[2017-07-05] Unconfirmed Transactions Queue and Bitcoin Fees Drop Considerably

[ivanpoldark]

For about a week and a half, the Bitcoin network’s transaction congestion and rising fee market has subsided. People are now reporting on how they are sending transactions for smaller fees, and some of them are having difficulty with wallets that are recommending fees that are much higher than needed.

Bitcoin’s Network Congestion Has Subsided For Now

The amount of unconfirmed transactions has been significantly lower than usual with the mempool (transaction queue) averaging roughly 7,000 to 15,000 unconfirmed transactions per day. This is a stark contrast to the 200,000+ transactions held up in the mempool just a few weeks prior. The transaction stress started diminishing around the first week of June and has continued to decline to the levels we are at today.


Bitcoiners are paying lower fees throughout June and July 2017.

Since the number of unconfirmed transactions has dropped and there has been more room for bitcoin transactions — fees have also dropped. Less than two years ago anyone could send some bitcoin for a fee of roughly $0.02 worth of BTC, but this past May fees reached an average median of $5 per transaction. However, fees now have abated to levels under a dollar and some as low as $0.25 according to a few bitcoin proponents.

Continue reading
https://news.bitcoin.com/unconfirmed-transactions-bitcoin-fees-drop/

[1715181705]

1715181705

[1715181705]

1715181705

[1715181705]

1715181705

[1715181705]

1715181705

[Kprawn]

The third party wallet providers and exchanges will hold onto those high fees as long as possible. {They were milking the spammed network} The

users will have to start complaining if this continues. {Take this to social media, if they do not stop with the high fees} I have made some tx's

for under $1 for the last week, without any problems. This is the Bitcoin I was used to for years... and some newbies will not know this. 

[d5000]

One of the reasons (not the only one! - in my opinion definitively there was some spam in the last months) for this decrease is ignored in the article, but is quite simple: it's the holiday season in the northern hemisphere that makes people transact less. It's actually the same effect that have Saturdays and Sundays where transaction congestion and the fees for a fast transaction even in the worst moments in March, April and May were much lower than on weekdays.

Another reason I miss in the article is that people simply are planning transactions more than they did before - if you have high fees, you are incentived to bundle transactions, to minimize their size (e.g. trying to spend whole UTXOs) and to avoid unnecessary transactions. People learn, and that's good

[aso118]

While a drop in number of unconfirmed transactions and fees is good news, it doesn't really solve the problem which has plagued Bitcoin for more than a year now. We need to scale up and do it soon. A few transaction spammers have the ability to make transaction confirmations painfully slow currently.

[Iranus]

The third party wallet providers and exchanges will hold onto those high fees as long as possible. {They were milking the spammed network}

Miners were milking the network (obviously) far more than you could say third party wallets and exchanges were.  Some of them were okay, actually.
Honestly, this chart is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that the fee people have to pay is now about a million times less than it was just a few weeks ago.  You can send a transaction for around 40 satoshi/byte and it'll still get confirmed in decent time.

I feel sorry for all the newbies who are stuck with wallets recommending crazily high fee to get their transactions confirmed.  The network should favour users first, miners second.

This just goes to show how a little bit of spam can push scaling through.

[LuanX3]

While a drop in number of unconfirmed transactions and fees is good news, it doesn't really solve the problem which has plagued Bitcoin for more than a year now. We need to scale up and do it soon. A few transaction spammers have the ability to make transaction confirmations painfully slow currently.

What if we don't need to, yet. The issue only arose due to the problems with fees going up and transactions not getting confirmed fast enough. That issue is slowly fading away and there would be no problem anymore. That attack was surely from the people who are pushing the forks.

[richardsNY]

What if we don't need to, yet. The issue only arose due to the problems with fees going up and transactions not getting confirmed fast enough. That issue is slowly fading away and there would be no problem anymore. That attack was surely from the people who are pushing the forks.

You're not taking this problem seriously it seems. The only reason the spam attack has stopped, is because there is nothing to gain anymore at this moment. If you look closely at the transaction charts, you'll notice that these attacks come in waves, where each time they reach a newer high of transactions not being able to confirm. I am sure that we'll be experiencing another heavy spam attack in the last 10 or so days of this month.

