Transaction Fees are SPIKING !

[deisik]

I still remember the times when you could get a bitcoin transaction confirmed within the next block for 15 cents for the transaction fee and people were still complaining that it was too high. I guess you don't know how good we had it until we lost it and now have to pay $.50 cents for one block $.47 cents for one block. Pretty disgusting in my opinion to see such a high fee when not so long ago it was much cheaper.

People may go ahead and say "well the only people complain are the ones that send around small amount of money" that's a horrid attitude to have when it comes to all of this. If we want Bitcoin to go mainstream this can't occur because lets just say someone wants to buy something for $5.00 do you think they're going to spend 10 percent more to use bitcoin or they're just going to use their credit card or FIAT cash.

Bitcoin won't go mainstream until instant transactions are made possible

Hefty transaction fees are actually only a tip of an iceberg. To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

[1715250077]

1715250077

[1715250077]

1715250077

[1715250077]

1715250077

[gentlemand]

To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

That feels a little like fighting centralisation by wholeheartedly embracing it in another form.

What I'd really like to see is a functioning Lightning Network just so us little guys can get a feel for what it truly is. Hopefully Litecoin might develop that.

It's also said that we can have a Bitcoin one without Segwit, albeit with vulnerabilities. Perhaps someone should knock something up and let us play with small amounts knowing what the risks are.

[Holliday]

These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee).

Wut?

The fee market is working perfectly. I pay more, I get a confirmation ahead of those who pay less. I pay less, I wait in line behind those who have paid more.

Oh my, the mayhem of getting what I pay for!

[blackhawkeye1912]

...

frankuestein just wrote:

"BTC won't be lost forever.

Some third party services, merchants or even people like you and me using a wallet like Electrum can set an expiry date for a payment request. An example of a use case could be to prevent customers from submitting payments after the quoted price is no longer valid.

That's why your bitcoins won't be lost and wallet addresses don't expire. In case you send bitcoins to a third party service like kraken or you use a payment gateway like coinbase, you'll have to follow its rules and this is not bitcoin's 'fault'."


Bitmixer.io for one has addresses that expire in 24 hours.  They then DELETE the address & account info.  As far as I know, that means any BTC arriving late is GONE.  And that would be terrible for the unwary who might lose a big chunk of money when the blockchain is stopped-up...

I do think the high fees are a problem and unnecessary. Nobody wants their Bitcoins to be lost. It is not cool, when you can not be certain to get confirmed within 24 hours, but this is not alone Bitcoins fault. Mixing services should be aware and response to this. Just blaming Bitcoin is not a good course of action.

These are the common thing problems in every transaction we encountered. Now if you need or like fast confirmation in the blockchain give the high fee so that they can prioritize your transaction. And I agreed bitcoin is out of it which no need to blame it.

[tvbcof]

Wow... you just realized it now? Yes, the transaction fee cost is heavily increasing because the blocks are getting full. and it is a real threat to the network. Unless we find an alternative to the Blocksize increase or go for it, they will increase to the point it will be unbearable to use Bitcoin.

Will be to whom?  There are a range of use-cases so there is an equalibrium set by the intersect of two curves.  You're problem is actually something of a solution as I see things.

I do hope that what I've always called 'subordinate chains' and have more recently been known as 'sidechains' make it so that users can, in actuality, be enjoying the benefits of Bitcoin for buying and selling trinkets while the underlying core remains defensible.  This would make Bitcoin frighteningly powerful.

A second best which is still pretty good is that Bitcoin at least remains defensible, and is used by people who have a genuine need for such a solution.  This is what the current stalemate indicates.  To me.

[cjmoles]

These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee).

Wut?

The fee market is working perfectly. I pay more, I get a confirmation ahead of those who pay less. I pay less, I wait in line behind those who have paid more.

Oh my, the mayhem of getting what I pay for!

My only concern is that higher fees may impact those who take advantage of the virtues that blockchain technologies provide to the micro-payment markets.  The ability to participate in the micro-payment markets was one of the most appealing features that bitcoin provided.  In fact, some of the value we've realized with our bitcoin investments is due to the micro-markets....Yes, it's nice to have our transactions receive a higher priority by including higher transaction fees....but will the alienation of the micro-payment systems effect the value of the network in the long term?  And, if it continues, will the value of using bitcoin in terms of remittances also be effected?

[PremiumCodeX]

The fees will keep spiking. You could always exchange (to altcoin) and do your transaction in an alternative blockchain, though. As for BTC network, it will thrive. The real power of BTC is in the high volume transactions. It is nice that you could easily earn some satoshis where-ever you live, but technically the fee-increment is unavoidable. It will close some businesses and open others. Smart businesses will adapt.

