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

[deisik]

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.

Does it mean that if I want to transact in an LN network, I need to open only one payment channel with someone (say, a payment hub) and then I can make any number of transactions with anyone who is potentially reachable in this network (i.e. A->B->...->N), thereby completely bypassing the blockchain? If so, that, as to me, proves it pretty consistently that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has. If I got everything right, I open a payment channel, pay the network fee (which I would still have to pay anyway to make a transaction) and make as many transactions as I need and as fast as transactions propagate through the network. In other words, if opening a payment channel is essentially equal to making a regular transaction, then there is nothing to argue about

This is basically what the LN site claims

[franky1]

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.

Does it mean that if I want to transact in an LN network, I can open just one payment channels with someone and then make any number of transactions with anyone who is potentially reachable in this network completely bypassing the blockchain? If so, that pretty proves that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has

This is basically what the LN portal claims

IF that other person has multiple channels yes.. other wise there is no 'route'.
but remember to set up and close  a channel IS requiring onchain transactions

if its just A<>B
they all a and b can do is private trades to each other.. no one else....
as i shown in examples of other post, B would need to be more of a minihub, involving also connecting to C.. for a route to be possible for A to be able to pay C

this is also where the (hop/spoke/route) falls apart as it will cost people a payment fee per (hop spoke/route) to thank them for being part of the (hop/spoke/route)

what ends up happening is B may decide to be a bigger hub
A<>B
C<>B
D<>B
now A can pay D by only paying 1 hop fee to B
EG
A(0.0499)<>B(0.1501)
B(0.5)<>D(0.15)

then new users just contract/channel to B
E<>B
F<>B
and now A can pay E just via B, and only costing the 1 hop fee via B to get to E

last thing to add
in a hop method.. the average 'cost' is ~ 2-3 onchain transactions
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
C= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

in a hub of a,b,c,d method
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 3 in an 3halves out (4.5)
C= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

so imagining a onchain fee was still ~$2  (a=$3

so lets imagine A wanted or wished that on average their fee's only cost (on average) $0.02
even if each hop was $0.01.. even doing 300 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.02
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

if A only done lets say 10 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.34
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

[Eclipse26]

yes it is because many users get mad on the high transaction fee. If this problem does not solved soon. It can be the reason to disappear or bring down in the near future.

[Lauda]

If so, that, as to me, proves it pretty consistently that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has.
-snip-
This is basically what the LN site claims

Whitepaper section 12: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

If all transactions using Bitcoin were conducted inside a network of
micropayment channels, to enable 7 billion people to make two channels
per year with unlimited transactions inside the channel, it would require
133 MB blocks (presuming 500 bytes per transaction and 52560 blocks per
year). Current generation desktop computers will be able to run a full node
with old blocks pruned out on 2TB of storage

Note: This is somewhat different today due to e.g. Segwit on testnet.

[amacar2]

Fees have rose significantly recently in terms of both satoshi per byte of transaction and fiat. This increase in fees have made it impossible to make micro transactions with bitcoin but fee is comparatively low if compared to other payment gateway when making bigger transactions. But yes either block size should be increased or more versatile solution like segwit need to be activated to keep bitcoin as cheapest and fastest payment method.  

[franky1]

other things to take note.
no one will be foolish enough to put their entire hoard into an LN channel.
no one will be foolish enough to lock their entire hoard into an LN channel for a year

blackmail, CSV revokes, and other issues of possible attack vectors can make people lose funds offchain..

what you find is that channels will not remain open for 12 months.(no one can predict spending habits of 12 months)
people will only for instance open a channel with starbucks HUB and deposit enough for maybe 1-3 months of coffee
so the reality would be

A pays (if onchain fee was $2)
$3 to open and close channels with starbucks to deposit $180 (to cover 3 months of coffee)
buying a $3 coffee once a day, 5 days a week for 3 months.. costs 60cents of fee for 60 payments
which average $0.06 per payment(average after including setup/settlement fee)

so all these 'best cases' are in reality
average fee being more like 10cents if used daily for a couple months
blocks required being 4-6 times higher than the 12month example. due to people wanting to move funds in and out every couple months.

infact its suggested that many merchants will want to close out every couple weeks.. not once every 12 months. which could mean blocksizes needed would be 26x more than the 12month utopian blocksize. which also would raise the average cost pr customer fee

