price at all time high while utility at all time low

[jonald_fyookball]

while investors grin about the high price, bitcoin users suffer high fees and long
wait times...

Very sad that the community cannot seem to organize itself out from under
the entrenched tyranny of the "core" developers, a group closely tied to
blockstream, who has accepted millions of dollars in venture capital and
whose agenda is at odds with the common good.

Most people who are relatively influential in Bitcoin who have to suffer from the smaller block sizes and longer wait times are miners, and then you have the rest of us who are just running around and using Bitcoin in whatever way we want, and we feel the strain on everything as well.

Traders, the people with a lot of money in Bitcoin and a fair amount of influence, never worry about this stuff because they typically just operate within exchanges. It isn't an issue to them.

When it becomes an issue for them, then we can see something happen.

You are correct.  Perhaps when the tides of sentiment change because investors are spooked
due to a clogged network and the price crashses, will people finally say 'enough is enough'.

Maybe these high prices are giving people a false sense of security.

[South Park]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

[tvbcof]

...

Maybe these high prices are giving people a false sense of security.

Or maybe it's demonstrating that the 'free shit army' are a bunch of ass-clowns who have little or no understanding of economics, systems analysis, etc.  They are vocal however.  I'll give them that.

[jonald_fyookball]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

High fees do not solve the problem.  At some point they will be so high that it makes more sense to use paypal.
No matter how high the fees go, it doesnt increase bandwidth.

Bitcoin must increase bandwidth or it will die.

[Dudeperfect]

I think the price would rise by further 20% to 30% if they take efforts for reducing high fees and the confirmation time. No one likes to wait to get their transaction confirmed but at the same time paying high fees is not a good option to go with (especially when we have lot more strangers to reach). I would say if we are finding any concrete solution on this issue then it will have long-term positive impact on the bitcoin.

[piramida]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

High fees do not solve the problem.  At some point they will be so high that it makes more sense to use paypal.
No matter how high the fees go, it doesnt increase bandwidth.

Bitcoin must increase bandwidth or it will die.

At some point they will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

[bitbob82]

I think the price would rise by further 20% to 30% if they take efforts for reducing high fees and the confirmation time. No one likes to wait to get their transaction confirmed but at the same time paying high fees is not a good option to go with (especially when we have lot more strangers to reach). I would say if we are finding any concrete solution on this issue then it will have long-term positive impact on the bitcoin.

yes that proble is needed to be solve without increasing the fee. people want the transaction to be conform and specially those people who are using bitcoin in their local shops because they cannot wait for a long time in the shops for the conformation.

[jonald_fyookball]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

High fees do not solve the problem.  At some point they will be so high that it makes more sense to use paypal.
No matter how high the fees go, it doesnt increase bandwidth.

Bitcoin must increase bandwidth or it will die.

At some point they will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

Side channels are not ready yet and meanwhile there is already a backlog of transactions TODAY causing users to experience heavy delays.
I guess such an obvious reality is way above your level of comprehension?

[countryfree]

All-time-high transactions/day = All-time-high utility

More transactions than ever, and jonald is arguing that this is worse than having 0 transactions/day? hmmmm

You just need to compare with the past to see that the present isn't so good.
When I joined the BTC bandwagon, transactions were faster to confirm than today, and fees were much, much lower. So logic says the price of BTC should be lower.

[piramida]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

High fees do not solve the problem.  At some point they will be so high that it makes more sense to use paypal.
No matter how high the fees go, it doesnt increase bandwidth.

Bitcoin must increase bandwidth or it will die.

At some point they will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

Side channels are not ready yet and meanwhile there is already a backlog of transactions TODAY causing users to experience heavy delays.
I guess such an obvious reality is way above your level of comprehension?

I have sent 15 transactions yesterday with high or standard fee, and all of them got through in under one hour. Tell me, why should I care about a backlog of spam transactions? Is that your primary idea that all spam transactions should go through immediately and be forever stored in the blockchain? I must say that such an idea is pretty idiotic.

Fees are high because users see so much value in what bitcoin offers that they are ready to pay such high fees. Securely sending one million abroad for 60 cents beats any other form of payment invented by man by several orders of magnitude, so people use it, plain and simple.

[Roboabhishek]

Totally agreed on this topic bitcoin price is rising and i think it might go 1500+ USD / BTC But sadly fee is high and even after that people don't get confirmations fast enough to get started with.
On most of the websites withdraw fee is 20k satoshi & 30k sat.

[Holliday]

Wut?

