Why not FIX the Transaction Fee?

[Emoclaw]

The network had 200K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool a few days ago. Having a fixed fee would do more harm than good, as all transactions would be equally and painfully slow. Transaction fees serve the purpose of incentivizing miners to include a specific transaction in the next block. Fixed transaction fees would serve no such purpose.

It's Bitcoin's scalability that needs solving. If any one solution is adopted to fix scalability and allow more transactions per second, fees would go down significantly.

[1714184707]

1714184707

[1714184707]

1714184707

[1714184707]

1714184707

[1714184707]

1714184707

[joshy23]

Why not we just totally removed the block size limit? Or just have a dynamic size generation based on the transaction demand?

Unfortunately, the demand for bitcoin right now is really very high causing the network to be clogged, that's why the bitcoin network is falling apart. The BU vs Segwit drama is far from over. So expect that transaction fee going to rise as we continue to struggle.

[darthmaul]

Waiting for the confirmation of every transaction has been a headache to us bitcoin users. And in order to avoid a long wait, higher fee is required which adds to our headache, well who would want to pay more just to gain priority, right? We just gain priority in paying more but we lose Bitcoin on the other hand. I have suggestion in mind that I really don't know if it is applicable or not. Suggestions are always welcome, right?

1. Why not make the transaction fee be fixed? Regardless of the size of transaction in byte. So if the transaction fee is equal to all transaction, some greedy miners would follow a First In, First Out. No priority. All equal.

OR

2. A fixed transaction fee which is proportional to the size in bytes. Example 100 Satoshi/Byte no more, no less. The fee will be fixed and no one can add fee to gain priority. Seems fair.

So what do you think?

It is fair deal but it is not favour with developers. Why they will loose their profits which comes from the transactions. And also do not forget that when you do transaction the confirmation has to come from atlas 4 to 16 confirmations for which the nodes are used and fees are taken for that. I think it is fair from their side as well but as the users will grow in number the fees will decrease as well..that is just my assumption because at that time confirmations will be done faster on the basis of network rating.

[iluvpie60]

BTC is becoming more and more unuseable for average people. Almost any poor country can no longer use it as those people make 10 cents an hour. We are using alt coins now and that is why you will see altcoins go up in price. If BTC solve their current issues expect alts to crash! Don't hold bags hehe.

[omonuyak]

Op, having the fees for confirmation fixed will resolve the current delay of confirmation we are facing now. To me the final resolution for this problem is to expand the network and also. Fees being fixed will create inequality in the system and this will make people with low income earning to start accusing bitcoin or crypto currencies in general to be for the rich.

[unamis76]

Transaction fees are fine as is. You want to fix something that's not broken. What need addressing is scaling...

[Snorek]

I think BTC will become a tool for the rich class only anytime soon.

Bitcoin is quickly turning into a Tulip Bulb Mania / Brilliantly Crafted Ponzi.  

You can't say that Bitcoin is a ponzi, because the person who invented Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) never profited out of it.

That is not entirely true. While all known addresses of satoshi never transferred any coins, he is still believed to own roughly 1.7% of all coins.
It is more than 1 million bitcoins, and it is unknown whether Satoshi has still access to these coins or will ever decide to use/trade/dump them.

[jc89]

Transaction fees are fine as is. You want to fix something that's not broken. What need addressing is scaling...

That is for you, I think. Considering all users, they are not happy about the high transaction fee at all. I believe that OP is not trying say that the transaction fee is not broken or whatever, just impractical for other users. Having a fixed/constant transaction might be a good move but I personally do not know if it is really beneficial. I am not technical about this discussion but the idea is there.

Scaling has been an issue since like forever now. While they debate, we suffer.

[Reid]

If that is that simple it would have been done already.
There are so much spam in the transaction that made it worse. A part of it is actually our fault as users and the others are for greed. They want more. Why not? Bitcoin is going up and having more will be a pleasant thing for them.
If this remedy is really the cure for it someone must do it first and maybe the rest will follow.

[jacafbiz]

I think the transaction fee is fixed but because too many transactions are long not get confirmed then there is the increase transaction fee.

But it is only fixed in Satoshi not USD value. Currently 50ksat is worth more than a Dollar and the transaction fee is now 100ksat minimum

[piebeyb]

I believe this problem will find a good way out, at least just raising blocksize will help also to no longer make a long queue on transaction bitcoin

[TheWallStreetCrew]

The transaction fee issue will have to be revisited multiple times over the years as bitcoin price increases. And it will be fixed each time.

[The One]

I think BTC will become a tool for the rich class only anytime soon.

Bitcoin is quickly turning into a Tulip Bulb Mania / Brilliantly Crafted Ponzi.  

That can only happen when one can't use it as electronic cash.

Yes, it is turning into.....

[franky1]

as for the what solutions for bitcoin transaction fee
well implementing a new priority fee formulae 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

[Bit_Happy]

I think BTC will become a tool for the rich class only anytime soon.

Bitcoin is quickly turning into a Tulip Bulb Mania / Brilliantly Crafted Ponzi.  

You can't say that Bitcoin is a ponzi, because the person who invented Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) never profited out of it.

Bitcoin is not a traditional Ponzi, but it does have some obvious similarities:
What if Satoshi solved the "Ponzi puzzle" & created the first ever sustainable one?


Why not FIX the Transaction Fee?
The free market is "fixing" the problem by giving new life and purpose to alt coins.

[7788bitcoin]

Fee is part of the equilibrium of  bitcoin system. At the moment, miners are getting rewarded by the block reward, which halves every 4 years. Therefore, fee will gradually take over the block reward as the incentive for the miner to work hard. This is one of the reason the miners are enjoying the current high fee situation...

[pooya87]

1. because in bitcoin you are paying for the space not the work. if you are taking up a lot of space (a big transaction size in byte) you need to pay a higher fee. and if you take a smaller space on the blockchain you pay a smaller fee.

2. if the way you are proposing was used, not a single big transaction would have been mined. because a miner simply sees 2 transactions: a big one (lets say 2500 bytes) and another small one (250 bytes) both paying the same fixed fee. the miner would obviously choose 10 of the small ones to get 10 fixed fees instead of 1 big one and get 1 fixed fee.

[skorupi17]

~snipped~

2. if the way you are proposing was used, not a single big transaction would have been mined. because a miner simply sees 2 transactions: a big one (lets say 2500 bytes) and another small one (250 bytes) both paying the same fixed fee. the miner would obviously choose 10 of the small ones to get 10 fixed fees instead of 1 big one and get 1 fixed fee.

That is the reason why I had suggested the #2 that states that the transaction fee will be fixed in relation to the byte size. So if the transaction fee will be just 100 Satoshi/byte and removing the capability of raising the fee, then there will be no prioritization. All will be equal since the fee is fixed per byte and no one will be able to add fee just to gain priority.