EG $3 setup/sttlement + 10 weekday payments of coffee per fortnight =$0.34 average fee's
and
 it would require 3.4gb blocks for fortnightly channels (instead of 133 MB blocks per 12month channels)

[deisik]

Does it mean that if I want to transact in an LN network, I can open just one payment channels with someone and then make any number of transactions with anyone who is potentially reachable in this network completely bypassing the blockchain? If so, that pretty proves that LN solves the issues that Bitcoin now has

This is basically what the LN portal claims

IF that other person has multiple channels yes.. other wise there is no 'route'.
but remember to set up and close  a channel IS requiring onchain transactions

That's basically what I wanted to hear

In fact, this is what I correctly assumed myself. So, to open (and close) a payment channel, I would need two otherwise regular transactions, and after that I can make any number of transactions between LN nodes which can be routed to me (and me to them). In other words, with just 2 LN transactions I can make literally thousands of near ping-time transactions which otherwise (without LN) would require me to pay insane amounts of fees and likely wait infinite amount of time to confirm, right?

[franky1]

That's basically what I wanted to hear

In fact, this is what I correctly assumed myself. So, to open a payment channel you would need two otherwise regular transactions and after that I can make any number of transactions between LN nodes which can be routed to me. In other words, with just 2 LN transactions I can make literally thousands of near ping-time transactions which otherwise (without LN) would require me to pay insane amounts of fees and wait likely infinite amount of time, right?

emphasising the bit i emboldened for you

if you can get routed.. then yes. but there is no guarantee..
this is why i said some users end up being hubs with THOUSANDS of contracts connected, just to allow average joe to not need more than just a couple channels.

without hubs, users end up needing more than a couple channels to be able to ensure reliable routing.. (research 6th degree of separation theorum)

also if doing the hub style.. lets say EVERYONE was contracted to starbucks. so that it only cost you 1 hop fee to pay anyone.
1000 payments =$10 being eaten from the amount you deposited

but imagine it required hop style because not everyone was directly connected to starbucks.. and the routes were on average 4 hops apart
that 1000 payments would = $40 being eaten from your deposit amount.

...
also if you only deposited $180 in your contract to starbucks, you only have funds for 60 coffee's so only able to do 60 payments.
if however you were 4 hops away from starbucks. requiring payment more fee's per hop. you may only get 59 coffee's/payments.

worse.. if the route require 20 hops you make less payments/less amount of coffee's you can buy due to hop fee's eating up your deposit a little more.

...
in bitcoin there is a big difference between 'technically possible' and 'realistically possible'

TL:dr;
just having 1-2channels does not guarantee 'thousands of payments'
its dependant on how reliable/complex the routing is
how much funds you deposit
how often the channels open/close

[deisik]

just having 1-2channels does not guarantee 'thousands of payments'
its dependant on how reliable/complex the routing is
how much funds you deposit
how often the channels open/close

That's the point that I addressed right at the start

I specifically pointed it out that LN will likely kick in exactly when it will be most needed, i.e. as soon as we "start to feel the pressure". As I said, Litecoin, as a coin which has already implemented both SW and LN, cannot possibly run into the issues that Bitcoin is now confronted with, i.e. high fees and slow confirmation times. Payment channels will pop up just when it makes sense. It is an effective solution to the problem faced, and just because we don't need it yet (in Litecoin, obviously), it doesn't mean that it is not viable or applicable. Therefore, any claims that any coin will inevitably have the same issues as Bitcoin (if it rises as high) are unfounded and invalid

[Mpamaegbu]

I don't really know if I am stuck or whatever. I have an unconfirmed transaction of 0.025 btc that I sent out pending since 12th June till now. That's close to 72hours and I am at loss on what to do. Can someone help me out on what to do here. This Bitcoin lag in confirming transaction will definitely lead to its death...

[TravelMug]

I don't really know if I am stuck or whatever. I have an unconfirmed transaction of 0.025 btc that I sent out pending since 12th June till now. That's close to 72hours and I am at loss on what to do. Can someone help me out on what to do here. This Bitcoin lag in confirming transaction will definitely lead to its death...

Dude I know that you are seasoned bitcoiners but have you used low fees when sending the transaction? I haven't checked the fee's but last week its around 400 sat/byte. So I guess it may have something to do with the fees' you used. I suggest you used viabtc to help accelerate you transaction and maybe you got lucky and it will be pick in the next 6 hours or so.

