Insanely high miner fees

[Chikako]

its not like there is something wrong with the wallet,it is common and this system is wrong.It depends on the no. of inputs and outputs craeated,in mycelium wallet it is 139 satoshi per byte at normal i.e. 30 mins,this is a huge amount even if u go to transact 3.7 usd it would take u 4.2 usd now imagine this for a 1000usd,this is the trend mate we need to rise against this

You seem to understand that is is about the inputs and outputs... but don't seem to understand how the fees are calculated? It has NOTHING to do with the "dollar" amount being sent in the transaction. It is purely related to "data size" of the transaction.

If you have a "standard" transaction with 1 input and 1 output... it will be around 192 bytes in size... I could be sending $1,000,000 worth of BTC or I could be sending $1 worth of bitcoin, it is still 192 bytes... and so if I pay the "normal" fee, it will cost 192 bytes * 130 sats/byte = ~25,000 satoshis...

Now, if you try to create a transaction like the OP did here, that has 20+ inputs because you've been collecting faucet payouts... all of a sudden, your simple transaction is now 3500 bytes or larger...

3500 bytes * 130 sats/byte = 455,000 satoshis... again, it doesn't matter if I'm sending 1000 BTC or 0.011 BTC, if the data size of my transaction is 3500 bytes because it has a lot of inputs and/or outputs in it, then the total fee required will be large.

Don't like the miner fees? Support bigger blocks.

If you don't like miner fees, support SegWit and help get the Lightning Network up and running... then you can start sending your dust size transactions around for minimal fees off-chain... and you're likely to never have to worry about the miners fees again

This is stupid, anyone supporting trasactions offchain are supporting not a crypto-currency, neither a blockchain coin, they are supporting a useless digital currency scheme just as paypal, liberty reserve or anyone of those failed payment systems where anyone could issue an unlimited amount of currency.

The only solution is to scale on-chain, if you can't do it then let the ones who can do it do the job, because I see plenty of cryptos with bigger blocks and smaller txs fees.

Core Devs triying to fix Bitcoin with off-chain txs is like triying to fix the hole in the tire of your car by changing it for a wooden wheel instead of just patching it.

[1714825277]

1714825277

[1714825277]

1714825277

[-ck]

The only solution is to scale on-chain, if you can't do it then let the ones who can do it do the job, because I see plenty of cryptos with bigger blocks and smaller txs fees.

So scaling by making the blocks bigger is a solution so that you can put every cup of coffee transaction into the block chain? How much will fix it? 2MB? 4, 8, 16, 32? If you really wanted every coffee purchase to go into the blockchain you'd need approximately 2GB PER BLOCK. That means you're proposing a solution where the blockchain eventually grows at 2 terrabytes per week. Sure, we're not going to put every coffee purchase into the block chain today, but what if there was a solution that actually allowed you to do it? We're looking to create a transaction system that replaces the existing monetary one, not just supplement it. Note, I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't make the block size bigger, just that your solution doesn't fix microtransaction scaling. Off chain microtransactions (and note that LN as proposed will only allow transactions up to 0.0042 BTC so it IS being designed with per-coffee transactions) require an on-chain transaction to open the channel. Now if you really don't want bitcoin to be able to handle coffee sized transactions in one way or another, then that's a different argument all together. However it really doesn't matter what you want, LN will be implemented regardless on either core as is at the moment, segwit core or BU. There's nothing to stop an off chain payment channel system from being developed that works. Everyone is concentrating on segwit as though it's what will make LN possible - it improves what can be done with LN but there's nothing preventing LN being developed even with the current blockchain.

[HCP]

This is stupid, anyone supporting trasactions offchain are supporting not a crypto-currency, neither a blockchain coin, they are supporting a useless digital currency scheme just as paypal, liberty reserve or anyone of those failed payment systems where anyone could issue an unlimited amount of currency.

Ummm what?? 

You realise that to be able to transfer coins in off-chain transactions, you first need to front the coins in an on-chain transaction right? You don't get to magically start sending coins to people because you feel like it... and the LN participants can't just issue coins to people from nothing.