I don't make a lot of Bitcoin transactions (it's ridiculous to think it's well suited for mundane, daily purchases) but I made a few during the peak of this latest transaction spam. Every single one was confirmed in the next block and I used the same fee I was using since 2011.

This uproar is either bullshit from people who have an agenda or flailing from morons who think taking up a bunch of block space by combining tons of their ridiculous sig spam earnings so they can buy a coffee while not paying the miners for securing the network should have as much priority as high value, single input transactions with healthy fees. Give it a rest already.

L2Bitcoin...

you were just lucky because using 10k satoshi as a fee now would make your transaction going directly in the queue, you won't get any confirmation if not after many hours, this is more ture now with this spam or flooding or whatever it is

Luck had nothing to do with it and if you read my post you would see that I made the transactions during the peak of the most recent spam-fest.

I went here: http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/

Clicked on: Fee - kB/btc - within n blocks

Double checked the mempool on my node (since I don't forward spam, I know exactly how many transactions there are with fees above a certain point).

Decided on how fast I wanted it confirmed, and paid the appropriate fee. The fee was tiny because I wasn't crafting a transaction with a bunch of minuscule inputs and outputs, so it was small (in bytes).

It's so easy a caveman could do it. It's called taking responsibility for your transaction instead of letting software do it for you.

If you want to ignore that responsibility for the oh-so-sought-after convenience, then you will cross your fingers and deal with the consequences.

[piramida]

Wut?

I don't make a lot of Bitcoin transactions (it's ridiculous to think it's well suited for mundane, daily purchases) but I made a few during the peak of this latest transaction spam. Every single one was confirmed in the next block and I used the same fee I was using since 2011.

This uproar is either bullshit from people who have an agenda or flailing from morons who think taking up a bunch of block space by combining tons of their ridiculous sig spam earnings so they can buy a coffee while not paying the miners for securing the network should have as much priority as high value, single input transactions with healthy fees. Give it a rest already.

L2Bitcoin...

you were just lucky because using 10k satoshi as a fee now would make your transaction going directly in the queue, you won't get any confirmation if not after many hours, this is more ture now with this spam or flooding or whatever it is

Luck had nothing to do with it and if you read my post you would see that I made the transactions during the peak of the most recent spam-fest.

I went here: http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/

Clicked on: Fee - kB/btc - within n blocks

Double checked the mempool on my node (since I don't forward spam, I know exactly how many transactions there are with fees above a certain point).

Decided on how fast I wanted it confirmed, and paid the appropriate fee. The fee was tiny because I wasn't crafting a transaction with a bunch of minuscule inputs and outputs, so it was small (in bytes).

It's so easy a caveman could do it. It's called taking responsibility for your transaction instead of letting software do it for you.

If you want to ignore that responsibility for the oh-so-sought-after convenience, then you will cross your fingers and deal with the consequences.

Nice to see somebody with a brain on here for a change!

Funny thing is that most modern wallets automatically do that calculation, I had no problem sending from several wallets on automatic fee yesterday. I really do think that people complaining here are either paid to do so (as an asset to the spam attack, which otherwise makes no impact, you also need some trolls to post FUD), or spend so much time trolling that they didn't update their wallet software since 2013.

[greatr]

What would be the best way to fix this?

There is not a definitive answer to that, some solutions have been proposed, one has been implemented, segwit, but it still needs to be activated, but I don't see it gaining the support of 95% of the miners, so I think we will have to suffer this highs fees for quite some time.

Yeah as the time passes by it becomes more and more obvious that it is nearly impossible to achieve the 95% agreement on segwit, but I am curious what will then happen because we will surely need to do something about the block size capacity as soon as possible in order for bitcoin not to suffer.

Totally agreed on this topic bitcoin price is rising and i think it might go 1500+ USD / BTC But sadly fee is high and even after that people don't get confirmations fast enough to get started with.
On most of the websites withdraw fee is 20k satoshi & 30k sat.

Of course it can, the sky is the limit and the price might even double in like a year as it has happened before, and i hope that it will happen in the future as well, also the fees for transactions are still not disastrous so we don't need to worry about it too much just right now.

[cryp24x]

I fully agree, the high fees will bite Bitcoin in the ass sometime. The sad thing is that this could've been avoided easily.

Quick confirmation times and low fees should be top priority imo.

Precisely but I don't know why greed and personal gains has been prioritized to cause the down fall of Bitcoin. If the core developers and miners had the common good of the community at heart I don't think this would be happening.

