bitcoin fees have quadrupled, and this is just the beginning

[jonald_fyookball]

The question is : Are we paying more, because Bitcoin reached capacity or are we paying more because someone is spamming the network to fake congestion for their hidden agenda? 

Clearly we have reached capacity -- check the size of blocks, they are all 998, 999 etc.

Then why do the miners avoid activating Segwit or do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? Instead it is possible that someone from their side is spamming the network. Did last year's halving hurt their profit and earnings?

There is another thread somewhere, where some are saying "its spam" and others are saying its actually some kind of 'komodo' service (I havent investigated deeply).

In any case, I think if we continue to see periods of congestion become more frequent, and unconfirmed backlogs grow larger, the situation will be brought to a head and something will give one way or another. 

[Mia Wallace]

The question is : Are we paying more, because Bitcoin reached capacity or are we paying more because someone is spamming the network to fake congestion for their hidden agenda? 

Clearly we have reached capacity -- check the size of blocks, they are all 998, 999 etc.

Then why do the miners avoid activating Segwit or do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? Instead it is possible that someone from their side is spamming the network. Did last year's halving hurt their profit and earnings?

It is possible that people who wanted to implement BU or any other BS will be spamming the network to create havoc when the price of the coin is increasing so that the team would be forced to accept to the demands so that they could create a monopoly. Hope these things will be controlled in the future and hope the core team will come up with a solution.

[jonald_fyookball]

It is possible that people who wanted to implement BU or any other BS will be spamming the network to create havoc when the price of the coin is increasing so that the team would be forced to accept to the demands so that they could create a monopoly. Hope these things will be controlled in the future and hope the core team will come up with a solution.

I'm curious why do you feel "BU is BS"?

Why do you assume the core team should be the ones to come up with a solution? 

[Kakmakr]

The question is : Are we paying more, because Bitcoin reached capacity or are we paying more because someone is spamming the network to fake congestion for their hidden agenda? We are still cheaper than most banks and remittance services, but not cheaper than say PayPal.

The fact of the matter is, we are decentralized and our security is much stronger than any of these other alternative out there. ^smile^

Bitcoin isn't headed towards being a payment processor, it is more toward a commodity. I'd be more concerned at $5 fee's per transaction like most trading companies.

Yes, and why is that? Answer : Scaling is stalled to path the way for SegWit & LN. Satoshi did not invent this to be a commodity, he clearly stated in his white paper that this is a A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System --> Source :
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Why do we want to turn this into something else now?

[Holliday]

I'm curious why do you feel "BU is BS"?

Why do you assume the core team should be the ones to come up with a solution? 

On chain scaling isn't a solution, it's a band-aid that comes with nasty side effects. Every full node has to keep a record of every transaction forever. Can't you see that a solution which writes every transaction (coffee purchases!) in the block chain isn't a solution at all?

Core is working on a solution which ultimately involves a layer(s) on top of Bitcoin. This allows the underlying protocol, the thing that gives Bitcoin it's unique properties which in turn gives it immense value, to remain robust to whatever may come in the future should some authority decided that Bitcoin shouldn't be allowed to exist. The less data required to keep the network functioning, the easier it is to defend from an attack. If you think that Bitcoin won't come under attack, in a world where authorities everywhere continue to introduce ever more stringent capital controls, then you are seriously naive. At least we'd have the option to peel back layers should the need arise. We'd also have the ability to upgrade or swap to alternative layers should a better solution come along.

[cryp24x]

At the current exchange rate, the transaction fee is not very high. But ideally, we should aim for more users, more transactions per day, and a moderate increase in  the revenue for the miners. But that is not going to happen if the miners get too greedy. IMO, they should sacrifice some of their revenue now, so that they will get good returns after a few years.

That is one of the points of the argument. The miners will have their greed controlled if Segwit is activated more than if a hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited happens. Who knows what they will do if they have more control in choosing the sizes of the blocks.

I think this is the battle between greed LOL.  The other faction said the opposite faction is greedy and they wanted to reap all the rewards by implementing segwit while the other faction said otherwise.  All I can see, the increase in fee at this point is not because block is full but because miners only picks the transaction that have higher fees.  Who to blame here? The code or the miners?

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm curious why do you feel "BU is BS"?

Why do you assume the core team should be the ones to come up with a solution?  

