whole day's work payment then you may want to think about changing your job !

[btccashacc]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up.

I dont think it will affect bitcoin market at all if the fee will go up since it's very cheap if we compare to other payment, in case sending milion dollars, but i don't think will go up however there's so many way to send bitcoin without a fee like using xapo or coinbase, or convert to the altcoin with the lowest fee.

How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ?  

i'm sure the blockcahin you meant is blockchain info a wallet service, fyi blockchain is the technology behind bitcoin, where every transaction are shown out there

[Senor.Bla]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up.

and fees were once 0.01BTC for a normal size transaction so this means fee is going down
https://blockchain.info/tx/ec0efa594f5d71ca0863d43643f0820e51b2159548b59310ab97fa6ac0c11e33

How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

WHAT

amount that is paid for fee is determined based on the price of bitcoin and the cost of mining. it is paid for the job miners are doing so in the future it will be adjusted to be compatible with the price and the block reward miners are getting.

so if price goes down to $1 fees should rise
and if price goes to 1,000,000,000 price should go down.

0.01 BTC was what in $ at the time? 0.01 cents? anyway, just yesterday i was cleaning up some smaller wallets and the fees are to high to make small (not micro) transactions. if i buy a coffee and have to pay 5-10% fees, then bitcoin is doomed. and do not tell me those are peanuts still. in some countries this is worth a whole days work.
so my hope is that the fee will go down. my best guess is that we need to crank up the volume of transactions per second. 

you can find the price of that time (2011) at any bitcoin price chart.

and also i have to say, whether you are paying for a cup of coffee or buying a house you will have to pay the same amount of 0.00013000BTC fee which is nearly 8 cents so if you think that is for a whole day's work payment then you may want to think about changing your job !

so i checked the price at the time was in the $10-$20 range which meant the fee was 10-20 cents. higher then i have expected, but you could still pay way less and get confirmations quickly. so i at least heard.
anyway my point was that i paid for a transaction of 8 dollars over 50 cents and had to wait 3 hours for the first confirmation. blockchain.info listed the change of 600 sat as the reason for this. well this is a problem in my eyes.
bitcoin is the same all over the world and so are the fees. so your get another job shows very little respect to poorer people or a very bad understanding of how much people earn in some places. bitcoin s not only for the rich to use.   

[~Bitcoin~]

I don't think fee have direct relationship like you have shown with confirmation time. However it is true that including high fee increase priority of your transaction getting confirmed within next block that will be mined, and also fee depend much upon transaction size in bytes. So actually fee is directly proportional to size and also have some relation with confirmation time depends upon total number of transaction between two consecutive blocks.

I have done several transaction recently also with same 0.0001BTC fee which also get confirmed within 10 minute or first block mined.

[FruitBucket]

Fees go up because block are full. So fees tie neatly to the block size debate. BTC developers already work on implementing various solutions such as segwit or groundwork for enabling lightning network to address the problem.

As a result, it is only a matter of time until fees will go down somewhat. Market are expecting this already which is why the BTC price will not be affected much at all.

[shinratensei_]

Currently, Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up. How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ?

It's not a problem and will not affecting the market because a bitcoins is realized about the increasing fee and that is just a little fee if you wanna for sending more than $50. and will not giving any effect for he bitcoin market.

[illyiller]

bitcoin s not only for the rich to use.   

There are different opinions on what this means, but I believe all Bitcoin users generally agree with you. But there are some things to consider. Increasing throughput increases bandwidth usage for nodes. If we force increased throughput on all nodes, some will drop off the network. At high enough levels, you start pricing out entire regions of people, because they don't have access to enough bandwidth, let alone affording it. One of the biggest reasons we seek scaling mechanisms that are backward compatible is to retain nodes on the network as we allow for more capacity. It's to avoid pricing out groups of users -- and regions -- from running nodes.

Personally, I've changed my spending habits a lot over the last year or so....batching payments, considering the urgency of payments in regards to fees, etc. At the end of the day, we're paying 5 cents, 17 cents....that's a pittance compared to the actual cost of a confirmed transactions, once we consider mining costs.

Capacity increases are coming via Segwit (and further optimizations that it enables) but the real solution is payment channels. The fact is that the base protocol is a broadcast network. It doesn't scale. You can only optimize it so much before letting throughput run unmitigated---pricing people (and regions) out of running nodes, and centralizing hash power due to latencies. We need non-bandwidth scaling. Haters gonna hate, but if you want Visa-scale payments, it's never going to happen on-chain.

