Bitcoin transasction time and fees - What are the solutions ?

[Cryptolator]

The current unconfirmed transaction growing like crazy.

I would like to know what are the current solution that are available and how and when they could be implemented.

What are the solutions to lower the transaction fee that are currently really high.

I've looked around the forum for answers, but it just confused me more.

So if you could brief up what options are on the table, what will be done, what can be done, and when it could be done, I'm sure that would be some really useful information for a lot of people.


Edit, May 21st, 2017:

So, for the moment, I see that those are the options available to fix those problems:



SegWit (Segregated Witness)

The changes brought by SegWit are:

-Malleability Fixes
-Linear scaling of sighash operations
-Signing of input values
-Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
-Script versioning
-Reducing UTXO growth
-Efficiency gains when not verifying signatures
-Block capacity/size increase
-Moving towards a single combined block limit

SegWit would need 95% of the miner approval in order to be implemented.

Currently, there is around 33% approval as you can see here:
http://segwit.co

More information about SegWit can be found here:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Lightning Network

The changes brought by Lightning Network are:

-Instant Payments.
Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times.

- Scalability.
Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network.

-Low Cost.
By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments.

-Cross Blockchains.
Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules.

More information about Lightning Network can be found here:
https://lightning.network

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Bitcoin Unlimited

The changes brought by Bitcoin Unlimited:

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to upgrade Bitcoin Core into a client that processes bitcoin transactions into blocks with a potential maximum size greater than the Core's hard-coded limit of one megabyte. Per the advocates of the change, a block size increase is needed in order to avoid a workflow bottleneck due to the number of transactions made as bitcoin adoption increases.

With Bitcoin Unlimited, miners are independently able to configure the size of the blocks they will validate. The software allows the users to adjust it and select the size of blocks they produce. It also allows nodes to choose the size of the block they accept. By default this is set at 16 megabytes. And lastly, it implements a consensus strategy by retroactively accepting larger blocks if a majority of other miners have done so.

Miners using Bitcoin Unlimited continue to process regular-sized blocks but as soon as a block larger than 1 MB is mined, they will follow the chain containing the most work.

Bitcoin Unlimited continues the transaction capacity increase method bitcoin used for much of its existence. Business analyst and cryptoanalyst Eli Avram claimed that 'The "1000000" (1MB), number that Satoshi input into the code follows no real decision point, but rather, a simple round numbered limit, that was never supposed to be reached. Except that we did reach that number, and as a result, many users are now paying well over 1USD per transaction.

Bitcoin Unlimited seems to be a real dividing subject amongst the community and some peoples are scared it would give too much power to the miner itself. Others think the software creator are not up to par with the Bitcoin Core team in term of coding capacity and that the current software is far from being ready.


More information about Bitcoin Unlimited can be found here:
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faq

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Those are the current proposal I've seen and I plan to update and correct the OP by reading this thread carefully.

I am learning a lot right now and I like it and I hope this thread will be useful for peoples to get informations on what is planned and the solutions available for the future of Bitcoin.

[1713576162]

1713576162

[Kakmakr]

Well, there are options on the table like SegWit < temporary relief > and then Lightning Network < permanent solution > that has to be accepted by the people that are running the Bitcoin software. < Full nodes > Fortunately for us, Satoshi has built in a CONSENSUS system that prevents "bad" people from implementing "bad" code without the consensus from the Bitcoin community and this is currently in process. < They need to decide what solution are the best and signal for the change to be implemented >

To complicate things, Bitcoin Unlimited has also added their suggestion to solve the problem and people now have more options to chose from. ^grrrrrr^ Too many options complicates decision making and slows down the process, and this is possibly a strategy to cripple Bitcoin or to slow it down. < just my own opinion >

[mackenzied]

The current unconfirmed transaction is 210000 and keep growing like crazy, we'll surely hit the million pretty soon.

I would like to know what are the current solution that are available and how and when they could be implemented.

What are the solutions to lower the transaction fee that are currently really high.

I've looked around the forum for answers, but it just confused me more.

So if you could brief up what options are on the table, what will be done, what can be done, and when it could be done, I'm sure that would be some really useful information for a lot of people.

The bad thing is still going on and on. I dislike it, they do not offer any solution. They also refuse to improve bitcoins, persistent and selfish ones that are undermining the development of bitcoin.

[Xester]

The current unconfirmed transaction is 210000 and keep growing like crazy, we'll surely hit the million pretty soon.

I would like to know what are the current solution that are available and how and when they could be implemented.

What are the solutions to lower the transaction fee that are currently really high.

I've looked around the forum for answers, but it just confused me more.

So if you could brief up what options are on the table, what will be done, what can be done, and when it could be done, I'm sure that would be some really useful information for a lot of people.

