big transaction fee in Bitcoin , really down the future of btc ?

[pawanjain]

Day to day the price of the Bitcoin is increasing but with this a big problem arising that is fee .
Can you think that with the increase of the transaction fee of the Bitcoin will results into less use of the Bitcoin for transaction from one address to another .
And people will move toward the other cryptocurrency .
Or there is chances to improve the block chain network​ and increase the size of block .

I request to everyone to give you thoughts and views at this big problem of fee .

[chaser15]

I don't mind having a big transaction fee since why we feel this way is because of the current bitcoin price. Right now, the fees is still reasonable to me because the bitcoin price really considered as high.

My concerned is the confirmation time because sometimes even we are using the standard fees, the confirmation times still takes time. In the end, it's useless to pay a big transaction fees if the confirmation time still having a slow time before it was being confirmed. Really need something as worth to pay as paying $5 every transaction is not a joke so at least we are getting compensated.

[pooya87]

~
Can you think that with the increase of the transaction fee of the Bitcoin will results into less use of the Bitcoin for transaction from one address to another .
And people will move toward the other cryptocurrency .
~

yes it will on both cases but the problem is that they will face the ugly truth after the transition to other cryptocurrencies. the truth that most of these altcoins are pump and dump schemes with lots of things wrong with them.
and also the ugly truth that most of them have terrible issues with scaling. some of them even are going to have much higher fees than bitcoin if used more than just for trading.

[madwica]

That is the one thing hates by more users of bitcoin if the big transaction fees was continuous to increase i do not think if the adoption by more country even a people will also continue.
And i think they need to eliminate the slow confirmation in every transaction to convince some people to used bitcoin evwn it has i big fees.

[SonnetStar]

I though the whole point of bitcoin is to do what banks can't do faster and cheaper?

If the fees are so hgih, what's the point? Why would anyone adopt a currency that is so prohibitive?

I think we need to get free under control or otherwise banks will win

[Amph]

I though the whole point of bitcoin is to do what banks can't do faster and cheaper?

If the fees are so hgih, what's the point? Why would anyone adopt a currency that is so prohibitive?

I think we need to get free under control or otherwise banks will win

and it's working for abroad transaction, can you send usd to someone else in another country at the same rate of bitcoin fee? i really doubt it and with the same speed, again i really doubt it

also bitcoin have another advantage that very few people remeber when they compare it to a bank, can you move 100M usd with a bank account without rising several alarma at your bank or IRS or anything?

you probably need permission to move big amount of money with fiat and you are traced...

no of course, with bitcoin you are free to move even billions in dollars, and none will say you anything, this is a big advantage for rich people that want to mvoe their capital from oen place to another of the world

[btcforca#h]

I don't think the fees are going to remain within this high range as soon as a solution is found to the block size the fees are going back to a normal rate of 0.0001 but even then, 0.0001 is still highly expensive with the rise in BTC price since it's equal to $2.8 or so now, it would be better if the default fees than everyone use is lowered to 0.00005 or something.

[Fappanu]

Yes Maybe!  base on my opinion and experience high fee is losing my small percentage of using bitcoin
but since this is the only handy and easy access to use online transaction i will still using bitcoin.
i wish a lower fee as possible. some btc payment provider are taking advantage on this matter hopefully
they can't make any resolution to it. or else some user will migrate.

[jorneyflair]

I don't think the fees are going to remain within this high range as soon as a solution is found to the block size the fees are going back to a normal rate of 0.0001 but even then, 0.0001 is still highly expensive with the rise in BTC price since it's equal to $2.8 or so now, it would be better if the default fees than everyone use is lowered to 0.00005 or something.

There isn't a "default minimum fee" that the network has to set. If the blocks are empty and/or the transaction sizes are able to be shrinked so that they take up less space each, then miners obviously have financial incentive to include transactions even when they have a lower transaction fee attached because otherwise it would be a waste of a found block. Some pools might rejects transactions like this but others will. It really depends on the size of your transaction and the amount involved. You can't say i've paid 0.0001 BTC for fee, so therefore i'm good.

