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

[BlackPanda]

nope. big amount of fees cant down the future of bitcoin. If you want a quick transaction, than you must have to provide high fees.less fee transaction take a lot of time for completing transactors first complete high fess transaction, than take look om low fees.

Yes indeed, the amount of fees we can set in accordance with the wishes. Usually those who want transactions faster then they spend more fee. While for those who want a cheap fee then bitcoin delivery will be longer.

[soul-impact]

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 .

If the bitcoin transaction fees continue to increase, people will start to feel bored, then they will find another potential currency to store their money, however, transaction fees are just a problem. The anxiety of those who regularly trade in bitcoin, in contrast, those who want to store bitcoin will not be affected, and they can profit from it in the future.

[Gens09]

nope. big amount of fees cant down the future of bitcoin. If you want a quick transaction, than you must have to provide high fees.less fee transaction take a lot of time for completing transactors first complete high fess transaction, than take look om low fees.

Yeah i guess fees will be a thing in all people who is using bitcoin but i guess as long as bitcoin price is growing to i guess they will not mind if the fees go a little bit high as long as we have high bitcoin price also we know that fees depend in how fast the transaction in the blockchain so i guess it is really fair so some reason and i know it is not a thing to down bitcoin in the future.

[vohoanghiep55555]

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 .

I think not. Bitcoin is rising so its fees increase is normal. While you make a lot of money from Bitcoin, that fee is not much

[Bezobraznike]

nope. big amount of fees cant down the future of bitcoin. If you want a quick transaction, than you must have to provide high fees.less fee transaction take a lot of time for completing transactors first complete high fess transaction, than take look om low fees.

Yes indeed, the amount of fees we can set in accordance with the wishes. Usually those who want transactions faster then they spend more fee. While for those who want a cheap fee then bitcoin delivery will be longer.

   Big fees for big transactions are ok, but for us ordinary people it`s unreal to pay $4 fee for $10-15 transaction. High fees will make people think about sending bitcoin anywhere, I don`t understand how blockchain technology works, but when I need to pay a lot just to send my money from one to other place that I understand very good.
   If bitcoin technology is here to make a better world, why would we pay so big fees? How is that helping us, this is making bit[Suspicious link removed]d just for rich people.

[Winner]

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.

What makes it so impossible for people to wait like 4 hours for a certain Bitcoin transaction to receive a confirmation? I guess that people don't really know that they can spend Bitcoin with a very low transaction like 0.0001 BTC and have their transaction confirmed within 4 hours if they accelerate it.

Maybe people don't really send Bitcoin other than just paying someone money, I am sure if they do a few test transaction spending then they would see that they can send payments with a small fee.

[LeGaulois]

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.

What makes it so impossible for people to wait like 4 hours for a certain Bitcoin transaction to receive a confirmation? I guess that people don't really know that they can spend Bitcoin with a very low transaction like 0.0001 BTC and have their transaction confirmed within 4 hours if they accelerate it.

Maybe people don't really send Bitcoin other than just paying someone money, I am sure if they do a few test transaction spending then they would see that they can send payments with a small fee.

Depending what you are doing but 4 hours in not an acceptable time frame. When you say "if they accelerate it" are you talking about service like ViaBTC tool? Then there is nothing funny to use bitcoin is we have to use an external tool to get a decent confirmation time. It's like telling to your bank I you want you can use my laptop power to make the bank transfer faster. I dont know any other tool than ViaBTC, but once or twice i tried to see and always busy because their hourly limit was reached. If on the top of that such tool are always busy that you can't use, it is very very less funny

[Immakillya]

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 .

I think there's a huge impact of this problem to bitcoin. Who would want to transfer funds with huge fee? Theres are a lot of altcoins out there which is more faster and more cheaper than bitcoin. We have no choice but to find alternative way to transfer funds with ease and cheaper.

And people will move toward the other cryptocurrency .
Or there is chances to improve the block chain network​ and increase the of block .

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

Definitely we are going to force to use alternative way to tranfer funds with cheper fees.

[deisik]

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.

I'm curious if you understand how that invalidates your whole point

If they don't show up on the blockchain, it essentially means that these transactions can make up the bulk of all transactions, and thus it is reasonable to claim that Litecoin will never encounter the issues that Bitcoin now faces. In other words, as soon as it starts to feel the pressure (Bitcoin style), more and more payment channels will spring up, thereby effectively removing the overhead. If you need just 1 payment channel to embrace 1,000 separate transactions, that's pretty much it. Litecoin may in fact encounter a lot of other issues (I don't really know), but this is certainly not what you have been claiming, right? I may not understand the gory details behind LN mechanics, but all I need to know is that it allows to massively move transactions off chain in a systemic way

[jc89]

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 .