[tvbcof]

The fees will keep spiking. You could always exchange (to altcoin) and do your transaction in an alternative blockchain, though. As for BTC network, it will thrive. The real power of BTC is in the high volume transactions. It is nice that you could easily earn some satoshis where-ever you live, but technically the fee-increment is unavoidable. It will close some businesses and open others. Smart businesses will adapt.

Beautifully stated!

People who got invested thinking that Bitcoin was something it was not, or thinking it would become what they wanted it to be eventually, were either ignorant or were knowingly taking a risk.  There was a lot of marketing hype back in the day (which continues) so I can see how some people fell for it.  I personally did what I could to call it out.

These people don't necessarily deserved to have everyone bend to their (mis-)conceptions of reality, and especially not when doing so threatens some of Bitcoin's core pillars of strength.  This is particularly true since, as you stated, so many other options exist.

[Windpower]

...

It's chappin' my butt too.  I just paid $0.97 a little while ago, it confirmed right away (first block).  I sent one out yesterday with $0.90 or so, it took a couple of blocks even using ViaBTC's acceleration service (they only take 100 trx per hour though).

This is serious, as there are some wallet addresses that EXPIRE after a certain number of hours, if the trx does not go through, BTC could be lost forever...



EDIT: Interesting observation there, Holliday.

Wow that seems like an extremely high price to be paying just for fees. You should only be paying that amount if you are trying to get it into the next block and confirmed in a very short amount of time. I remember when I would use just a couple of cents as fees on my transactions. Now I am paying upwards of half a dollar, I think that it is absurd to be paying such high fees. But I guess that is how Bitcoin is going to progress and maybe one day go mainstream.

[cjmoles]

The fees will keep spiking. You could always exchange (to altcoin) and do your transaction in an alternative blockchain, though. As for BTC network, it will thrive. The real power of BTC is in the high volume transactions. It is nice that you could easily earn some satoshis where-ever you live, but technically the fee-increment is unavoidable. It will close some businesses and open others. Smart businesses will adapt.

Beautifully stated!

People who got invested thinking that Bitcoin was something it was not, or thinking it would become what they wanted it to be eventually, were either ignorant or were knowingly taking a risk.  There was a lot of marketing hype back in the day (which continues) so I can see how some people fell for it.  I personally did what I could to call it out.

These people don't necessarily deserved to have everyone bend to their (mis-)conceptions of reality, and especially not when doing so threatens some of Bitcoin's core pillars of strength.  This is particularly true since, as you stated, so many other options exist.

Yes....while it's disappointing to some extant, I am going to have to agree.  There are quite a few more functionally viable chains available for which to carry out some of the more utilitarian transactions; Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, Dash...etc.  Bitcoin cannot allow itself to be minimized by the restraints associated with scaling.  Bitcoin is not an efficient enough platform to be utilized as a medium of exchange...It looks like it's main utility is more relevant as a means to store value as opposed to a means to conduct daily business.

[Holliday]

Bitcoin is not an efficient enough platform to be utilized as a medium of exchange...It looks like it's main utility is more relevant as a means to store value as opposed to a means to conduct daily business.

Bingo!

We have mediums of exchange for daily business. Tons of them.

Bitcoin has unique properties which allow for censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. These two things, on the most secure decentralized ledger on the planet, give Bitcoin immense value.

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists!

Every tool can not do every job or you end up with shitty do-it-all tools which might be able to do a few things poorly, but really can do nothing well. Trying to turn Bitcoin into a do-it-all is certainly a recipe for disaster.

[Jasad]

The fees will keep spiking. You could always exchange (to altcoin) and do your transaction in an alternative blockchain, though. As for BTC network, it will thrive. The real power of BTC is in the high volume transactions. It is nice that you could easily earn some satoshis where-ever you live, but technically the fee-increment is unavoidable. It will close some businesses and open others. Smart businesses will adapt.

think about the exchange fee and the price volatile (even for a couple minutes) ,
how much your money will get deducted?
i think the current fee still in the normal limit even you used a dynamic fee ,
i have no big issue with it until right now , too complicated when you have to convert the whole bitcoin to altcoin first.

[tvbcof]

think about the exchange fee and the price volatile (even for a couple minutes) ,
how much your money will get deducted?
i think the current fee still in the normal limit even you used a dynamic fee ,
i have no big issue with it until right now , too complicated when you have to convert the whole bitcoin to altcoin first.

I fail to see why that should be 'complicated'.  At least by the standards that one _should_ be employing to be secure in crypto-currencies generally.  And in fiat-land for that matter.

