Who to blame for the increasing transaction fee?

[erickkyut]

No need to blame anyone! It is only natural that as the value of bitcoin increases, the transaction fees will increase also! Because the wallet provider and other bitcoin related entitied have their own expenses! Their business will come to extinction if they will maintain their current transaction fees while bitcoin value is constantly increasing!

[Senor.Bla]

No need to blame anyone! It is only natural that as the value of bitcoin increases, the transaction fees will increase also! Because the wallet provider and other bitcoin related entitied have their own expenses! Their business will come to extinction if they will maintain their current transaction fees while bitcoin value is constantly increasing!

If the price of Bitcoin rises, then i could ask for less Bitcoin and end up with the same amount. So i see no need to take more unless my expenses are getting bigger too. But this is only true if you look from an fiat perspective. If you look at it from an Bitcoin stand, then fees might have stayed the same (since 2016 the fees more then doubled in sat/kb). 

[CraigWrightBTC]

The increasing transaction fees because of block size bitcoin
The people must be blamed because of it is us(include me),
we are comunity of bitcoin but we can not make solution for this problem
there is solution with segwit but many people disagree with it.

[mcaizgk2]

Bust this: I got tha Coinomi wallet, an' it allows you ta set tha transaction fee, an' the last time I ended up sendin up some coin, it got thru wit' a ridiculously Jewish fee.  Sommethin' like 5000 satoshi for sendin' like $3.  It were stuck inna network for about 38 hours but it did finally git sent.  Somea these wallets is crazy an' they don't letchu adjust nothin'. 

Coinomi Wallet allows you to adjust your fees (via Settings > Transaction Fees) however you wish.

[Superways]

I was also curious about the fee of transaction of bitcoin as I am not a miner so I do not know well about it. Up to my know I think it is being settled by the miners in their software and they allow for confirmation only those transactions which have high fees. It is my view but the actual knowledge will be with miners they will know well about that.

[Xester]

It is nobody's fault. We cannot blame the miners for it for increasing the fees, if they will not do it given the difficulty and cost of mining these days they will surely go bankrupt. They need to increase fees to sustain their operation and make bitcoin transaction move on. If the miners will not increase the mining fee then it will be the end of mining farms and the whole community of bitcoin users will suffer very slow confirmations on transactions.

[maku]

Surprisingly at the time I write this post there is only 4323 Unconfirmed Transactions listed: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactionsthis
So we don't have constant problems with the network as many FUDers would like us to belive. But I agree, fees are getting ridiculous, they quadrupled in comparison to what we had in 2015.

[mobnepal]

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

In short term we can blame miners for not including transaction with low fee and why they should miss the opportunity to earn more with high fee transaction. Other than increasing fee for transaction, making transaction with only one input/output is another solution.

In long term, to meet increasing demand of bitcoin and to lower fees, block size should be increased.

[jaberwock]

Except for short period of times when someone is spamming the network or there is a peak in number of transactions or the difficult suddenly changes, it is miner's responsibility, because they want to squeeze every single Satoshi possible from people, even if the miner fee is insignificant compared with teh block reward

Just compare the current value of transaction fees with the the past couple of years, both in BTC and in dollar equivalent, and you'll see a increase in price even when there is more than enough space left in the blocks

[audaciousbeing]

We all know that recently, a huge backlog of transaction of at least 50,000 at any point of time.
And one of the solution is to increase the transaction fee. Which defeat the purpose of micro-transaction
with bitcoin.

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

There is no way to avoid this as it will continue to be on the increase because we dont have a choice or else the transaction will take forever to complete. Assigning blame will not really reduce the cost but the wallet managers like Xapo or Blockchain are those that should do more to reduce the cost to a bearable minimum.

[franky1]

any guys claiming its no ones fault, need to take a hard look at the code changes by core.

instead of being reactive depending on demand. they are now based on averages.. which if you just used a spreadsheet would see a biased change which actually makes fees increase even if demand was low

take the way devs implemented the tx fee.. not only subverting coded methods of 'priority' which would have alleviated the war, but also using 'averages' which dont make the fee's drop reactively when demand is low. but actually keeps fee's up. even when one block is low demand.
EG take a 25 block average.. imagine first 24 are 0.0001 and the 25th is 0.0025 then look at the 'average' after that.. even if demand was near 0 and no one was pushing the fee up.... the "average" itself pushes up

yep even if blocks 26-75+ were near empty with just 2 tx's paying the estimate... the fee would rise

try it yourself. get a spreadsheet

[peter0425]

We all know that recently, a huge backlog of transaction of at least 50,000 at any point of time.
And one of the solution is to increase the transaction fee. Which defeat the purpose of micro-transaction
with bitcoin.

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

There is no way to avoid this as it will continue to be on the increase because we dont have a choice or else the transaction will take forever to complete. Assigning blame will not really reduce the cost but the wallet managers like Xapo or Blockchain are those that should do more to reduce the cost to a bearable minimum.

