bitcoin fees have quadrupled, and this is just the beginning

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

[Carlton Banks]

Earth to jonald fyookball: infinity isn't real, do you read me, jonald fyookball

[lottery248]

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.

Except Paypal, moneygram and etc are different styles and you know that, you are comparing payment processors to something which I think is more like an etf (I know a listed ETF is coming but that is besides the point), bitcoin went the route of digital gold instead of a shopping payment method, this is because without changes its current path is the digital gold. We know this won't change because you can't get the Bitcoin community to vote on changing anything, fees will increase and block size will stay the same, an altcoin will be the fiat replacement, in my mine most likely dash.

i guess China is not gonna so do the whole bitcoin. their mining equipment would be abandoned if they could not have sufficient profits upon mining. that's why there is a certain alternative to challenge bitcoin - so bitcoin will have less of that burden if some altcoin becomes popular.

[AgentofCoin]

...
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.

Low fees is not an incentive to use something like Bitcoin/bitcoin.
If you are only using bitcoin for the low fees, you are missing the point.

Satoshi didn't start this for low fees, he did it for paradigm shifts.

Fees are base. Liberty is everything.

[jonald_fyookball]

...
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.

Low fees is not an incentive to use something like Bitcoin/bitcoin.
If you are only using bitcoin for the low fees, you are missing the point.

Satoshi didn't start this for low fees, he did it for paradigm shifts.

Fees are base. Liberty is everything.

i agree but the masses do not understand liberty, all they care about is money.

[Meuh6879]

At the begin, they have nothing.
And at the end, the fees will replace the network reward.

no problem here, only the rules.





mathematics rules ... not humans rules.
all users PAY THE FEES.
and it's good : http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/ ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM )

[Yakamoto]

This is definitely an interesting development, I have a feeling a lot of the spam attacks might be orchestrated by a source that benefits directly or is removed by a degree or two from high fees.

It's a cascading effect, if the fees ever start to get low again they can just have another attack and push it back up to maintain average priority costs.

Genius in one way, when you think about it.

[cpfreeplz]

It's still cheaper than paying a flat fee for bank accounts (where I'm from anyway). It costs money to move money. Who cares. It's still very cheap if you're sending it around the world.

[lottery248]

It's still cheaper than paying a flat fee for bank accounts (where I'm from anyway). It costs money to move money. Who cares. It's still very cheap if you're sending it around the world.

that's because bitcoin is mainly using a flat fee rather than in percent. resulting  a situation that low-amount transactions have relatively high fees.
high transaction fees also encourage the consideration of the necessity upon sending, and to sustain the security of bitcoin by keeping sufficient fees to miners to maintain. lower fees can increase the speed of spending yet less people could sustain the larger blockchain size.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

[pooya87]

And at the end, the fees will replace the network reward.

no problem here, only the rules.

did you just contradict yourself
this is not the end! the fees are supposed to go up when miners stop earning 15,000 USD per block and have to compensate for their costs with the fees.
right now we are paying them more than they deserve and that is why they are not adopting any of the solutions.

<3 Snowpiercer

[maku]

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.

I understand your point of view and support it, but realistically speaking, if you were mining BTC would you reduce the fees?
Miners know that they are monopolizing the market and there is no competition so they chose to exploit that fact and get rich here and now.
Their line of thought is probably something like this: "Why wait for the unknown future, China might ban BTC or worse. We can earn money today!"
Do you think Chinese bitcoin miners care about ideals and future?

[VanDeinsberg12]

It looks like we will touch the ATH of the bitcoin transaction fees. 

Do you think Chinese bitcoin miners care about ideals and future?

NO!!!!! This an evidence.
https://coin.dance/blocks
They're too greedy for earning the fees. That's why I hate the rules of the consensus. Those people with a lot of the power can be disrupting the consensus. The consensus is the critical point to prevent the future of bitcoin.

[The_Dark_Knight]

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.

I understand your point of view and support it, but realistically speaking, if you were mining BTC would you reduce the fees?
Miners know that they are monopolizing the market and there is no competition so they chose to exploit that fact and get rich here and now.
Their line of thought is probably something like this: "Why wait for the unknown future, China might ban BTC or worse. We can earn money today!"
Do you think Chinese bitcoin miners care about ideals and future?

I don't think they use that complex thinking, they use the simple reasoning of a monopoly, since they are the ones maintaining the network they can charge whatever they feel like, and they are not going to accept anything less than that.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

[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^

[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.

[Holliday]

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

Yesterday, when the spam was in the off position, there were plenty which weren't full.

[Wind_FURY]

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?