[just_Alice]

Great news! And yes, I can confirm, I paid under $1 in fee recently and the transaction was confirmed fast. It was really frustrating paying $2+ for a transaction couple of months ago.

[ahmedjamal1998]

This is the hot wallet of a tiny small company that I know.

https://blockchain.info/address/19D1iGzDr7FyAdiy3ZZdxMd6ttHj1kj6WW

Just take a look. All the transactions that have been processed for the past 3 days have been in the range of 25-40 sat/byte !! And all of them got confirmed easily without any interference from any accelerators or such.
Which is compared to a week ago where all transactions where at least 100+ sat/byte.

I guess we don't need a fork or anything. Since it's clear and vivid that this was a spam attack.

[BitHodler]

I guess we don't need a fork or anything. Since it's clear and vivid that this was a spam attack.

I don't think you get it. Blocks are still full, and spam attacks show up when the entity behind them think it's justifiable to keep spending a decent bit of money for a longer period of time.

Another point, forks aren't just there to support larger blocks. SegWit includes a few important aspects, from which the malleability fix is a very important one.

Another important aspect is that due to the fact that SegWit supports larger blocks, it will basically open the doors for something like Lightning Network, or whatever other similar features that require block space.

[1Referee]

The third party wallet providers and exchanges will hold onto those high fees as long as possible. {They were milking the spammed network} The

users will have to start complaining if this continues. {Take this to social media, if they do not stop with the high fees} I have made some tx's

for under $1 for the last week, without any problems. This is the Bitcoin I was used to for years... and some newbies will not know this.  

You can't expect exchanges and wallet services to constantly change their fee structure just because the spam attack has temporarily stopped. It would create a ping pong effect, because at the time the spam attack picks up again, while the fees have been lowered, it might result in withdrawals taking longer to confirm, and thus people will complain. In case the network doesn't experience any sort of spam attack, and higher fees have been put in place, people will complain that the fees are too high. In other words, best is to leave everything as it is, and thus not change anything. Also, the lower fees might have a positive impact on people's moods here, but for me it doesn't change anything. I always adapt by setting an appropriate fee based on how the network situation is on that exact moment.

[buwaytress]

You can't expect exchanges and wallet services to constantly change their fee structure just because the spam attack has temporarily stopped. It would create a ping pong effect, because at the time the spam attack picks up again, while the fees have been lowered, it might result in withdrawals taking longer to confirm, and thus people will complain. In case the network doesn't experience any sort of spam attack, and higher fees have been put in place, people will complain that the fees are too high. In other words, best is to leave everything as it is, and thus not change anything. Also, the lower fees might have a positive impact on people's moods here, but for me it doesn't change anything. I always adapt by setting an appropriate fee based on how the network situation is on that exact moment.

Actually, you can expect them to use a dynamic fee structure that allows users to choose their own fees. A few sites are starting to implement this. Some wallets already have been for a long time. There won't be a perfect system but better control over your fees should anyway be something wallets must look at.

[1Referee]

Actually, you can expect them to use a dynamic fee structure that allows users to choose their own fees. A few sites are starting to implement this. Some wallets already have been for a long time. There won't be a perfect system but better control over your fees should anyway be something wallets must look at.

Dynamic fees or not, there will always be a base minimum that exchanges and services think they need to cover the standard transaction fees, plus they obviously want their cut as well. Just out of interest, name up a few of these sites and wallet services that happen to use dynamic fees?

[buwaytress]

Actually, you can expect them to use a dynamic fee structure that allows users to choose their own fees. A few sites are starting to implement this. Some wallets already have been for a long time. There won't be a perfect system but better control over your fees should anyway be something wallets must look at.

Dynamic fees or not, there will always be a base minimum that exchanges and services think they need to cover the standard transaction fees, plus they obviously want their cut as well. Just out of interest, name up a few of these sites and wallet services that happen to use dynamic fees?

Counterwallet lets you choose based on priority and/or set your own fees, with a base minimum that changes depending on network and size of your tx. It's not perfect but it's a start.
Electrum lets you set a dynamic structure, a fixed one based on sats/byte or even manually - with a current low base fee of 3,000 satoshi. This base fee seems to go up and down, as I noticed. It even used to be as low as 500 satoshi (and from old versions I read even 0 fee was possible). My favourite wallet. This has always been a feature for as long as I've used Electrum.