So it means nothing can be done and the fees will continue to rise? Then we all gonna suffer for this because instead of the extra bitcoin that our wallet should have, should be going to the miners because of the extra fee. I know finger pointing will not help but at least the fee should be bearable for every transactions.

[BitFinnese]

No need to blame anyone! It is only natural that as the value of bitcoin increases, the transaction fees will increase also! Because the wallet provider and other bitcoin related entitied have their own expenses! Their business will come to extinction if they will maintain their current transaction fees while bitcoin value is constantly increasing!

It is not the ratio of Bitcoin to USD that is increasing but the rate of Bitcoin itself.  10k satoshi was a good enough transaction fee months ago but now it is more than 30k sat sometimes going above 50k sat.  I think it is the people who want to get prioritized is to be blame. Meaning the user themselves.  And it seems the coded script itself.

any guys claiming its no ones fault, need to take a hard look at the code changes by core.

instead of being reactive depending on demand. they are now based on averages.. which if you just used a spreadsheet would see a biased change which actually makes fees increase even if demand was low

take the way devs implemented the tx fee.. not only subverting coded methods of 'priority' which would have alleviated the war, but also using 'averages' which dont make the fee's drop reactively when demand is low. but actually keeps fee's up. even when one block is low demand.
EG take a 25 block average.. imagine first 24 are 0.0001 and the 25th is 0.0025 then look at the 'average' after that.. even if demand was near 0 and no one was pushing the fee up.... the "average" itself pushes up

yep even if blocks 26-75+ were near empty with just 2 tx's paying the estimate... the fee would rise

try it yourself. get a spreadsheet

[calkob]

We all know that recently, a huge backlog of transaction of at least 50,000 at any point of time.
And one of the solution is to increase the transaction fee. Which defeat the purpose of micro-transaction
with bitcoin.

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

Its defiantly not the miners fault,  if anything is to blame it is bitcoins success.  miners are well  within their right to only select the top paying transactions for each block, this is what happens in an open, decentralised, and distributed network and its a good thing   remember bitcoin is an experiment we cant complain when that experiment takes a turn that we dont like.  Use bitcoin how you like, if enough people agree that's what bitcoin will become.......

[franky1]

It is not the ratio of Bitcoin to USD that is increasing but the rate of Bitcoin itself.  10k satoshi was a good enough transaction fee months ago but now it is more than 30k sat sometimes going above 50k sat.  I think it is the people who want to get prioritized is to be blame. Meaning the user themselves.  And it seems the coded script itself.

first of all there is no 'priority'
there is just "pay more and hope"

there are no guarantees of any transaction being accepted as a rule.
there is no guarantee of if i pay X i get next block or if i pay x-10 ill guarantee to get into second block, x-20 ill get into third block.

its all to do with lack of code. wher by the devs decided banker economics should be used more so than smart code rules.

the switch to average rather than reactive fee mechanism
the lack of a proper and more important functional 'priority' formualae
the lack of holding pools to account about how they collate data.

it all just leaves too many people with if's and maybe's a tx would get accepted
we should not be relying on banker economics. bitcoins is suppose to be something that is not playing them silly banker games

[Bitcoinsummoner]

We all know that recently, a huge backlog of transaction of at least 50,000 at any point of time.
And one of the solution is to increase the transaction fee. Which defeat the purpose of micro-transaction
with bitcoin.

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

Its defiantly not the miners fault,  if anything is to blame it is bitcoins success.  miners are well  within their right to only select the top paying transactions for each block, this is what happens in an open, decentralised, and distributed network and its a good thing   remember bitcoin is an experiment we cant complain when that experiment takes a turn that we dont like.  Use bitcoin how you like, if enough people agree that's what bitcoin will become.......

Bitcoin is experiment before.. and i think theres no problem about increase the fee for every transaction since its a small help for miners that bitcoin for them turn into profitable investment also those miners will not stop mining bitcoin..
Look some site there are some other solution to speedup transaction that i think it can help you to speed up confirmation
So you can pay for fee below the minimum price or fee..

[franky1]

this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's

though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)

in a world outside of america/europe. 0.01btc for instance can be a weeks wage and 0.001btc can be multiple hours of labour.
for the unbanked developing countries we should not be considering something spam, purely on the basis of how much is spent, but on bloated transactions and transactions that are spent too frequently outside what appears normal spending behaviour.


bitcoins 'priority' calculation are no longer appropriate, many pools dont even use it anymore.
the calculation of:
(value *age) / size. does not help anyone.
because someone with 1000btc can respend multiple times an hour fee free. but someone with only 0.Xbtc has to wait weeks or pay a premium. victimising the poorer nations effectively
thus it only makes it a calculation beneficial for the rich.
the 'priority' calculation needs to change to be more about bloat and age. and not about value.


eg knowing that the blocksize limits how much data is allowed. a new calculation needs to have considerations of making there be a points system for blocksize vs tx size. more so then making the value the consideration changer
 so that the leaner the tx size is, the more points are rewarded. which when blocksizes increases. would make the leaner transactions earn more points for staying lean.