On chain scaling isn't a solution, it's a band-aid that comes with nasty side effects. Every full node has to keep a record of every transaction forever. Can't you see that a solution which writes every transaction (coffee purchases!) in the block chain isn't a solution at all?

Core is working on a solution which ultimately involves a layer(s) on top of Bitcoin. This allows the underlying protocol, the thing that gives Bitcoin it's unique properties which in turn gives it immense value, to remain robust to whatever may come in the future should some authority decided that Bitcoin shouldn't be allowed to exist. The less data required to keep the network functioning, the easier it is to defend from an attack. If you think that Bitcoin won't come under attack, in a world where authorities everywhere continue to introduce ever more stringent capital controls, then you are seriously naive. At least we'd have the option to peel back layers should the need arise. We'd also have the ability to upgrade or swap to alternative layers should a better solution come along.

This was Satoshi's vision all along -- that eventually full nodes will be costly to run.  However the alternative (what you and Core are promoting) ensures that only institutions will be able to transact on chain.  I don't see how this is any more resistant to external authorities; Indeed, I think I am choosing the lesser of the two evils and perhaps you also believe that you are as well.

[Holliday]

This was Satoshi's vision all along -- that eventually full nodes will be costly to run.  However the alternative (what you and Core are promoting) ensures that only institutions will be able to transact on chain.  I don't see how this is any more resistant to external authorities; Indeed, I think I am choosing the lesser of the two evils and perhaps you also believe that you are as well.

Satoshi disappeared long ago, so let's not appeal to authority. His idea was fantastic, and his implementation was good enough to get the ball rolling, but he made plenty of mistakes. And... again, he isn't here to give us his opinion today, so let's leave him out of it?

How does building layers on top of the protocol make it easy for an external authority to prevent me from transacting on chain? Why will only institutions have this ability?

[rebel69]

im scared the fees are going to keep going up forever

[naughty1]

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees

For much of 2016, fees in total were < 50 BTC/day.  Now, they are over 200.
(that's a 4x increase, not even factoring in the increased bitcoin price!)

For the dumbasses who wanted a "fee market", you got it.  
It will only get worse from here.

Hint:  Unless bandwidth increases, fees will rise to be the same as other alternatives
like paypal,moneygram ,etc, which will destroy the incentive for people
to adopt bitcoin.

using low cost is not an incentive to use Bitcoin. most users will accept Bitcoin with their charges, however, the high cost is not a good thing, I think it will dilute the market distribution, although higher fees are sent faster speeds, but if the cost is increasing, the people we can not meet the needs of its float. Everything will be a lot worse

[Amph]

The question is : Are we paying more, because Bitcoin reached capacity or are we paying more because someone is spamming the network to fake congestion for their hidden agenda? 

Clearly we have reached capacity -- check the size of blocks, they are all 998, 999 etc.

Then why do the miners avoid activating Segwit or do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? Instead it is possible that someone from their side is spamming the network. Did last year's halving hurt their profit and earnings?

uh isn't it clear? miner get more fee and more profit, why should activate segwit? the halving hurt their profit, but it's also because of the halving that they have this higher value of bitcoin

they are indeed making more now than ever, regardless of the difficulty

[pooya87]

The question is : Are we paying more, because Bitcoin reached capacity or are we paying more because someone is spamming the network to fake congestion for their hidden agenda? 

Clearly we have reached capacity -- check the size of blocks, they are all 998, 999 etc.

Then why do the miners avoid activating Segwit or do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? Instead it is possible that someone from their side is spamming the network. Did last year's halving hurt their profit and earnings?

uh isn't it clear? miner get more fee and more profit, why should activate segwit? the halving hurt their profit, but it's also because of the halving that they have this higher value of bitcoin

they are indeed making more now than ever, regardless of the difficulty

at this point it is only greed not profit or survival. if block reward was 3.125BTC and price was still low then it was for profit and from day one it was supposed to be like this, fees go up to compensate for their cost. but right now miners are earning nearly $16,000-$17,000 per block and with the price going up it is already a big profit and covers the costs which is a lot less than this.

[Carlton Banks]

This was Satoshi's vision all along -- that eventually full nodes will be costly to run.  However the alternative (what you and Core are promoting) ensures that only institutions will be able to transact on chain.  I don't see how this is any more resistant to external authorities; Indeed, I think I am choosing the lesser of the two evils and perhaps you also believe that you are as well.

