What is the plan to fix slow transactions and high fees?

[Amph]

it's simple don't buy coffee with bitcoin until they fix the scalability issue, bitcoin is not currently suited for microtransaction, even with the fee of 10k satoshi it was still bad to send 100k satoshi to pay 1/10 in fee

so it's not even a problem related to the 1mb block restriction, bitcoin was always bad at microtransaction, and this will be more true the more the value go up

in theory the average fee in satoshi should be lower the more the value increase not that it remain the same, otherwise when bitcoin will reach 100k one day, you will have to pay $100 to send $1000 which is beyond retarded

[1714938389]

1714938389

[1714938389]

1714938389

[1714938389]

1714938389

[CraigWrightBTC]

The developers has plan but it is hard to be done,
as bitcoin's user I don't have any plan to fix slow transaction and high fees.
I don't have any choice except what I have to do waiting transaction up to be confirmed
and pay the fees although it is expensive. 

[Flyskyhigh]

Could use a different coin that's 20x faster and 20x cheaper like MINT. I think the problem is trying to make Bitcoin all things to all people. Trying to do everything is impossible for any 1 currency to do.

[Kprawn]

it's simple don't buy cofee with bitcoin until they fix the scalability issue, bitcoin is not currently suited for microtransaction, even with the fee of 10k satoshi it was still bad to send 100k satoshi to pay 1/10 in fee

so it's not even a problem related to the 1mb block restriction, bitcoin was always bad at microtransaction, and this will be more true the more the value go up

in theory the average fee in satoshi showld be lower the more the value increase not that it remain the same, otherwise when bitcoin will reach 100k oen day, you will have to pay $100 to send $1 which is beyond retarded

No I strongly disagree with that statement... if we cannot buy coffee with Bitcoin, then Bitcoin failed as a currency token. Satoshi developed

Bitcoin to replace fiat payment networks, and now you want to tell people not to use it to buy certain products? I would just change the way I

use Bitcoin. { Issue vouchers to customers : Buy $10 worth of vouchers and then subtract coffee as customer visit your shop... this will result

in return business too... because people who have not used up all their vouchers will return to use it again. } 

[Wind_FURY]

One thing that is clear though is that the future demand curve will be greater if bitcoin has more users then than if it has fewer. 

If Bitcoin does not retain it's unique properties in an attempt to accommodate "mainstream" usage, it's just a cumbersome PayPal, and no one is willing to use that.

Politics aside, what is wrong with a payment layer built on top of the Bitcoin network? The possibilities for Bitcoin has become wider if there was a LN type network layer that could handle unlimited transactions and say could also become a bridge between blockchains. Real anonymous transactions could also be implemented. Why stop it just because "it does not retain its unique properties"? It is still there, you can still do transactions onchain.  

Where did I suggest that a layer could not be built on top of Bitcoin? Quite the opposite, keeping the underlying protocol and network lean and robust while scaling via additional layers (which could be peeled away if necessary) is probably the only solution which will allow Bitcoin to retain those unique properties.

My comment was clearly directed towards the idea that on-chain scaling via a massive block size increase is a viable solution.

Good. I am glad we are on the same page. Smaller blocks and network layers on top might also be the solution for the developers and Bitcoin thinkers who want to utilize sidechains. Whatever politically motivated criticisms they throw at Core, I still believe in the direction where they want Bitcoin to go. It opens up a lot more possibilities for the network.

[Nathan047]

Transactions are almost instant. Confirmations depend on the competition to be included in the next block. That competition is what is going to have to secure the network moving forward. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.

The days of free and ridiculously inexpensive Bitcoin transactions are slowly coming to an end. Many early adopters have turned into spoiled brats thanks to the early days of large block subsidies.

Bitcoin's unique properties allow censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. There is going to be heavy competition to access these unique properties as authorities around the world continue the war on cash and proceed to implement increasingly strict capital controls.

People are going to have to compete to have their transaction included in the global decentralized immutable ledger. That is a good thing for everyone (as it will pay for network security) except those crybabies who think Bitcoin was designed for fast, cheap micro-payments.