And also 0.0001 BTC is $0.28 not $2.8. If we can revert to that as the average fee then i think most people will be very happy.

[deisik]

Another shit thread by someone purportedly wanting to hear forum members' opinions

and it's working for abroad transaction, can you send usd to someone else in another country at the same rate of bitcoin fee? i really doubt it and with the same speed, again i really doubt it

Instead of doubting you can just go and check for yourself

Card-to-card payments that many banks are involved in don't distinguish between countries. Moreover, some of these are free of charge (that depends on the bank, obviously). Needless to say, these transfers are close to being instant. It usually takes a couple of minutes to receive the funds. Other than that, Bitcoin is global, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak about moving your coins from one place in one country to another place in another country since the coins still remain in the same blockchain. Basically, you are moving them from one wallet to another, while the concept of distance is not applicable here (and that's good)

[samuraijin]

Okay they use a large transaction fee to get faster on the confirmation of the bitcoin mining network, so with a small transaction fee you can not make a transaction, I feel there are big people who take advantage of this situation until the siza block rises above 1 mB.

[Daniel91]

I agree with you that big transaction fees became huge problem for bitcoin.
Before several months I didn't even think about it.
I will simple send btc and accept recommended transaction fee.
When I had to wait 3-4 days for confirmation, I realized how big problem we have in btc network.
I really think that some people may give up btc and invest in other crypto currencies if we don't find solution here.
In such scenario, some other crypto currency can replace btc so hopefully we will see some resolution soon.

[Lauda]

When I had to wait 3-4 days for confirmation, I realized how big problem we have in btc network.

No. If you pay the fee for inclusion into the next block, you don't wait for anything. The very fee that you include at a specific time in combination with the status of the network, decides how long it will take for your transaction to confirm.

I really think that some people may give up btc and invest in other crypto currencies if we don't find solution here.
In such scenario, some other crypto currency can replace btc so hopefully we will see some resolution soon.

I have to repeat this countless amount of times: This is uneducated bullshit. No cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin has found a solution. If we all hop onto [insertScamCoin] the same [scamCoin] will have the same problems.

Welcome to reality and stop shilling some centralized shitcoins.

Note: This data is outdated now; fees are higher.

[deisik]

I really think that some people may give up btc and invest in other crypto currencies if we don't find solution here.
In such scenario, some other crypto currency can replace btc so hopefully we will see some resolution soon.

I have to repeat this countless amount of times: This is uneducated bullshit. No cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin has found a solution. If we all hop onto [insertScamCoin] the same [scamCoin] will have the same problems

You seem to be underinformed

I don't really know what you mean by "no cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin", but Litecoin, a Bitcoin copycat by and large, already has SegWit and Lightning Network activated (there are even a few startups involved with that). Therefore, we can't possibly have the same problems with it. So if it runs out of raw processing capacity provided by regular miners, LN payment channels should kick in, and then we will be in an unchartered territory for the most part. In fact, it would be particularly interesting to see how payment channels work in real life under real load

[Lauda]

You seem to be underinformed

Nope.

I don't really know what you mean by "no cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin", but Litecoin, a Bitcoin copycat by and large, already has SegWit and Lightning Network activated (there are even a few startups involved with that).

Decentralized, trustless, peer-to-peer currency (although more adjectives can be appended). You can easily create a semi-centralized or centralized altcoin that has a high TPS limit.

Therefore, we can't possibly have the same problems with it. In fact, it would be particularly interesting to see how these features would show themselves under heavy load (especially Lightning Network)

Of course you can. SegWit with LN in combination with the block size limit of LTC are also capped at a fixed TPS. Even though, you can argue that once payment channels have been established that they have *infinite* TPS.

[deisik]

You seem to be underinformed

Nope.

I don't really know what you mean by "no cryptocurrency that has the same features as Bitcoin", but Litecoin, a Bitcoin copycat by and large, already has SegWit and Lightning Network activated (there are even a few startups involved with that).