Satoshi disappeared long ago, so let's not appeal to authority. His idea was fantastic, and his implementation was good enough to get the ball rolling, but he made plenty of mistakes. And... again, he isn't here to give us his opinion today, so let's leave him out of it?

How does building layers on top of the protocol make it easy for an external authority to prevent me from transacting on chain? Why will only institutions have this ability?

In reality (not jonald fyookball's favourite venue), 2nd layers take the capacity burden away from the on-chain 1st layer, so he'll be able to pay < 10,000 satoshis for his frapuccinos when he could have paid 1 satoshi on a 2nd layer just fine.

It's what's known as "healthy competition", competition that strengthens the Bitcoin network instead of weakening it.

[severaldetails]

I think bitcoin can be either a payment system or a commodity/investment. But it's be difficult to be both.
Maybe bitcoin will really be part of several funds in the near future (etf).
Then the average amount in a transaction will rise a lot, even to a point where 5$ fees per transaction does not matter.
But in such a case bitcoin can't be used as a payment system anymore.
I am really wondering how this is going to play out..

[Pettuh4]

I think bitcoin can be either a payment system or a commodity/investment. But it's be difficult to be both.
Maybe bitcoin will really be part of several funds in the near future (etf).
Then the average amount in a transaction will rise a lot, even to a point where 5$ fees per transaction does not matter.
But in such a case bitcoin can't be used as a payment system anymore.
I am really wondering how this is going to play out..

Yes that's why I agree with the OP for the call for an increase in the block size because the fees are killing our incentives for Bitcoin as a payment system. It's rising gradually and we seem to have list our way for what Bitcoin was meant to be. We need to find our way back and make transaction fees as affordable and low as possible for us to enjoy that financial freedom Bitcoin was created to bring.

[blksith0]

I agree with the OP. It is time to unite as one and let our voices be heard in support of Segwit and later an implementation of a network built on top of Bitcoin for offchain transactions. The OP may have a different view of how scalability can be acheived but the aim and sincerity is the same. We want Bitcoin to be better.

>We want Bitcoin to be better

Aren't there later-generation coins that fix problems in BTC like this one?

Or is this something that all altcoins would eventually face?

I feel like eventually we have to look in a mirror and look where the long-term trends are going with tx-fees and comfirmation times, uncomfirmed transactions, etc.
What coin will fix these issues?

[megynacuna]

It's gradually getting  out of hands and if something isn't done to salvage an incentive of Bitcoin (low fees) then we are all going to abandon it one day. How can you charge so huge for a little transaction yet with acsekwy d confirmation so where lies our financial freedom we sought for with the introduction of Bitcoin. If this persists Bitcoin might not be different from the other already established systems like PayPal.

[numismatist]

Aren't there later-generation coins that fix problems in BTC like this one?

There are several schools of thought.

When you are supplying a scarce resource of limited size, there will be no end in escalation fighting for that space. Small blocksize, high fees, further escalating. That's drawing away customers they will discover cheaper to use money transfer possibilities.

If you are supplying unlimited resource you will just run into the tragedy of the commons. So there has to be a fixed rate at least to avoid getting spammed straight into the ground.

There seemingly isn't any possible way to offer cheap or even for free resource. People of the sorts like PayPal or Western Union will sniff out their chances of undercutting Bitcoin with ease.

[Xester]

It's gradually getting  out of hands and if something isn't done to salvage an incentive of Bitcoin (low fees) then we are all going to abandon it one day. How can you charge so huge for a little transaction yet with acsekwy d confirmation so where lies our financial freedom we sought for with the introduction of Bitcoin. If this persists Bitcoin might not be different from the other already established systems like PayPal.

The problem is with the mining situation in the bitcoin industry. There are no solutions made to increase the mining blocksize up to this moment and such fees are increasing again and soon small time users will no longer have that privilege to use bitcoin since the miner fees are much bigger than their balance. Hope the mining situation will be answered and the mining fee will reduce back to normal rates.

[Dudeperfect]

The increase in bandwidth is MUST at this stage because no one would pay such high fees every time. There are plenty of things available at the price of current average bitcoin transaction fees so technically using fiat currencies is more profitable at this moment especially on local level. Being a bitcoin fan I would use bitcoin for some time until it is not putting a hole in my pocket and I guess everyone other will do the same.