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
this means if super lean you can spend funds every 7 hours with priority. but being bloated (100k blocks) you have to wait months.
this then makes bloated transactions PAY MORE to make up for the missing points.


it also means that rich spammer cannot bypass it by just moving a larger reserve for free.
ofcourse my example can include extra variables. such as if people voluntarily put in a CLTV maturity of X blocks to show they wont respend for atleast X blocks (because CLTV prevents it) they can gain extra points too

EG
((blocksize/tx size)*age)*CLTV confirms.
=((1000000/226)*6)*6      159292
=((1000000/226)*6)*7      185840
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389

which is an example of someone who naturally may want to spend every couple hours. where their funds are only an hour old.
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
dont have to wait >6 more hours
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
they can just voluntarily tell the network they are happy to lock themselves into a 1hour 20minute maturity after the respend.
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389
to get priority.

meaning if you volunteer that you are not going to respend those funds for 8+ confirms. you get priority. which mitigates the respend every block true spam. because this calculation averages a 2-3 hour respend acceptable natural human timescale.

it also helps by giving users an option to say it needs to be accepted sooner.(a true "hey guys i really need this to go through, but accept the punishment for this need) making the wait PRIOR to confirm less, by making the waiting time AFTER confirm, more. thus a way to show the network who actually NEEDS priority the most

though a bloat spammer can just put a mega long CLTV on a bloated tx to gain priority for their first tx, they atleast once confirmed the funds wont be respent fast due to the CLTV maturity needing to be met
(no matter what the priority is of the second attempt, CLTV prevents respends until mature)

it makes it so that if you want to spend sooner (imagine its not maturity locked first) the sooner you want to spend the longer you have to wait to respend AFTER confirm. thus solving the wait for confirm 'trust' people getting paid dilemma
EG
if matured funds are only aged 3 blocks instead of 6. you have to volunteer not being able to re-spend then for 16 blocks instead of 8
=((1000000/226)*3)*14   185840
=((1000000/226)*3)*15   199115
=((1000000/226)*3)*16   212389

so that the faster you want to spend(after maturity) the longer you cant respend the second time. thus effectively stopping a spammer spending every block because they end up waiting atleast 2 hours before conditions are met


though my calculation is not perfect for every instance of utility. i think that usual / natural spending behaviour of only buying things once every couple hours is normal.. and mitigating the spend every 10 minute intentional spam.
for those wanting to bypass this because they GENUINELY need to spend every 10 minutes.. (not intention spam, but a niche need)
such as the small niche of day traders/faucet raiders/gamblers
they can use the niche market commercial LN service VOLUNTARILY to get their many spends an hour.

thus having an equal balance of people that only spend lets say once a week that dont need LN can happily spend onchain. but those that do need many spends an hour can use LN... natural balance is restored

im sure someone can be inspired by my idea of changing the priority calculation. by adding in or using variables in a different format to achieve something better then my example calculation formula.. and be way way better than the current priority formulae

[Kprawn]

We all know that recently, a huge backlog of transaction of at least 50,000 at any point of time.
And one of the solution is to increase the transaction fee. Which defeat the purpose of micro-transaction
with bitcoin.

Is this the miners fault alone? Who do you think need to step up  to stop this madness
of increasing transaction fees?

What's your thought about it?

Its defiantly not the miners fault,  if anything is to blame it is bitcoins success.  miners are well  within their right to only select the top paying transactions for each block, this is what happens in an open, decentralised, and distributed network and its a good thing   remember bitcoin is an experiment we cant complain when that experiment takes a turn that we dont like.  Use bitcoin how you like, if enough people agree that's what bitcoin will become.......

Bitcoin is experiment before.. and i think theres no problem about increase the fee for every transaction since its a small help for miners that bitcoin for them turn into profitable investment also those miners will not stop mining bitcoin..
Look some site there are some other solution to speedup transaction that i think it can help you to speed up confirmation
So you can pay for fee below the minimum price or fee..

You are missing the point here.... OP is asking who is to blame, and imo we should blame whomever is causing these spam attacks,

because their goal is to sabotage the network to force people to react in the way, they want them to react. If you were a miner and

you benefit from higher fees.. would you not want a situation where fees are bumped because of a backlog like this?

[Clement Kaliyar]

The core team has to come up with a solution regarding the transaction delay as well as the increasing price of transaction and if this continues like this you can imagine the amount of transaction fees they you need to input a couple of years from now.I think with the recent code changes the core are telling us that bitcoin is not meant for micro transactions.

[franky1]

The core team already caused the issues regarding the transaction delay as well as the increasing price of transaction and if this continues like this you can imagine the amount of transaction fees they you need to input a couple of years from now.I think with the recent code changes the core are telling us that they do not want transactions onchain only commercial hub settlements.

fixed that for you