[Gyrsur]

we all have to pay for the infrastructure with higher fees (decentralized) instead of a few paying to much for full nodes (centralized).

there is no free lunch at all!

[Meuh6879]

Bitcoin is not a socialist utopia. Storing transactions in a decentralized network is expensive. Pay the fee and shut the fuck.

Majority approve this.

[Vaskiy]

we all have to pay for the infrastructure with higher fees (decentralized) instead of a few paying to much for full nodes (centralized).

there is no free lunch at all!

Well explained. When the price increases along with that transaction fee too increases, because the same amount before the increase and after the increase in terms of dollar will different. This doesn't increase the speed of confirmation. An increased fee in terms of bitcoin will make the confirmation fast.

[tvbcof]

The only one who is delusional here is you. Over 90% of all transactions are nowadays confirmed by a dozen (or even less) miners. Now tell us more about decentralization

'mined' != 'confirmed'.  In fact a miner cannot really cheat in major ways if other nodes are doing their jobs properly and not cooperating.  Even if they were cooperating the team could create a god-awful mess and halt the whole system for periods of time, but they cannot steal or lose people's properly secured BTC.

Now if the group of entities who can 'confirm' transactions is small enough they could conspire to keep the system running but discriminate certain transactions.  e.g., transactions which were not deemed 'valid' by the authorities in the jurisdictions in which they operate.  In short, they could create fungibility problems within the currency system and I would go so far as to say that this would be inevitable.  And genuinely destructive to the value and usefulness of the solution.

The very people who were early advocates of extreme growth knew that the system would 'work fine' with only a small integer number of copies of the blockchain, which is necessary for real validation, worldwide.  They were also advocates of various kinds of 'color-listing'.  Extreme blockchain bloat was the path to get to a small enough number of 'confirmers' so that black/white/red-listing was doable.

[deisik]

To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

That feels a little like fighting centralisation by wholeheartedly embracing it in another form.

What I'd really like to see is a functioning Lightning Network just so us little guys can get a feel for what it truly is. Hopefully Litecoin might develop that.

It's also said that we can have a Bitcoin one without Segwit, albeit with vulnerabilities. Perhaps someone should knock something up and let us play with small amounts knowing what the risks are.

I refer exactly to Lightning Network in my post

I just happen to use the terminology of LN opponents here, which consider it as just another form of centralization. But they are short-sighted obviously, and don't understand that even if LN would bring centralization, it will be a centralization which would be working against the centralization we already have, i.e. that of miners (which is far more destructive since you can't evade it). Further, the payment hubs will be vitally interested in processing as many transactions as possible, unlike miners which are interested only in collecting fees by creating artificial competition between senders (that's why they are so strongly opposing any measures that would lead to more transactions per block). Basically, we now have a market of sellers dictating prices (read monopoly, or rather oligopoly), with LN it will be a market of buyers. Miners are evil, and they should be gotten rid of (as what they are now)

[piramida]

People may go ahead and say "well the only people complain are the ones that send around small amount of money" that's a horrid attitude to have when it comes to all of this. If we want Bitcoin to go mainstream this can't occur because lets just say someone wants to buy something for $5.00 do you think they're going to spend 10 percent more to use bitcoin or they're just going to use their credit card or FIAT cash.

You need to think a little bit and then come back here and join the discussion again. It is theoretically impossible to store every transaction ever made by humans in one database synchronized across many thousands of computers in close to real time.

Let's do some first grade math, which you should have done before posting. Humanity as a whole, on an average day today, create several billion transactions (let's say 1 billion for very conservative estimate). Even at 250 bytes per transaction, it is at a minimum 250GB of new data per day or 100TB of new data per year. Data which has to be stored across all miners and nodes, and a significant part of it should be stored in memory. You are starting to see why this is an unrealistic vision?

So given that vertical scaling by just growing block size to infinity is silly / impossible, surely there must be some ways to scale bitcoin, right? As it turns out, there are plenty. LN, Sprite, Mimblewimble just to name the top few.

What is happening with the fees right now is good - it is a pain point, which would help accelerate the move of small / less critical transactions to side chain solutions.

[bryant.coleman]

Bitcoin won't go mainstream until instant transactions are made possible

Hefty transaction fees are actually only a tip of an iceberg. To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

You are absolutely spot on. The miners are harming the reputation of Bitcoin by demanding too much too early. They fail to understand that we need to increase our user-base, before demanding anything from the users. If the transactions are getting confirmed after 2 days or 3 days, then a lot of users may find another method to transfer their funds.