It is possible that the number of transaction per day will decrease because of the increasing transaction fees needed. That is especially for those who cannot afford to compromise and pay higher fee. With this in mind, there will be less micro transactions in the blockchain.

People might lean to alts just to lessen the fee needed. They will just do that to lessen their fee but they will convert it back to Bitcoin so Bitcoin is still the dominating crypto currency.

There are various solution for these issues, we have the Segwit that shall happen on August. However, its end result is still uncertain so no one really knows if this is a solution or another problem.

[Lumada]

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 .

It is possible that the number of transaction per day will decrease because of the increasing transaction fees needed. That is especially for those who cannot afford to compromise and pay higher fee. With this in mind, there will be less micro transactions in the blockchain.

People might lean to alts just to lessen the fee needed. They will just do that to lessen their fee but they will convert it back to Bitcoin so Bitcoin is still the dominating crypto currency.

There are various solution for these issues, we have the Segwit that shall happen on August. However, its end result is still uncertain so no one really knows if this is a solution or another problem.

i hope when time cimes that btc can be able to perform well and can use efficiently when its value really grows and when massive adoption happens.

[MRlong]

Yes, this is one of issue important Bitcoin need fixed soon!
Look the defaut fee setting in my electrum wallet, every month the price Bitcoin highest more and the fee raised up too, from 100 sat/byte is best choice in January-2017, now the fee is 700 sat/byte if want confirm with next block

[mr.robot8]

i think nothing can take down bitcoin...neither this big fee for transactions...

[Lauda]

I'm curious if you understand how that invalidates your whole point

Are you desperately wanting me to call you an idiot? I can't hold it much longer with these idiotic statements. I would really appreciate learning from someone with superior knowledge, but you are not such an individual.

If they don't show up on the blockchain, it essentially means that these transactions can make up the bulk of all transactions, and thus it is reasonable to claim that Litecoin will never encounter the issues that Bitcoin now faces. In other words, as soon as it starts to feel the pressure (Bitcoin style), more and more payment channels will spring up, thereby effectively removing the overhead. If you need just 1 payment channel to embrace 1,000 separate transactions, that's pretty much it. Litecoin may in fact encounter a lot of other issues (I don't really know), but this is certainly not what you have been claiming, right? I may not understand the gory details behind LN mechanics, but all I need to know is that it allows to massively move transactions off chain in a systemic way

This post is absolute false garbage that is built upon your skewed and extremely elementary understanding of LN. I asked you for a calculation and you've provided to create that one because you don't know how to calculate it, because you do not understand it. LN alone is NOT ENOUGH for "never encounter the issues". This is every written in the whitepaper, which you have not read.
How to use LN ELI3 (&& tl;dr)
1) You open a payment channel. This takes up space on the blockchain.
2) You transact 'n' times with other parties. This data does not space on the blockchain.
3) You close a payment channel and the funds settle. This takes up space on the blockchain.
Examples:
1) Opening a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/8ab2d0600d324967f1758f9ed9ad90946ba4e4cab9d4211d2fe4a8df1e50b5c6.
2) ...no data.. irrelevant.
3) Closing a payment channel on testnet: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/e0406d03eece0f82e11756b290ec2db2c0f62c020548a6364bf785979df6fd0e

180 bytes * 10 000 000 open channels = 1.8 GBs to open to open 10 million channels only ONCE. Then you need another 1.8 GBs to close these 10 million channels. What happens between the opening and closing channels is irrelevant to my point. In Bitcoin (without Segwit factored in), it would take: ~12.5 days worth of blocks to only open 10 million channels once and this assumes that there are zero transactions of any kind.

If you think that you will open 1 channel and use it forever or for extremely long periods of time, then your understanding is even more greatly flawed. If you plan on locking all your funds into LN, I wish you good luck as you will need it.
For those complaining about fees, i.e. actually posting worthless garbage for their signature money. ETH fees are already above $1:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-eth.html

[deisik]

I'm curious if you understand how that invalidates your whole point

Are you desperately wanting me to call you an idiot? I can't hold it much longer with these idiotic statements. I would really appreciate learning from someone with superior knowledge, but you are not such an individual.

If they don't show up on the blockchain, it essentially means that these transactions can make up the bulk of all transactions, and thus it is reasonable to claim that Litecoin will never encounter the issues that Bitcoin now faces. In other words, as soon as it starts to feel the pressure (Bitcoin style), more and more payment channels will spring up, thereby effectively removing the overhead. If you need just 1 payment channel to embrace 1,000 separate transactions, that's pretty much it. Litecoin may in fact encounter a lot of other issues (I don't really know), but this is certainly not what you have been claiming, right? I may not understand the gory details behind LN mechanics, but all I need to know is that it allows to massively move transactions off chain in a systemic way