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. Pay for your coffee with something else.

I understand what your saying and respect your opinion, however I feel like if this is the case bitcoin will fail as a payment system, it'll lose value as an investment, and die out, bringing down all other cryptocurrencys with it.

Bitcoin was made to become a payment system, and if nobody will switch to it because of high fees and long waits then I feel like it'll become worthless.

[Nathan047]

So, currently in electrum, the recommended fee to get a transaction included in the next block, is 0.001835 BTC/kb. Thats 1.85$ PER KILOBYTE.

Now, to be fair, that is the recommended fee to get the transaction as soon as possible, but think of it this way:
I go to buy a cup of coffee and want to pay in bitcoin. I pay them but need to wait  some time for the transaction (obviously the coffee shop would want to receive a few confirmations on the transaction so they're sure I don't leave with a free coffee). Lets say I pay a high fee to get the transaction done soon, for this example lets say I paid a 1.85$ fee (and remember that is the recommended fee is per kilobyte, that's not the recommended total fee), now I've got to wait like 10 minutes and pay a dollar or two just to pay for a coffee with bitcoin (and remember that a few dollars is a high price to pay as a fee to buy something for a few dollars).

And this is in the current network. In order for me to pay for a coffee with bitcoin we'd probably need the mass adoption everybody seems convinced will happen. With mass adoption mean WAY more transactions on the network than now, and I feel mass adoption would cause the user base to grow much faster than the network (most of the people using bitcoin now are probably good with technology and would consider mining or hosting a node, if everybody joined then we probably wouldn't have a user base like that). Think of the kind of fees then.

I'd think that this should be a problem that is on the minds of the developers, and it probably is, so, what's the plan? Or perhaps there's already a plan coming to action and I'm just unaware of it. Anyway, please elaborate on this.

You dont need to wait until the confirmation will finish and the payment in bitcoin will appear in your balance. What it needs is that there is a transaction that has been done and the transfer is ongoing. If I am a merchant I will not think of it as a problem I will give my products to him even if the transaction is unconfirmed. Sooner or later it will be confirmed and will appear on my balance.

Yea, but what if I issue a double spending attack and then leave with a free product? I know it's probably not as big of a deal with small purchases and you've got the same risk with the potential for checks to bounce, but I feel like this is a risk companys won't want to take (and if they do take it then this will become a regular and bitcoin will get a bad name).

[Nathan047]

As a creative coffee shop owner, I would find ways to work around that, for instance : I will train my staff to educate people on signing up for a service like Xapo where the transactions are instant and basically free. My regulars will then have no problem paying for their daily coffee and I would help with adoption.

I will even give discount on people paying with Bitcoin. < 10% less per cup of coffee and first 10 cups free, if you signup for Xapo >

This is not the ideal solution but it is a option until they solve the scaling problems.

Centralized bitcoin payment processors are miracle workers for things like this, the only issue is they're centralized, so you're back to using bitcoin like Paypal. This is a great band aid approach, but I feel like we'll need an official fix to bitcoin core at some point.

[DoublerHunter]

I think as of now, there is no available solution for this kind of problem because i think that the reason why we are often experiencing slower transaction is lack of miners who are supporting the network but if the amount of miners will increased then the transactions will be faster than before. I wish that before this year ends the miners will be more, so it will not be hassle for people who are rushing to send money to their love ones.

[franky1]

the problem of fee's is the old 'priority mechanism
and
how the fee 'estimate' has replaced reactive fee's

but lets concentrate on a proper solution. by looking at the "priority" formulae..

(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
target = 57,600,000

where someone with say 10btc($10,000)

100000000 *144 / 250 = 57,600,000 - gets priority

but someone with just 1btc($1000) with the exact same 'bloat' has to wait 10 days.
but someone with just 0.1btc($10) with the exact same 'bloat' has to wait 100 days.

i see a new 'priority formulae' being used onchain of bitcoins mainnet.
this is what i see as the logical punishment for bloating/respending spammers. whilst rewarding moral normal transactors, whether rich or poor

one which includes a CLTV voluntary option. where users gain priority points if they voluntarily agree to put their funds into a 1-day maturity. but those avoiding the one day before respend or have bloated transactions pay more to get into a block sooner.