There are many reasons as to why there are hundreds of thousand pending transactions it could be an attack from outside or it was an internal issue. When talk about an external attack those spam attacks were done by some huge company that are willing to pay and lose a huge amount to destroy bitcoin. Second is that the internal cause which maybe brought by the miners themselves. The miners may be placing bitcoin on the edge so that when bitcoin is about to break they enter the picture with a solution but behind it is a dark intention.

[Sithara007]

OP, it would have been better to have a poll regarding this. OK guys... right now we have two options. The first one is Segregated Witness (SegWit) and the second one is Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). The former is a good idea, but the miners don't support it. And as long as we don't have a support of 95% (which is impossible to attain), it can't be implemented. The second option is easier to implement. But it will give too much power to the miners.

[DoublerHunter]

I think bitcoin network just need more miners so it can sustain the network of bitcoin and to continue working. The only problem for the bitcoin is the volume of transactions that has been done by a lot of new users and the miners are struggling on how to confirm all of those so having a lot of extra miners will help the bitcoin network to be fine again.

[classicsucks]

Well, there are options on the table like SegWit < temporary relief > and then Lightning Network < permanent solution > that has to be accepted by the people that are running the Bitcoin software. < Full nodes >

I'm not an Unlimited fan, but this just sounds horrible when I read it. A functioning Lightning Network doesn't even exist yet, and there are still serious questions about the centralized nature of it, patents by Blockstream, and the outright corporate take-over of bitcoin. Lightning is not bitcoin. And Segwit is a horrendous hack.

Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change. Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

[Lauda]

I think bitcoin network just need more miners so it can sustain the network of bitcoin and to continue working. The only problem for the bitcoin is the volume of transactions that has been done by a lot of new users and the miners are struggling on how to confirm all of those so having a lot of extra miners will help the bitcoin network to be fine again.

Bullshit. You are a classic signature spammer.

I'm not an Unlimited fan, but this just sounds horrible when I read it.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a disaster, and this has been proven with constant exploits being found in their *production ready* software.

A functioning Lightning Network doesn't even exist yet, and there are still serious questions about the centralized nature of it, patents by Blockstream, and the outright corporate take-over of bitcoin.

Complete and utter bullshit. LN is already working and there have been several transactions on both test-nets and main-nets (see Litecoin). There are no patents of Blockstream related to it.

And Segwit is a horrendous hack.

Again, bullshit. Segwit is not a "horrendous hack". This is propaganda made up by people with no technical knowledge, see Jonald as an example.

Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change.

No. DoS attack vector due to O(n^2) validation time (among other things).

Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

UASF to Segwit, then:
1) Schedule a minuscule block size increase HF.
2) Prepare Schnorr and signature aggregation.
3) LN, sidechains, et. al.

[cheezcarls]

Last time, it took me up to 3 days to receive 0.01 BTC to my wallet. I'm expecting the same incoming amount that I have received, and still waiting for confirmations. One of my friends told me that Blockchain has some lag issues recently that delayed the Blockchain confirmation. Hopefully this issue will be solved soon.

[Pursuer]

Last time, it took me up to 3 days to receive 0.01 BTC to my wallet. I'm expecting the same incoming amount that I have received, and still waiting for confirmations. One of my friends told me that Blockchain has some lag issues recently that delayed the Blockchain confirmation. Hopefully this issue will be solved soon.

your friend didn't understand how bitcoin works or he was not capable of putting it into words. there is no "lag issue" with "Blockchain" or with bitcoin. in fact there is no issue at all. the only thing that you may call issue is that the number of people using bitcoin grew a lot recently so there are more people sending transactions and also on top of all that, there is some group of people who are spamming (sending a large number of transactions for no reason) and since blocks can only contain a limited number of transactions there is a competition for getting that space. this competition is what we call "paying higher fees"!

the "issue" will be solved when:
- spam stops
- people send less transactions, usually happens when price volatility is smaller
- we get a capacity increase

[classicsucks]

Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

UASF to Segwit, then:
1) Schedule a minuscule block size increase HF.
2) Prepare Schnorr and signature aggregation.
3) LN, sidechains, et. al.

You sound like you know what you're talking about. But I don't believe a word of what you propose will happen.

Litecoin adopted Segwit and nobody cares. The dump continues as we speak. I'm glad to hear that a few LN transactions happened on the LTC blockchain. Although I see no reason why they couldn't have simply used the LTC chain, LOL.

[bibiqua]

The current unconfirmed transaction is 210000 and keep growing like crazy, we'll surely hit the million pretty soon.

I would like to know what are the current solution that are available and how and when they could be implemented.

Q: What are the solutions?
A: Too late.

[Iranus]

Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

UASF to Segwit, then:
1) Schedule a minuscule block size increase HF.
2) Prepare Schnorr and signature aggregation.
3) LN, sidechains, et. al.

Litecoin adopted Segwit and nobody cares.