[Ai7xpressTV]

I think the fee is good 0.0002 BTC

[Carlton Banks]

but the real solution is payment channels.

yep.

The fact is that the base protocol is a broadcast network. It doesn't scale.

yep.

We need non-bandwidth scaling. Haters gonna hate, but if you want Visa-scale payments, it's never going to happen on-chain.

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

"Off-chain" implies the blockchain is never involved, which in the case of centralised wallet providers like Coinbase and Xapo is true, those kind of wallets don't give users direct access, and so Coinbase can just adjust their own internal ledger to represent a transaction (verified by humans, not the blockchain...). Payment channels are more like a stratification of how and when transactions are committed to the blockchain.

[Winner]

With transaction fee's being high I think that it will lead to big players creating more online wallet websites that will pay the transaction fee's for the regular people.

[franky1]

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

wrong on so many levels

payment channels (lightening network) are multisigs.

say you want to spend funds regularly with a merchant.
you set up a multisig with the merchant, by both sides giving a public key to create a multisig address. they doublecheck the multisig is correct and matches to the same 3Bl4ahBlahBlahBlahBlah address before funding it.

both sides put funds in and lock them for X blocks (onchain)
onchain shows 2 deposits
eg person 1btc, merchant 1btc making so both sides have collateral and incentive to not mess around, because they both have something to lose

now without broadcasting to the network(offchain) person and merchant agree on who owes what amount of the funds in the multisig to each other and both sign the transaction (but dont transmit it onchain). it just sits in each others individual mempool, not random nodes.
making it a private transaction at this point
day 0 both parties agree merchant gets 0.1btc person gets 0.1btc, both sign
EG

the first day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys a coffee merchant gets 0.11 person gets 0.09, both sign
the next day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys another coffee merchant 0.12 person gets 0.08, both sign
the next day (offchain) both parties agree that when person buys another coffee merchant 0.13 person gets 0.07, both sign
and so on and so on.. untill the locktime has expired and both sides decide its time to settle the transaction by closing the channel and broadcast the most upto date transaction ONCHAIN.

carlton. please research harder

payment channels can be useful. but we should not rely on them for every transaction. just the ones where you would regularly spend and happy to and X funds over upfront so you dont have 10mins+ at the cashiers aisle.
signing the transaction of who owes what is a split second activity. thus allowing fast "spending"
the reasons we should not rely on merchants holding all the coin is that places like walmart and starbucks could become the new banks, by being the middleman required to authorise payments with people begging those middle men permission(to close channel) to pull out money to spend elsewhere..

we still need onchain scaling too, otherwise bitcoin becomes middlemen controlled by hub hoarding all the coins and we needing their signature to move our money

[bryant.coleman]

The advantage with Blockchain.info is that you can set the transaction fee as per your wish. A few days back, I had to transfer BTC0.07 to one of my wallets. There was a lot of dust, and the default tx fee was showing as BTC0.01, which was around 15% of the total value of that transaction. I went to "custom" tab, and changed the tx fee to BTC0.0002. It took some time for the transaction to get confirmed, but eventually it went through.

[davis196]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up. How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ?  

The transaction fee is still small but it will increase for sure.

If btc fees become higher than paypal fees a lot of people might be dissapointed by bitcoin and

sell their btc.This might affect the bitcoin price.

[Carlton Banks]

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

wrong on so many levels

But none of what you are saying refutes my description. All you did was explain different aspects of a specific system. Remember when Matt Corallo implemented the first payment channels in BitcoinJ? Those were not Lightning style channels.

Lightning payments literally will be getting validated pre-chain, just like standard transactions, just as I said. And you can't deny it, it's a fact.

[franky1]

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

wrong on so many levels

But none of what you are saying refutes my description. All you did was explain different aspects of a specific system. Remember when Matt Corallo implemented the first payment channels in BitcoinJ? Those were not Lightning style channels.