....
Everyone is concentrating on segwit as though it's what will make LN possible - it improves what can be done with LN but there's nothing preventing LN being developed even with the current blockchain.

I thought the difficulty in implementing the LN was due to the malleability issue (one of the things which SegWit addresses) ??

[-ck]

....
Everyone is concentrating on segwit as though it's what will make LN possible - it improves what can be done with LN but there's nothing preventing LN being developed even with the current blockchain.

I thought the difficulty in implementing the LN was due to the malleability issue (one of the things which SegWit addresses) ??

Correct it will be limited in feature set without segwit because of the malleability issue but that doesn't mean LN can't be implemented.

[jubalix]

The fees are really painful.

Been seeing some 2BTC transactions having to pay 0.0006BTC fees, and 5BTC transactions were 0.002+BTC fees.

No wonder Jihad & Roger want this to last as long as possible, the mining farms are making a bomb.

but this does not make sense increase block size increase adoption, get way more even at lower fees?

[fanita]

What is the cheapest if all there is a very high increment fee

[SvenBomvolen]

You have to be careful with all your transactions and check the sum in the beginning and after all counted fees before to finish the operation. Last time i was trying to cush out pretty big sum of money and cause of some site's problem when I wanted to cash out 10000 after all fees the final sum was just 1000! maybe cause of slow internet or slow work of the site, thenks God i looked carefuly on the transaction numbers and noticed it in time. So I have waited a bit and tried again and everything passed nicely 

[cryptoanarchist]

This is probably why bigger blocks are now supported by majority hashrate:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

My question to miners especially, and other users is why do we need to wait until 75%? If the majority hashrate forks the chain the capped minority chain will be forced to switch or become a useless network. They will be mining worthless coins.

[Syke]

My question to miners especially, and other users is why do we need to wait until 75%? If the majority hashrate forks the chain the capped minority chain will be forced to switch or become a useless network. They will be mining worthless coins.

So many reasons, but I'll mention just one. Hysteresis. With a couple lucky blocks, fork A could become the majority, then a couple lucky blocks fork B could become the majority. It would be chaos while miners switch back and forth between forks to try to stay on the winning fork.

[WarrEagle]

Your wallet tries to put your transaction as a high priority one based on current market standards. You coyld always pick a different wallet that'd let you pick smaller fees by hand but that wouldn't guarantee transactions confirming on a timely manner.

Back in the early days, pre 2016 or so. Micro payments were not a big deal.

[BigBall]

Wooow  so big fee omg now I know that I dont need to do some retarded small transactions because later it will cost me more then I earned with that transactions.

[mr.relax]

The thing is very easy: Increasing size will not be a solution, only temporarily.
We should accept that bitcoins Blockchain is not made for some million transactions a day.
So time for micropayment is over  and fees will be high.

Even bigger blocksize wins only a few months time but centralizes nodes forever.
This makes BTC unsafe!

For Micropayment we dont need blockchains that are secured with that energy.
Altcoins are good enough for that.

Nobody would pay a drink with  precious gold.
But many people invest high sums in gold. 10 gold-trades in a lifetime are enough.

Daily payments are not good with bitcoin.
Or, better said: they are not good if they are on any blockchain.
So now its time for service agencies to provide more offchain-crypto-solutions.
Given excample: Inside LBC or Xapo, you can send coins offchain from one user to another.
But there is a trust in the company necessary, other if onchain. No problem, if its micropayment...

[carlfebz2]

Wooow  so big fee omg now I know that I dont need to do some retarded small transactions because later it will cost me more then I earned with that transactions.

There are no dumb people would make such micro transaction which the fee is high because it will surely compromise the profit on that certain transaction specially when you do have online deals with other people and stuff.Its better to wait for those amount to be piled up and send it on bulk amounts so that you wont really feel too much the high fee when you do tend to send the amount on other wallet.

[Remainder]

Wooow  so big fee omg now I know that I dont need to do some retarded small transactions because later it will cost me more then I earned with that transactions.