EG
if you really need priority you agree that once confirmed you cant respend for a day.
it also means you can be selective of priority. by only putting a 142block wait if your happy to wait a couple blocks because it wont be priority for a couple blocks by not paying quite enough fee. allowing the age/maturity/fee variables to give a better flag of desire.

obviously those moral users that actually need to spend more than once a day could see the niche of LN as a way to transact often and cheaper.
and those that dont spend every day get priority and not need LN or to CLTV mature funds, because they are not spending everyday, anyway.

here is one example of a formulae that does not care about how much people are spending (not a rich gets priority, poor are victimised old formula), but rewards people willing to wait a day, have lean transactions. and penalises those that want to respend often or have bloated transactions



basically
if your transaction is 2x a lean tx. you pay twice as much. if 44x a lean tx you pay 44x
if you dont want to mature your funds for 144 blocks and only want to wait 1 block you pay 144x.
if the tx is both 44x bloated and wants to respend the very next block after getting confirmed then it costs 44x*144X


though my formulae is not finalised or perfect for every utility. i see how changing the priority formulae can cause more benefits for good people and penalise the bad, without making it used just to be snobby about rich vs poor. due to it no longer rewarding the rich with points just for being rich, which the old formulae done

[asdalani]

There isn't anything wrong with transaction fee's. If you are so interested in trying to get fast transactions then try to make a online wallet that holds a balance just for transaction fee's and when someone sends money into the wallet then you could send the money asap with a high transaction fee or physical wallet.dat transfers.

[hollandvan]

Increasing the bitcoin blocksize .
There are have planted to fixing the problem of bitcoin as you can see. SegWit, BU, 8MB blocks.
coin.dance/blocks
 

But its competition is really strict.

Yeah, blocksize needs to be scaling, the current speed sucks, and transation of higher fees is slow too.

[bravehearth0319]

So, currently in electrum, the recommended fee to get a transaction included in the next block, is 0.001835 BTC/kb. Thats 1.85$ PER KILOBYTE.

Now, to be fair, that is the recommended fee to get the transaction as soon as possible, but think of it this way:
I go to buy a cup of coffee and want to pay in bitcoin. I pay them but need to wait  some time for the transaction (obviously the coffee shop would want to receive a few confirmations on the transaction so they're sure I don't leave with a free coffee). Lets say I pay a high fee to get the transaction done soon, for this example lets say I paid a 1.85$ fee (and remember that is the recommended fee is per kilobyte, that's not the recommended total fee), now I've got to wait like 10 minutes and pay a dollar or two just to pay for a coffee with bitcoin (and remember that a few dollars is a high price to pay as a fee to buy something for a few dollars).

And this is in the current network. In order for me to pay for a coffee with bitcoin we'd probably need the mass adoption everybody seems convinced will happen. With mass adoption mean WAY more transactions on the network than now, and I feel mass adoption would cause the user base to grow much faster than the network (most of the people using bitcoin now are probably good with technology and would consider mining or hosting a node, if everybody joined then we probably wouldn't have a user base like that). Think of the kind of fees then.

I'd think that this should be a problem that is on the minds of the developers, and it probably is, so, what's the plan? Or perhaps there's already a plan coming to action and I'm just unaware of it. Anyway, please elaborate on this.

Giving the higher fee in every transaction is most common problems in the blockchain, because if you pay at low fees transaction it will surely takes an hour, or it can be 2 or 3 days before the unconfirmed become confirm. There are planing to implement the fix amount which higher fee for every transaction but this will not be in favor for the community like us.

[talkbitcoin]

As a creative coffee shop owner, I would find ways to work around that, for instance : I will train my staff to educate people on signing up for a service like Xapo where the transactions are instant and basically free. My regulars will then have no problem paying for their daily coffee and I would help with adoption.