Lightning payments literally will be getting validated pre-chain, just like standard transactions, just as I said. And you can't deny it, it's a fact.

validated by only customer and the merchant while offchain ...not the immutable network of thousands of users.
thus makes payment channels no different than a bank.
yes when it settles its then onchain. but thats supposedly weeks/months later that the transaction is truly immutable by being on the blockchain, allowing the funds to be spend (onchain) without middle men permission

now think about why bitcoin is so beautiful compared to banks. and why we should not think of payment channels as the only way to spend bitcoin(require middlemen signatures) and why we should not think of payment channels as the only way to store our hoards(middlemen multisig).

i already said payment channels have a niche market use for regular spenders (faucets, gamblers, day traders) but should not be considered the only way to use bitcoin. we still need onchain scaling for the real utility of bitcoin and why it was invented (no middle men permission)

so far bitcoin has already lost its beauty in developing countries due to fee's being over 1 hours wage in half a dozen countries. we dont need to now twist bitcoin into hubs of middlemen

[unbeaten]

I have just noticed a problem, I sent 0.0001 to my Electrum wallet. And the minimum transaction fee I was able to set to transfer it out of my wallet is 0.00002. That is 20% of the total sum I was transferring.

If Bitcoin does become mainstream worldwide and MOST* people use it every day. The value of 1x Bitcoin would have to increase 1000 fold. That would make 1BTC worth $600,000.00, and 0.0002 BTC worth $1,200.

If its then costs $1,200 to send 0.0000001 bitcoins that will make Bitcoin unusable?

[Carlton Banks]

If its then costs $1,200 to send 0.0000001 bitcoins that will make Bitcoin unusable?

You're not the first to notice. Payment channels and responsible blocksize increases will play the biggest role in solving that problem. Both are in the works, the latter will take place sooner (sometime in the next few months)

[unbeaten]

Great!

Do you know how it will work once the solutions have been implemented?

Will it be a fixed transaction fee or a percentage?

[BitcoinHodler]

Great!

Do you know how it will work once the solutions have been implemented?

Will it be a fixed transaction fee or a percentage?

What solution are you talking about? Do you have block size in mind?

If so I think increasing the block size can essentially solve part of the problem which is not really a problem since the fee amounts are not that high. But, yeah since there will be more transactions it means more fee.

And also the fees will be always a fixed amount based on the size in bytes and nothing else.

[Carlton Banks]

Great!

Do you know how it will work once the solutions have been implemented?

Will it be a fixed transaction fee or a percentage?

You will choose the fee that you think is right for the urgency of your transactions. The difference will be that the amount of space available will multiply by 2-4x, depending on how many signatures you're using in each tx. So, for instance, if you're sending from 100's of different addresses in one transaction, you'll max out the new structure nicely. And because of the extra space, the expected fees will drop by 2-4x also. This is a more complex way of simply making the space bigger regardless of whether the data is just the tx part or it's signature. It's a compromise between straight blocksize increases and leaving things as they are.

[Carlton Banks]

What solution are you talking about? Do you have block size in mind?

See my post above. Essentially, the blocksize is increasing, but only for tx signatures, not for tx data. Which is fine, as the signatures are at least more than half of the overall size of a transaction anyway.

[franky1]

The value of 1x Bitcoin would have to increase 1000 fold. That would make 1BTC worth $600,000.00, and 0.0002 BTC worth $1,200.

though the quote above is speculative and concentrating more on a orgasmic fiat value the person hopes for..

here is some food for thought

if bitcoin was $600k. then the smallest measure (1sat) would be at cheapest $0.006cent used as a fee and about $0.60 as the minimal acceptable spend on a scenario where there is no bottlenecking and no need to worry about priority because everyone can transact in the very next block.

thus i would hope the sat tx fee decreases as the fiat price increases to counter each other, rather than the fee staying fixed at 0.0002

however in the preferred scenario of a sat tx fee moving down the decimals..
as soon as it starts to get busy. a tx fee becomes 2sat+ (1.2cents+ where an acceptable spend is $1.20+) which would eventually restart another upperclass/underclass debate on who deserves to use bitcoin as a open network with no middlemen, making developing countries treated as "spammers" again

some stupid people think bitcoin works top down(bitcoin make satoshi). and that adding an extra decimal would solve this. but bitcoin works bottom up (satoshi make bitcoin) so adding an extra decimal is the same as turning 21mill bitcoins into 210mill bitcoins
2100000000000000 sats = 21m bitcoin
21000000000000000 sats = 210m bitcoin
which is something that should NEVER be done as it would definitely affect peoples value perception (much like share dilutions/tulip mania)

but this is just speculative 'issues' that are not part of the current worries of today

things for today are the capacity and fee measure decrease to keep bitcoins utility as a no barrier financial tool for anyone to use

[beamforming2]

The transaction fee is  increased for sure.

If btc fees become higher than paypal and bank fees a lot of people might be dissapointed by bitcoin and

sell their btc.This might affect the bitcoin price.
people always choose low fees!

[unbeaten]

The transaction fee is  increased for sure.