Humans are vulnerable to greed.  If one pool of miner offers a confirmation service with low tx fee, just like what viabtc is doing (though I hope they up the hourly transaction cap limit for tx accelerator)  I am sure this miner that are high fee hunters will be forced to reduce their tx fee charge.  But it seems miners are in a consensus to up their requirement for tx fee confirmation.

[piramida]

I fully agree, the high fees will bite Bitcoin in the ass sometime. The sad thing is that this could've been avoided easily.

Quick confirmation times and low fees should be top priority imo.

Precisely but I don't know why greed and personal gains has been prioritized to cause the down fall of Bitcoin. If the core developers and miners had the common good of the community at heart I don't think this would be happening.

Humans are vulnerable to greed.  If one pool of miner offers a confirmation service with low tx fee, just like what viabtc is doing (though I hope they up the hourly transaction cap limit for tx accelerator)  I am sure this miner that are high fee hunters will be forced to reduce their tx fee charge.  But it seems miners are in a consensus to up their requirement for tx fee confirmation.

You don't think that viabtc operates out of good will This is a self-promotion tactic, costing them almost nothing. Every miner operates greedily, you just don't always see their end goal. Like in this case, they are trying to push big blocks because the businesses they are invested in win from on-chain scaling. That's it.

[nyanhtet]

Exactly. My transaction took 2/3 days. How ppl will use these bad service as over $1000?

[Peter R]

At some point [fees] will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

Even with sidechains or LN, the cost to run a node will still significantly increase if we on board hundreds of millions of new users.  The reason is because every Bitcoin user needs to control at least 1 unspent output (and probably more like 5 or 20 or 50 to achieve their desired level of privacy).  This implies that, certeris paribus, the size of the UTXO set scales with the number of users.  Even if LN and sidechains were handling 90% of transactions, maintaining a 100 GB UTXO database would not be feasible on low-cost hardware like a raspberry-pi.  

Given the above, should we attempt to slow the growth of Bitcoin's user base, if the alternative is a rise in the cost to run a node?

[piramida]

At some point [fees] will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

Even with sidechains or LN, the cost to run a node will still significantly increase if we on board hundreds of millions of new users.  The reason is because every Bitcoin user needs to control at least 1 unspent output (and probably more like 5 or 20 or 50 to achieve their desired level of privacy).  This implies that, certeris paribus, the size of the UTXO set scales with the number of users.  Even if LN and sidechains were handling 90% of transactions, maintaining a 100 GB UTXO database would not be feasible on low-cost hardware like a raspberry-pi.  

Given the above, should we attempt to slow growth of Bitcoin's user base, if the alternative is a rise in the cost to run a node?

We at least must do what we can to stop UTXO set growth while solutions to the dust outputs are being worked on by the core. It would definitely still grow, but I expect a pruning algorithm would be available soon (TXs which have low probability of being spent will be reorganized from memory to disk). If we allow it to grow uncontrollably though, we are not talking raspberry pi anymore, most real full nodes would have to shut down.

So limiting spam spends and working on efficient storage of UTXO could allow the set to grow without outpacing hardware growth.

[AgentofCoin]

At some point [fees] will be so high that people would stop trying to send $1 on chain and will turn to side channels. Which do increase "bandwidth" infinitely. But I know it's way above your level of forward thinking, so keep trolling.

Even with sidechains or LN, the cost to run a node will still significantly increase if we on board hundreds of millions of new users.  The reason is because every Bitcoin user needs to control at least 1 unspent output (and probably more like 5 or 20 or 50 to achieve their desired level of privacy).  This implies that, certeris paribus, the size of the UTXO set scales with the number of users.  Even if LN and sidechains were handling 90% of transactions, maintaining a 100 GB UTXO database would not be feasible on low-cost hardware like a raspberry-pi.  

Given the above, should we attempt to slow the growth of Bitcoin's user base, if the alternative is a rise in the cost to run a node?

Interjecting here.

Yes. Bitcoin's novel system should not be sacrificed for increased financial gain.
Hundreds of millions of users on chain is not likely to survive right now or soon.
Bitcoin is a balancing act and it should do so over time.

Though you are correct in your assessment, I believe right now in time, we need
to improve many aspects of the network and its dependent systems to be able to
achieve the ideal of what the Bitcoin Network could become.

The answer is not "one or the other", the answer is "one now and other later".
I want on-chain scaling without any sacrifices to decentralization or unregulatiability.
The only way I can see that happen is over time with new answers and technology.

We all want the same thing, but some sacrifices are too big at this point in time, IMO.