There are no dumb people would make such micro transaction which the fee is high because it will surely compromise the profit on that certain transaction specially when you do have online deals with other people and stuff.Its better to wait for those amount to be piled up and send it on bulk amounts so that you wont really feel too much the high fee when you do tend to send the amount on other wallet.

that is true just send big amount in every transaction in order to save fees.
don't transact small amount.

[Eternad]

Wooow  so big fee omg now I know that I dont need to do some retarded small transactions because later it will cost me more then I earned with that transactions.

There are no dumb people would make such micro transaction which the fee is high because it will surely compromise the profit on that certain transaction specially when you do have online deals with other people and stuff.Its better to wait for those amount to be piled up and send it on bulk amounts so that you wont really feel too much the high fee when you do tend to send the amount on other wallet.

that is true just send big amount in every transaction in order to save fees.
don't transact small amount.

No matter how big or small the amount you are going to transact, The fee still a percentage of the total amount so can't save fees by just sending in bulk. The best way to avoid expensive fee of bitcoin is to change currency. Ethereum is more faster and cheaper compare to bitcoin. And many site are already adapted this currency.

[HCP]

No matter how big or small the amount you are going to transact, The fee still a percentage of the total amount so can't save fees by just sending in bulk. The best way to avoid expensive fee of bitcoin is to change currency. Ethereum is more faster and cheaper compare to bitcoin. And many site are already adapted this currency.

Well that is just wrong... the fee is not a percentage of the total amount at all... in fact, it has NOTHING to do with the amount of bitcoins you are trying to move.

Miner's Fees are measured in "satoshis per byte"... it is the data size of the transaction that is important. If you have a transaction involving 1 input and 1 output, it could be as small as 192 bytes... you could send some HUGE amount like 1000 BTC... and you'd only need to pay 192 * whatever the current recommended fee is... so if it was like today and 450 sats/byte... you'd want to pay 192 * 450 = 86400 sats = 0.00086400 BTC.

However, if you were collecting all your faucet dust and had 15 inputs and 1 output, your transaction would likely be closer to 2250 bytes... so to send your 0.01 BTC of faucet dust you'd be paying 2250 * 450 = 1,018,800 sats = 0.01018800 BTC... that's right, you'd be paying MORE in fees than what you are trying to send...

Paying in bulk helps reduce "some" of the overhead of numerous inputs/outputs... and it will certainly reduce the number of change addresses/UTXOs that you generate... but if you collect dust, you're going to get slammed sooner or later...

[minhlong357200]

This "too many inputs" concept itself is absurd. What the fuck it has to do with the inputs in the first place? Why did they design it that way?

So if a merchant who sells hundreds of coffees every day for 5$ and accepts bitcoins as payment basically has no choice but to get fucked? Sounds retarded.

[-ck]

This "too many inputs" concept itself is absurd. What the fuck it has to do with the inputs in the first place? Why did they design it that way?

So if a merchant who sells hundreds of coffees every day for 5$ and accepts bitcoins as payment basically has no choice but to get fucked? Sounds retarded.

Every input makes the transaction larger. Since blockspace is a finite entity and costs the network to use up and mine into, the more inputs the more it costs the whole network to mine your transaction. Just look at the blocksize issues we're all discussing at the moment and see why that matters and how transaction size based fees are appropriate in light of that...

If you want every cup of coffee purchased mined into the blockchain a'la visa worldwide, each block would be around 2GB at the moment instead of 1MB.

[mr.relax]

There are surveys that show that the number of unvoluntary forks, that means unvalid blocks, rises with the size of the blocks. It is not possible so scale the blocks bigger if needed.Well 2MB would make no big difference, but 20MB would.
And we would reach filled 20MB-Blocks very soon, if they were possible now.
If too much car traffic is on the streets, it does not help to build new streets as city developpment shows. It helps to build other concepts of traffic like public transport.

The probably only solution are offline transactions or using multiple blockchains, wich means many different coins.

[Qartersa]

I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the jaxx wallet. It may have been collecting unconscionable fees, but it is perfectly working out just fine. It is just that mining fees get really costly nowadays because of too much Bitcoin transactions. Miners would have to work tirelessly just so all transactions will be as smooth as possible.