Oh, plenty of people care.  It's just that those people are speculators rather than users.  As with all cryptocurrencies, the key cause for a price hike is just people thinking that in theory it could be more useful - in reality, Litecoin was nowhere near its maximum capacity anyway so LN wouldn't have made transactions as much better as it would make Bitcoin transactions.

The "dump" is just what happens when there's a speculative bubble caused by an excellent fundamental aspect of the currency (in this case, SegWit and LN) which people try to join before the event actually occurs.  When it does occur, people pull out as they expect that the price has peaked.

[franky1]

Well, there are options on the table like SegWit < temporary relief > and then Lightning Network < permanent solution > that has to be accepted by the people that are running the Bitcoin software. < Full nodes > Fortunately for us, Satoshi has built in a CONSENSUS system that prevents "bad" people from implementing "bad" code without the consensus from the Bitcoin community and this is currently in process. < They need to decide what solution are the best and signal for the change to be implemented >

To complicate things, Bitcoin Unlimited has also added their suggestion to solve the problem and people now have more options to chose from. ^grrrrrr^ Too many options complicates decision making and slows down the process, and this is possibly a strategy to cripple Bitcoin or to slow it down. < just my own opinion >

no. the 2 merkle ""< temporary relief >"" being the only option also bad.
other options allow decisions because there are options to decide.. just having only 1 choice is not a choice.. its a dictatorship

the 2 merkle SegWit < temporary POSSIBLE relief > should not be the only choice.
and no suggesting it "has to be accepted by the people that are running the Bitcoin software." are words of dictators

its just core should have back in 2015 made a plan B that the whole community want..
not made their own plan A which even in days after 2015 showed community revolt, yet they still want to force plan A all the way to 2019

yes core want to keep pushing this < temporary relief> all the way to 2019 (UASF.co quote: 'late 2018')

[Ucy]

Well, there are options on the table like SegWit < temporary relief > and then Lightning Network < permanent solution > that has to be accepted by the people that are running the Bitcoin software. < Full nodes >

I'm not an Unlimited fan, but this just sounds horrible when I read it. A functioning Lightning Network doesn't even exist yet, and there are still serious questions about the centralized nature of it, patents by Blockstream, and the outright corporate take-over of bitcoin. Lightning is not bitcoin. And Segwit is a horrendous hack.

Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change. Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

This's a very interesting one (the one in Bold⬆). . I never knew this. But why is Litecoin trying to implement the Lightening Network or is theirs not connected to corporation. I really love the idea about Cryptocurrency especially Bitcoin being totally decentralized

[franky1]

as for the what solutions for bitcoin transaction fee
well implementing a new priority fee forulae that does a better job than the last one

here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does)

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change.

No. DoS attack vector due to O(n^2) validation time (among other things).

limit the TXSIGOPS to 2k and validation times are a non issue!!
=2 lines of code change
segwits cludgy maths is just .. ugh and not needed especially with how many thousands of lines of code they needed to workaround it all

[Ucy]

OP, it would have been better to have a poll regarding this. OK guys... right now we have two options. The first one is Segregated Witness (SegWit) and the second one is Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). The former is a good idea, but the miners don't support it. And as long as we don't have a support of 95% (which is impossible to attain), it can't be implemented. The second option is easier to implement. But it will give too much power to the miners.

Whoever introduced the 95% idea should probably accept it is impossible to achieve. Man that is way to high. Such percentage can't even be applied in the best democracy. Well maybe because it is an extremely delicate part of Bitcoin that made them settle for such a high percentage. Anyway what do I know

[franky1]

Whoever introduced the 95% idea should probably accept it is impossible to achieve. Man that is way to high. Such percentage can't even be applied in the best democracy. Well maybe because it is an extremely delicate part of Bitcoin that made them settle for such a high percentage. Anyway what do I know

pools wont do anything if there was more than 5% orphan risk.
the problem is not that 95% of pools is impossible. after all its only 20 pools.

the problem is that convincing 19/20 pools is impossible without:
nodes being high majority full validation ready
code being cludgy

it should have always been a non cludgy code and done as a node first pool second event. then pools would have more confidence.
..

simply pushing the cludgy temporary gesture 2merkle bad math version all the way until 2019 is not going to work.
and trying to then force it in with PoW nuke threats and mandatory activations is worse than doing a hard consensus upgrade which was an option in 2015 (before the cludge)

[Tyrantt]

I'm currently using viabtc to push my transactions if I don't get my confirmations in 12 hours, good thing I don't send that many transactions and that often, I'd not be happy if it was so. the only problem that I'm having is with blockchain.info wallet that putting very low recommended fee.

What can you do about fees, bitcoin price went to all time high. :/

[emezh10]

This is really annoying my transaction takes almost 3days to confirm pending in the blockchain but still confirmed after a long run i read also that the blockchain is full of pending transaction so i guess they need some sort of upgrade fees and more moner or maybe use another more currency like eth to minimoze the bitcoin use.