If btc fees become higher than paypal and bank fees a lot of people might be dissapointed by bitcoin and

sell their btc.This might affect the bitcoin price.
people always choose low fees!

I don't think its an issue if your sending 1 Bitcoin with transaction fee of 0.0002, its far less than 1% of the total value.

It's the small transactions that hurt. If you send 0.0004 Bitcoins you loose 50%!

[Carlton Banks]

some stupid people think bitcoin works top down(bitcoin make satoshi). and that adding an extra decimal would solve this. but bitcoin works bottom up (satoshi make bitcoin) so adding an extra decimal is the same as turning 21mill bitcoins into 210mill bitcoins
2100000000000000 sats = 21m bitcoin
21000000000000000 sats = 210m bitcoin
which is something that should NEVER be done

What, stupid people like Mike Hearn, king of "on-chain scaling"? Stick to multiplication and addition Franky, it appears as if division is beyond your mathematical prowess, lol. You're starting to sounnd like RawDog

[franky1]

Stick to multiplication and addition Franky, it appears as if division is beyond your mathematical prowess, lol. You're starting to sounnd like RawDog

go play with your monero, because now your starting to sound like a troll again. come back when you have something informative and ontopic to say

[illyiller]

Payment channels are on-chain, just not necessarily in the most immediate block. The transactions are verified by checking their hash has the correct value in reference to the original mining rewards that it's inputs came from, just as they are now. The only difference is delaying the stage where the blockchain itself records where the money moved to. The delay provides an opportunity for patterns in the transaction flows to be aggregated together, meaning that when they are finally written to the blockchain, the space they use is far more efficient.

I like to think of this as "pre-chain", as all the same checks and balances are applied right up to the point where a normal transaction would just get processed in the next available block. And all the verification that happens pre-chain carries more than sufficient security and veracity to maintain Bitcoin's monetary properties.

"Off-chain" implies the blockchain is never involved, which in the case of centralised wallet providers like Coinbase and Xapo is true, those kind of wallets don't give users direct access, and so Coinbase can just adjust their own internal ledger to represent a transaction (verified by humans, not the blockchain...). Payment channels are more like a stratification of how and when transactions are committed to the blockchain.

Fair enough, I think this is a semantic issue. That was never my take on "off-chain". The way I see it, the real addition to scalability that Lightning provides is moving transactions off the blockchain---directly mitigating mainchain throughput not by expanding its capacity, but rather by moving throughput into contracts.

Yes, they are still Bitcoin transactions, but the blockchain is only involved in opening and settling a channel. Everything in between could take place on the blockchain, but it doesn't. Sure, we could call it "pre-chain", but to me that also implies "off-chain".

But like I said, I think this is a semantic thing. I get that hard forkers try to leverage the "off-chain" term to argue that a) the model isn't trustless (false) and b) LN transactions aren't Bitcoin transactions (they are). But the reality is, the reason LN is the answer to scaling is precisely because it scales outside of the Layer 1 protocol --- as opposed to, say, Layer 1 optimizations like Schnorr signatures.

I don't think "off-chain" needs to permanently hold onto the negative connotation of "trust-based/custodial". The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain."

[Conus]

I think it will make the market stronger.  Think about it.  Go to a small investor with a $10  idea.  Tell him you can make $.05 for every one of these $10 items you sell.  They have not much interest because they rather invest their money elsewhere and make more money. With the fees going up, there will be more investors interested.

[coinsocieties]

I think it will make the market stronger.  Think about it.  Go to a small investor with a $10  idea.  Tell him you can make $.05 for every one of these $10 items you sell.  They have not much interest because they rather invest their money elsewhere and make more money. With the fees going up, there will be more investors interested.

I do not think this will be the case.  If the fees go up, I would think that these investors would want to back out and not get involved.  Why would you want to just into something where people will be walking away because the fees will be higher.  Now if there is a need to use Bitcoin then this may make a difference, but I do not think investors will flock to Bitcoin in the event that the fees go up.

[franky1]

Fair enough, I think this is a semantic issue. That was never my take on "off-chain". The way I see it, the real addition to scalability that Lightning provides is moving transactions off the blockchain---directly mitigating mainchain throughput not by expanding its capacity, but rather by moving throughput into contracts.

Yes, they are still Bitcoin transactions, but the blockchain is only involved in opening and settling a channel. Everything in between could take place on the blockchain, but it doesn't. Sure, we could call it "pre-chain", but to me that also implies "off-chain".