This post is absolute false garbage that is built upon your skewed and extremely elementary understanding of LN. I asked you for a calculation and you've provided to create that one because you don't know how to calculate it, because you do not understand it. LN alone is NOT ENOUGH for "never encounter the issues". This is every written in the whitepaper, which you have not read

You should understand that I'm not of the type who can be so easily swayed

First of all, the issue you are describing now has nothing to do with what you have been claiming. This is not the problem that Bitcoin is facing now, i.e. high fees and slow confirmations. This is an entirely different story, even if it is true (and this is a big IF on its own). So you may want to think twice before calling someone an idiot and then think again (personally, I don't care, I just want you to check your reasoning first how well it adds up in and of itself). But this is in fact irrelevant, and you can discard this point altogether. What is of real value here is that Lightning Network is set to specifically address the issues mentioned, so it can't possibly encounter them if it is created to solve them in the first place ("capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network"). What are you arguing with?

[Lauda]

You should understand that I'm not of the type who can be easily swayed

Which makes it worse considering that your whole knowledge is completely false.

First of all, the issue you describing has nothing to do with what you have been claiming. This is not the problem that Bitcoin is facing now, i.e. high fees and slow confirmations. This is a entirely different story. So you may want to think twice before calling someone an idiot (personally, I don care, I ask you to check your reasoning first). But this is in fact irrelevant, and you can discard this point altogether. What is of real value here is that Lightning Network is set to specifically address the issues mentioned, so it can't possibly encounter them if it is created to solve them. As simple as that

Bullshit. Trying to make up excuses so that you don't look like an idiot.

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?

On its own, LN solves nothing and requires block space (i.e. bigger blocks starting with Segwit) to enable a high number of users to use it. Now, I actually would prefer franky1 to pop in. His, often flawed but sometimes correct, views are much superior than your Utopian fantasies.

[mamaya]

Instead of debating whether one solution will solve anything or not in the long term how about we adopt something even if its not the ideal one right now. The end result from lack of consensus is only going to be bitcoin losing its dominance and I fail to see how that helps any of us.

I'm a big fan of segwit and lightning but I'd rather see BU than no solution at all, everyone needs to dig deep and accept there must be a compromise or we all lose.

[deisik]

You should understand that I'm not of the type who can be easily swayed

Which makes it worse considering that your whole knowledge is completely false.

First of all, the issue you describing has nothing to do with what you have been claiming. This is not the problem that Bitcoin is facing now, i.e. high fees and slow confirmations. This is a entirely different story. So you may want to think twice before calling someone an idiot (personally, I don care, I ask you to check your reasoning first). But this is in fact irrelevant, and you can discard this point altogether. What is of real value here is that Lightning Network is set to specifically address the issues mentioned, so it can't possibly encounter them if it is created to solve them. As simple as that

Bullshit. Trying to make up excuses so that you don't look like an idiot

Is this all what you can come up with?

Are you now going to claim that the major issues that Bitcoin now faces are not high fees and slow confirmations? Are you now going to claim that it was not you who asserted that these are the issues that every coin is inexorably set to face eventually (if it gets as used as Bitcoin now is)? You know, you may call me an idiot as much as you please, but you have to come up with something more substantial if you want to actually prove your point. As to me, calling people names is not the proper way of doing that. Hope this helps

[franky1]

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?

On its own, LN solves nothing and requires block space (i.e. bigger blocks starting with Segwit) to enable a high number of users to use it. Now, I actually would prefer franky1 to pop in. His, often flawed but sometimes correct, views are much superior than your Utopian fantasies.

LN is a separate network
LN can only make payments to other people within LN (emphasis: people with LN channels)
this means you have to have a LN channel open, infact most will have to have more than one channel open if they want to do the (hop/route/spoke) method or have their single channel with a well established hub if they only want 1 channel
anyway lets explain the hop/spoke/route method.

EG
A(0.1)<>B(0.1)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)

now if A(0.1) wants to pay 0.05 to D.. and there was a 0.0001 payment fee

EG
A needs to pay B in the first channel...
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
B then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay C
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
C then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay D
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.05)<>D(0.15)

now if lts say E had no channel.. E could not be paid by anyone because he has no (channel/contract/route) to anyone else

hope this clarifies how LN works for the layman
now what you have to realise is that to set up these channels
A one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel
B two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
C two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
D one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel

so thats 6 onchain tx's to set up 4 channels
then to settle the channels at closing session
another 3 onchain tx's are needed..

thats 9 onchain tx's required for 4 parties to use LN........... (which requires ONCHAIN blockspace.. and costs ONCHAIN FEE'S)
yes while ln channels are active those 4 parties can do lots and lots of LN payments between each other.

but that does not mean that suddenly any new people (E) dont need a channel or more to be part of LN.

[AngryDwarf]

It's known as the quadratic issue. As fees in satoshi's double, and the price of BTC doubles, the fee in fiat terms goes up quadratically.