Sites? Since June:
Localbitcoins uses dynamic fees.
Crypto-games.net lets you choose a fee structure based on sats/byte.

So yes, wallets and sites need to get on and keep up.

[1Referee]

I am solely referring to exchanges and online wallet services from which the withdrawal fee is meant to generate them some sort of an income, and for that reason is kept at a certain hight.

Electrum - This is a wallet client, and not a service where your coins are stored online. Transaction fees are purely network related, and thus don't contribute towards the services's profits.

Counterwallet - Non profit wallet service where transaction fees are purely network related, and don't contribute towards the services's profits.

LocalBitcoins - This is a correct example.

Crypto-games.net - It's mainly a gambling site, but they do offer people three options when it comes to withdrawing funds.

[buwaytress]

I am solely referring to exchanges and online wallet services from which the withdrawal fee is meant to generate them some sort of an income, and for that reason is kept at a certain hight.

Electrum - This is a wallet client, and not a service where your coins are stored online. Transaction fees are purely network related, and thus don't contribute towards the services's profits.

Counterwallet - Non profit wallet service where transaction fees are purely network related, and don't contribute towards the services's profits.

LocalBitcoins - This is a correct example.

Crypto-games.net - It's mainly a gambling site, but they do offer people three options when it comes to withdrawing funds.

Ah, well that's clarified, then. But doesn't change the argument that dynamic fee structures can and have been applied, so should be to allow more control over the way user funds are used. In case of web wallets with your required categorisation, let's say blockchain.info. It's been using dynamic fee structure since last year at least.

You should take a look at CGN (which also offers investments and exchange). It isn't 3 options anymore as you say, you can choose the sat/byte fee using a slider, as I mentioned.

P.S. You asked out of interest but seem to know quite a bit already. Why were you really asking then?

[mrayazgul]

I am solely referring to exchanges and online wallet services from which the withdrawal fee is meant to generate them some sort of an income, and for that reason is kept at a certain hight.

Electrum - This is a wallet client, and not a service where your coins are stored online. Transaction fees are purely network related, and thus don't contribute towards the services's profits.

Counterwallet - Non profit wallet service where transaction fees are purely network related, and don't contribute towards the services's profits.

LocalBitcoins - This is a correct example.

Crypto-games.net - It's mainly a gambling site, but they do offer people three options when it comes to withdrawing funds.

Ah, well that's clarified, then. But doesn't change the argument that dynamic fee structures can and have been applied, so should be to allow more control over the way user funds are used. In case of web wallets with your required categorisation, let's say blockchain.info. It's been using dynamic fee structure since last year at least.

You should take a look at CGN (which also offers investments and exchange). It isn't 3 options anymore as you say, you can choose the sat/byte fee using a slider, as I mentioned.

P.S. You asked out of interest but seem to know quite a bit already. Why were you really asking then?

That's just a matter of somebody putting the information out there in such a way to make it look like it's something else, and to make it support what they're trying to say.  . Any set of statistics and any set of numbers can be made to presented to make a certain point if presented in the proper way.

[1Referee]

P.S. You asked out of interest but seem to know quite a bit already. Why were you really asking then?

Out of interest means that I am interested in the other person's view on certain things. In most cases I am well aware of how things are, but that doesn't mean there is nothing for me left to learn in terms of the fee structure of certain wallet services and exchanges. And perhaps there have been a few newer services launched from which I didn't know they existed.

[Vishnu.Reang]

The situation could have been much better, if some of the mining pools didn't played dirty games. Take a look at the recent blocks which were mined by GB Miners: https://blockchain.info/blocks/GBMiners

They refused to include the low-fee transactions in their blocks. These people needs to be taught a lesson. They are just too greedy.

[jennywhzz]

The situation could have been much better, if some of the mining pools didn't played dirty games. Take a look at the recent blocks which were mined by GB Miners: https://blockchain.info/blocks/GBMiners

They refused to include the low-fee transactions in their blocks. These people needs to be taught a lesson. They are just too greedy.

no one here actually knows exactly what level of confirmed and unconfirmed TX are there because of the constantly  moving chain and the backward hang time that makes it stay where it is.