But like I said, I think this is a semantic thing. I get that hard forkers try to leverage the "off-chain" term to argue that a) the model isn't trustless (false) and b) LN transactions aren't Bitcoin transactions (they are). But the reality is, the reason LN is the answer to scaling is precisely because it scales outside of the Layer 1 protocol --- as opposed to, say, Layer 1 optimizations like Schnorr signatures.

I don't think "off-chain" needs to permanently hold onto the negative connotation of "trust-based/custodial". The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain."

the thing you have to ask yourself...

understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added)

knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled

what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based)
would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

[Carlton Banks]

The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain."

Well, that's why using a different expression altogether is more appropriate, to my mind. If you start adapting the pre-existing phrase, people will try to abuse it's true meaning (see the over-complicated blathering in the above post from Franky), as you suggested elsewhere. And "pre-chain" really is a much better description, because there is no situation under which Lightning transactions won't hit the main chain anyway (unlike what Franky is suggesting)

[franky1]

because there is no situation under which Lightning transactions won't hit the main chain anyway (unlike what Franky is suggesting)

wow lightning network gonna fix bitcoins ability to drop transactions. kool no more fee war because no transaction will be dropped
oh wait..
transactions will drop off still if they lack enough fee even when using lightening network.. (just one example)

[Carlton Banks]

understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added)

knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled

You know what I like about facts, Franky? Their immutability

And you're ignoring the fact that all outputs originate from chained hashing when they are mined to begin with, Bitcoin 101. What you're saying in essence is that Lightning will break double-spend protection, which isn't the case, as the Merkle root hash of every output is validated both today and with Lightning transactions.

what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based)
would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

You're talking gibberish man, there is no reliance on multiple parties for transaction immutability in Lightning. You're conflating multi-party addresses/transactions with Lightning's operation, likely in the hope that your bizarre presentation might confuse some poor frightened individual to believe it. More research needed, Franky lol

[illyiller]

The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain."

Well, that's why using a different expression altogether is more appropriate, to my mind. If you start adapting the pre-existing phrase, people will try to abuse it's true meaning (see the over-complicated blathering in the above post from Franky), as you suggested elsewhere. And "pre-chain" really is a much better description, because there is no situation under which Lightning transactions won't hit the main chain anyway (unlike what Franky is suggesting)

Fine. I will adopt your "pre-chain" term. But I will acknowledge that this is purely out of expediency.

Half-joking, but isn't "pre-chain" technically inaccurate, since channel-opening transactions are actually on the blockchain? So in a sense, LN transactions are also "post-chain."

[Carlton Banks]

Fine. I will adopt your "pre-chain" term. But I will acknowledge that this is purely out of expediency.

Half-joking, but isn't "pre-chain" technically inaccurate, since channel-opening transactions are actually on the blockchain? So in a sense, LN transactions are also "post-chain."

Lol you are right of course. There must be a better description.... chain-purgatory tx's maybe?

[franky1]

understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added)

knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled

You know what I like about facts, Franky? Their immutability

And you're ignoring the fact that all outputs originate from chained hashing when they are mined to begin with, Bitcoin 101. What you're saying in essence is that Lightning will break double-spend protection, which isn't the case, as the Merkle root hash of every output is validated both today and with Lightning transactions.

what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based)
would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

You're talking gibberish man, there is no reliance on multiple parties for transaction immutability in Lightning. You're conflating multi-party addresses/transactions with Lightning's operation, likely in the hope that your bizarre presentation might confuse some poor frightened individual to believe it. More research needed, Franky lol

my question about asking his trust level is 2 parts.
1. standard traditional transaction with no confirms vs standard traditional transaction with confirms
2. lightning transaction not yet settled, vs the two mentioned in point 1

eg onchain, several confirm=100% trust
eg onchain, 1 confirm=98% trust
eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=<50% trust(pre-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)
eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=>50% trust(post-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)
eg offchain LN multisig, 0 confirm=90% trust(post-malle/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)

i asked what was his personal opinion on trust.. as you can see i just wrote mine

however
your confusing the immutability of a settled transaction(onchain)..
with a separate situation of the unsettled transaction(offchain) just sitting in a hubs mempool that is signed by user and hub(trusted offchain),
i do laugh that you think while a channel is open the transactions are immutable

just being signed is not enough, if it was there would be no need to ever settle and no need for bitcoin blockchain ever again.. think hard about why there is a settlement mechanism. and why the blockchain exists with its many security features beyond a signature

the short and curlies of it is

although a (starbucks) LN hub may be online all month.. the user wont be. and when the customer signed the final transaction for the month and got their 30th coffee.. that customer wont go back to the app

meaning customer is not there to authorise a change of fee when the hub finally wants to settle to match the current fee war price at the time of settling.
the customer has his coffee, nothing more the customer cares to do.
even CPFP is not fool proof trick to guarantee a sub-fee settlement gets higher priority.