I will even give discount on people paying with Bitcoin. < 10% less per cup of coffee and first 10 cups free, if you signup for Xapo >

This is not the ideal solution but it is a option until they solve the scaling problems.

Centralized bitcoin payment processors are miracle workers for things like this, the only issue is they're centralized, so you're back to using bitcoin like Paypal. This is a great band aid approach, but I feel like we'll need an official fix to bitcoin core at some point.

it is not band aid, it is not even a solution, and it is not even good option.
you better say use fiat instead, because bitcoin is bitcoin as long as it works the same way, meaning you are your own bank and you spend on your own, only paying network fees and not rely on anybody else apart from miners to mine blocks in general.
if we go out of this line, then it is no longer bitcoin.

[Nathan047]

It hasn't happened to me yet, fingers crossed, but even transactions where I have paid low fee's have gone through eventually.
Im not saying that block size isn't a problem, just that its doing bloody well considering!
Maybe Im one of the few lucky ones.

I've paid low fees also, but takes time (sometimes 1+ day(s), but I'm talking about making a small purchase in person, which would require a faster transaction.

[royalfestus]

.
They mostly use it because it works outside of governmental control or censorship.
In fact, its origins and revelation was within the cypherpunk sphere which has no
interest in e-cash, but the idea of true unrestricted e-exchange.

 I was just thinking if china holds that size of bitcoin and you addressed most of the owners to use to work out of government control or censorship. Seeing the indirect control of bitcoin by the chinese government. Can we still consider you statement to be void? or bitcoin is not serving that purpose anymore among the large users.

[Vaccinus]

It hasn't happened to me yet, fingers crossed, but even transactions where I have paid low fee's have gone through eventually.
Im not saying that block size isn't a problem, just that its doing bloody well considering!
Maybe Im one of the few lucky ones.

I've paid low fees also, but takes time (sometimes 1+ day(s), but I'm talking about making a small purchase in person, which would require a faster transaction.

This is where litecoin or dash comes in litecoin has 2 minute blocks and dash can instant TX, the owner can shapeshift to bitcoin without worry later.

litecoin has 2.5 minutes block time not 2, how can dash intant tx? they have a block time right, the confirmation can't be lower than 1 minute, i see a large amount of orphan for coins that have a lower than 1 minute confirmation time, and dash and litecoin i have lower volume on transaction than bitcoin, are they really comparable?

[AgentofCoin]

.
They mostly use it because it works outside of governmental control or censorship.
In fact, its origins and revelation was within the cypherpunk sphere which has no
interest in e-cash, but the idea of true unrestricted e-exchange.

I was just thinking if china holds that size of bitcoin and you addressed most of the owners to use to work out of government control or censorship. Seeing the indirect control of bitcoin by the chinese government. Can we still consider you statement to be void? or bitcoin is not serving that purpose anymore among the large users.

If I understand your statements correctly:
If those users keep their coins on exchanges and only exchange between exchange accounts,
that is not Bitcoin and its original designed purpose. That is speculative trading.

The Chinese government in theory can not control or regulate Bitcoin accept by going after the
Chinese miners or the Chinese exchanges. As long as you are not one of them, you are mostly
safe and free of censorship or control (until China fully outlaws bitcoin and hunts users and/or
node operators).

Bitcoin was designed to work without third-parties like banks or exchanges.
As long as Chinese btc users don't use bitcoin through those systems, they are fine (in theory).
Bitcoin was designed specifically for Person to Person, not Person to Exchange to Person.

[Nathan047]

This is where litecoin or dash comes in litecoin has 2 minute blocks and dash can instant TX, the owner can shapeshift to bitcoin without worry later.

Yea, Litecoin or DASH could work, although they're not bitcoin and if places don't adopt bitcoin then I don't expect them to jump strait to DASH or Litecoin.

[wizmo]

I always pay recommanded fees and it only takes 3-4 minutes to confirm.