Decentralized, trustless, peer-to-peer currency (although more adjectives can be appended). You can easily create a semi-centralized or centralized altcoin that has a high TPS limit.

Therefore, we can't possibly have the same problems with it. In fact, it would be particularly interesting to see how these features would show themselves under heavy load (especially Lightning Network)

Of course you can. SegWit with LN in combination with the block size limit of LTC are also capped at a fixed TPS. Even though, you can argue that once payment channels have been established that they have *infinite* TPS.

So I guess Litecoin cuts it pretty well as a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency

If so, how can you then claim that it will have the same problems? As far as I understand it, payment channels are created to specifically address the issue you are talking about (i.e. running out of processing capacity). Therefore, it is not about me arguing that payment channels can have infinite processing capacity. This is basically what they are there for in the first place. In this way, your whole claim is not valid (that no cryptocurrency like Bitcoin has found a solution)

[Lauda]

So I guess Litecoin cuts it pretty well as a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency

You can argue centralization problems, but yes.

If so, how can you then claim that it will have the same problems? As far as I understand it, payment channels are created to specifically address the issue you are talking about (i.e. running out of processing capacity). Therefore, it is not about me arguing that payment channels can have infinite processing capacity. This is basically what they are there for exactly. In this way, your whole claim is not valid

That's the thing. You don't understand it. Three assumptions are made, and all of which are implicitly understood by those who understand the model of LN. They are:
1) A single payment channel is enough for you to transact with everyone (routing).
2) Everyone that you want to transact with is on LN.
3) Everyone has already opened a payment channel.
Assuming 10 million users (random metric), calculate how much block space it would require for each user to open a payment channel. Please post your results. Anyhow, it isn't exactly recommended for high value transactions at this time.

[deisik]

That's the thing. You don't understand it. Three assumptions are made, and all of which are implicitly understood by those who understand the model of LN. They are:
1) A single payment channel is enough for you to transact with everyone (routing).
2) Everyone that you want to transact with is on LN.
3) Everyone has already opened a payment channel.
Assuming 10 million users (random metric), calculate how much block space it would require for each user to open a payment channel. Please post your results. Anyhow, it isn't exactly recommended for high value transactions at this time

I don't quite see your point

If a single payment channel is enough for me to transact with everyone, why would each user be required to open a payment channel, and why would it require block space at that? As I understand the technology behind LN, its main advantage consists specifically in lowering the load on the blockchain since transactions made via payment channels are off-chain transactions, right? So why is there a need for the block space at all if these transactions are never to show up on the blockchain?

[Juggy777]

Day to day the price of the Bitcoin is increasing but with this a big problem arising that is fee .
Can you think that with the increase of the transaction fee of the Bitcoin will results into less use of the Bitcoin for transaction from one address to another .
And people will move toward the other cryptocurrency .
Or there is chances to improve the block chain network​ and increase the size of block .

I request to everyone to give you thoughts and views at this big problem of fee .

Ya the fee is getting a big pain, last time I tried to send 0.84$ and I was shown a fees of 3$ approx, which was ridiculous I don't even know what to do. I am not leaving Bitcoins but ya I hope the block issue is solved soon. Fees irritate us but the stability and the price rise no one give, so for that reason I won't ever give up on Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

I don't quite see your point

You don't understand LN.

If a single payment channel is enough for me to transact with everyone, why would each user be required to open a payment channel, and why it would require block space at that?

How exactly do you plan on paying me via LN when you have a channel with Alice, and I don't use LN? Do you even know/understand what opening a payment channel means?! It requires block space.

As I understand the technology behind LN, its main advantage consists specifically in lowering the load on the blockchain since transactions made via payment channels are off-chain transactions, right?

Payment channels which are opened and closed on the blockchain.

So why is there a need for block space at all if these transactions are never to show up on the blockchain?

Sigh. Nobody said anything about those transactions, but yes they don't show up on the blockchain.