all starbucks can do is keep rebroadcasting and hope someday the fee war settles down to finally get in a block

there are a few other loopholes lightening need to fix before its ready for general public use, but that was just one.

seems before today you didnt even know lightening uses multisig.. maybe you need to check it out a bit more.. bt take off your glory hat of fluffy cloud perfection. and put on a critical thinking cap on

have a nice day though

[Carlton Banks]

Like I said, you're confused about the role Multi-sig is playing in Lightning. It doesn't create a dependency on the other members of the channel for the protections the protocol offers, that would be moronic. But hey, look who's talking, lol

[franky1]

Like I said, you're confused about the role Multi-sig is playing in Lightning. It doesn't create a dependency on the other members of the channel for the protections the protocol offers, that would be moronic. But hey, look who's talking, lol

seems carlton wants to continue meandering off topic
you have been handed too many buzzwords by your friends and not looked at the real function/mechanisms underneath..
you seem to be more of a frappuccino man, who gets told its the best iced coffee. and you then talk about iced coffee being great and perfect and everyone should try it.

im more of a oh its water thats frozen, coffee beans grounded, all put in a cup, added sugar, then whisked to make the ice slushy then add whipped cream on top. i then check out if there are any variations/inconsistencies

but hey LN transactions are guaranteed to get a confirm no matter what fee is included. all because carlton says so.

kind of funny you endorse LN before its even active publicly.. wait.. you endorse segwit before its active publicly. hmmm i see a pattern here.. blind trust.

next time put a critical hat on and think.. during testing (barrista training) everything looks perfect. but when actually dealing with the public things can go wrong. stop pre-selling something based purely on the glossy leaflet handed to you and instead be a critic learn how things actually work

on topic
people love bitcoin due to the TRUE immutable bitcoin ledger.
increasing fee's, delaying capacity and using less than 100% immutable channels will negatively effect bitcoins original proposition.

the only good thing is that if lets say bitcoins 'trust'/desire went down to 90%, we hope the future ability to be used by people enables more people to use it to counter the 10% desirability loss of current people.

EG 1.8mill people 100% happy in 2015, vs 2.5million people where 90% are happy = more happy people then before

[Carlton Banks]

Nice bit of actual content in the middle of the post there Franky. Shame you're putting words in my mouth. Would've been a good post otherwise. Well, apart from all the coffee

[MingLee]

Assuming that the value of Bitcoin goes up at least on par with whatever the fee is (so something like $0.09-$0.10) there wouldn't have to be an increase in the fee Bitcoin-wise. They just have to make sure that they still get about the same amount dollar-wise, and if they can do that then they'll be fine with whatever happens for the most part, I'd assume.

[JeffBrad12]

Assuming that the value of Bitcoin goes up at least on par with whatever the fee is (so something like $0.09-$0.10) there wouldn't have to be an increase in the fee Bitcoin-wise. They just have to make sure that they still get about the same amount dollar-wise, and if they can do that then they'll be fine with whatever happens for the most part, I'd assume.

About the increasing of fees maybe like the blockchain is having a different reason for that because can't always think if that is a big fee comparing if you're sending $1000 and got fees $0.20 and whether you feel so weight with that?

[Zentuple]

Will the fee's eventually make BTC less competitive compared to other remittance solutions?

[xuan87]

After I used bitcoin for a long time I do feel that transaction fee is quite expensive, but it is still in a normal range, if this keep on continue i think it will affected the user, but it won't affect too much because like it or not you must pay the fee, actually it will be better if the transaction fee can be reduced

[Mastsetad]

Currently Blockchain transfer fee is ~0.0002 BTC ( transfer time ~ 20 min. ), previously was 0.0001 BTC. That means with time Blockchain transfer fee will go up. How can this affect BTC market in future, because Blockchain is largest web wallet ? 

I don't think that would affect the market at all, the amount we pay in fees depend on the price of bitcoin, if the price of bitcoin is $700 and we pay $0.2 as fee then if the price of bitcoin goes to $1200 then we will be paying $2 as fees, that wont matter at all i guess.