[darklus123]

Fees can really be painful. Yet when i came to think of it i have realized that  i was still able to gain more profit now because of the price hike of course even if i do send a higher fee so basically this is quite reasonable because the opportunity also increases

[RudyCenJia]

Day to day, week to week Bitcoin price is increasing but with this arises a big problem that is fee.

Can you think that with an increase in Bitcoin transaction fees will result in less use of Bitcoin for transactions from one address to another. Because it saves the cost for the expense of the fee.

And people will move towards other market competition Or there is an opportunity to repair chain block network and increase block size.

I ask everyone to give you thoughts and views on this big cost issue in the future. 

[ufaiz50]

not just a big fee but also the length of the transaction confirmation even if using the default fee. some users also complained about it and hoped there was an opportunity to repair the chain block network and increase the block size. but this may be proportional to the profit for user due to the rise in bitcoin prices.

[Mirror, Mirror, on the Wa]

There are multiple points in solving this, First of which is the effort by the developers and the network to make larger blocks and hence accepting and verifying more transactions and the fees to let a transaction pass would become lower.
The second would be focusing on sending transactions in bulk and including higher amounts with small amounts like how coinbase and paxful do, sending dozens together, the size is bigger but the fees are bigger as well - this isn't a solution though, since it would still be +100s/b.
So the main thing is waiting for a fundamental change allowing more transactions and hence less fees.

[Lauda]

Fees can really be painful. Yet when i came to think of it i have realized that  i was still able to gain more profit now because of the price hike of course even if i do send a higher fee so basically this is quite reasonable because the opportunity also increases

Useless shit post?

not just a big fee but also the length of the transaction confirmation even if using the default fee.

There is no such thing as the default fee.

Day to day, week to week Bitcoin price is increasing but with this arises a big problem that is fee.

With a surging price, even a stable fee-rate will end up causing high average fees. In Bitcoin specifically, the price rise was coupled with a decent rise in the fee-rate which made it worse.

And people will move towards other market competition Or there is an opportunity to repair chain block network and increase block size.

Yet another example of uninformed people spewing nonsense. If people move to other coins -> other coins have the same issue -> people whine again. Increasing the block size is not a solution.

[Labumi]

yes it is because many users get mad on the high transaction fee. If this problem does not solved soon. It can be the reason to disappear or bring down in the near future.

Well, indeed it could just be a reason in it. Because of the nature of the problem it is already go on and don't have much the best way out, just give me the high fee was the best way for now. But I think in this case it will certainly become a bitcoin can make into the trash, because now they have a lot of problems and if the original owner didn't show up and find a way out in the future price of the bitcoin will quickly go down
 

[Mpamaegbu]

I don't really know if I am stuck or whatever. I have an unconfirmed transaction of 0.025 btc that I sent out pending since 12th June till now. That's close to 72hours and I am at loss on what to do. Can someone help me out on what to do here. This Bitcoin lag in confirming transaction will definitely lead to its death...

Dude I know that you are seasoned bitcoiners but have you used low fees when sending the transaction? I haven't checked the fee's but last week its around 400 sat/byte. So I guess it may have something to do with the fees' you used. I suggest you used viabtc to help accelerate you transaction and maybe you got lucky and it will be pick in the next 6 hours or so.

Ok, I did as you directed me to with the viabtc guys sine yesterday. But the transaction is still not confirmed. Does that mean my coins are stuck now forever? Will I not be able to retrieve my Bitcoin from this failed transaction or what?

[Heyyyrenz]

I think it's really a problem for bitcoins to have a big transcation fee many users are complaining about the high fees of transaction i think this is one of the big problem of bitcoins but i may say this will not gonna bring down the bitcoins eventhough the users are complaining about the fee they can't do anything they just deal with it because bitcoins run the crypro world because of its high value in the market but if a crypto comes around with high value but lower transaction maybe that's the time that the bitcoins will fall.

[yrreg ger]

I know that it is just normal for money transactions to have fees but sometimes you might get into thinking that maybe the fee is higher and you think that it is too much. I can’t say that the transaction fee affects the future of the bitcoin but I do really think that it would be great if the transaction fee is lower. It would really be a big help if we can now transfer, send and received money with lower transaction fees.