[Apr 2026]Mempool empty, Consolidate your small inputs @0.15 sat/vbyte

[philipma1957]

this is ridiculous.

Agreed.

I can't help but see this as a threat to Bitcoin. Am I correct to worry? It may be correct that storage space is cheap nowadays but I don't see any sense in that the Blockchain can be used to store arbitrary (non-neglible sized) garbage data at the cost of literally anyone using the network.

There's Lightning Network, sure, but high transaction fees aren't entirely unproblematic with regards to LN either.

Things like signature campaigns are becoming problematic. Being forced to use altcoins.

Now you get it.

Scrypt algo has a vested interest in spamming the BTC fee system.

I have at least 12 major reasons the BTC fee system will be attacked. One` reason is people will use LTC/DOGE to save money.

This "attack" is not over or close to over. as the fees are bouncing around 0.5 to 2.3 coins per block

0.5 is okay enough  but 2.3 coins per block is big.

If you think this is bad. They are prepping for the 1/2 ing

this attack blocks were 6.25 and some very high fees touched 3 coins so

6.25 to 3.0

if it were next May 2024 rewards of  3.125 and fees of 3.0 = huge issue.

 I have to think the major mines will help to do this again and again and again.  Causing more pressure on btc or more use of scrypt coins.

get ready for quite a show in spring

[BoXXoB]

I can't help but see this as a threat to Bitcoin. Am I correct to worry? It may be correct that storage space is cheap nowadays but I don't see any sense in that the Blockchain can be used to store arbitrary (non-neglible sized) garbage data at the cost of literally anyone using the network.

It's always been possible to store data in the blockchain, and there's always been spam. The main problem now is that someone managed to earn money from spamming, which means they can keep this up for as long as they can convince people to pay them for made-up BS Ordinals.

Wasn't it something like 80 kB before and it's possible to store up to 4MB now. I think it was a mistake that it can be arbitrary although SegWit and what not was the reason for the change. I'm not well versed enough to say if it would even be possible without allowing arbitrary data from anyone.

I believe there's a place for cryptographically proven ownership

I'd love to see it on the stock market, or for instance car registration. But that requires a central authority to connect crypto to the real world, and they're not ready for it.

I fear it's not going to happen unless it's in some what they remain in control i.e. they can revoke your ownership. The authorities won't risk letting us actually own something.

Now you get it.

Scrypt algo has a vested interest in spamming the BTC fee system.

 I have to think the major mines will help to do this again and again and again.  Causing more pressure on btc or more use of scrypt coins.

get ready for quite a show in spring

I can't help but feel you are right. I personally am leaning towards using Monero for regular transactions.

[albert0bsd]

I feel that definitely somebody is doing things completely wrong, jus look in less than 10 minutes fees were incremented a lot

Fuck those BS Ordinals.

Why not increment from 45 to 46, 47,48... etc they are incrementing to 100, 150, 200.. where is the logic there? if they want to earn money they are doing it wrong.

[Volgastallion]

I feel that definitely somebody is doing things completely wrong, jus look in less than 10 minutes fees were incremented a lot

Fuck those BS Ordinals.

Why not increment from 45 to 46, 47,48... etc they are incrementing to 100, 150, 200.. where is the logic there? if they want to earn money they are doing it wrong.

A bunch of idiots or malicious people i dont know what to think.

The problem is we can enter in a spiral of BTC and increase in fees, if BTC price goes up they start to think, its ok to pay more because i can cover this in the future with the uprising price of the btc, and this multiplied for thousands of people doing it can push the fee so much.

[philipma1957]

I can't help but see this as a threat to Bitcoin. Am I correct to worry? It may be correct that storage space is cheap nowadays but I don't see any sense in that the Blockchain can be used to store arbitrary (non-neglible sized) garbage data at the cost of literally anyone using the network.

It's always been possible to store data in the blockchain, and there's always been spam. The main problem now is that someone managed to earn money from spamming, which means they can keep this up for as long as they can convince people to pay them for made-up BS Ordinals.

Wasn't it something like 80 kB before and it's possible to store up to 4MB now. I think it was a mistake that it can be arbitrary although SegWit and what not was the reason for the change. I'm not well versed enough to say if it would even be possible without allowing arbitrary data from anyone.

I believe there's a place for cryptographically proven ownership

I'd love to see it on the stock market, or for instance car registration. But that requires a central authority to connect crypto to the real world, and they're not ready for it.

I fear it's not going to happen unless it's in some what they remain in control i.e. they can revoke your ownership. The authorities won't risk letting us actually own something.

Now you get it.

Scrypt algo has a vested interest in spamming the BTC fee system.

 I have to think the major mines will help to do this again and again and again.  Causing more pressure on btc or more use of scrypt coins.

get ready for quite a show in spring

I can't help but feel you are right. I personally am leaning towards using Monero for regular transactions.

Yeah I have seen the pattern repeat over and over and over and over.

Let's say a whale has 100 btc in an addy he is not looking to sell until yesterday. he needs to pay bigly to move the coins to coinbase to convert to cash.  but what the fuck 100 coins is 3.6 or 3.7 mill who cares if the fee is 5,000 usd.  He got in last year at 16k and now sells for 37k big profit.

He does not care if fees are big.

Now take Joe Smoe he broke his balls getting 1 btc last fall at 16k it is in his trezor he sees 37k and says fuck this I am cashing.

he was a bit dumb did not pre consolidate the 1 btc and his fee is 1000 usd to move it. He will feel that.

So this encourages storage in an exchange.

This is but one of many examples of why fees are flooded and Jack and will continue to be Jacked. Not every day but 2 days here 3 days here so on and so forth.

I can illustrate it goes beyond ordinals. Large pools with big players can do it.

[stompix]

I feel that definitely somebody is doing things completely wrong, jus look in less than 10 minutes fees were incremented a lot

Fuck those BS Ordinals.

Why not increment from 45 to 46, 47,48... etc they are incrementing to 100, 150, 200.. where is the logic there? if they want to earn money they are doing it wrong.

That's a ViaBTC block:
https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000000e02766a71214a38a37f511cc4fe92a0b2617db4a8310

Viabtc includes up to 100 tx per block through its transaction accelerator, that's why it has a few low paying tx, which happens all the time:

[logfiles]

I refuse to waste money on paying more fees even though I could.

If you consolidated your funds on time, you may be able to use ViaBTC's transaction accelerator now. But only for transactions up to half a kB, with at least 10 sat/byte (not vbyte, so about double for Segwit).

Yup, this does the trick for now, but the day ViaBTC decide to retire their transaction accelerator. It will be terrible for people who are genuinely stuck. I remember there were about 3-4 more transaction accelerators owned by other mining pools like Poolin, Antpool but for some reason, they all stopped them.

[philipma1957]

I refuse to waste money on paying more fees even though I could.

If you consolidated your funds on time, you may be able to use ViaBTC's transaction accelerator now. But only for transactions up to half a kB, with at least 10 sat/byte (not vbyte, so about double for Segwit).

Yup, this does the trick for now, but the day ViaBTC decide to retire their transaction accelerator. It will be terrible for people who are genuinely stuck. I remember there were about 3-4 more transaction accelerators owned by other mining pools like Poolin, Antpool but for some reason, they all stopped them.

A responsible way is always send with a trezor. It has a boost option so problem is solved.

[Synchronice]

This is really getting insane. I don't know if this transaction is done by an individual on exchange but it's probably done by an individual because exchanges rarely support taproot. So, a person (probably) made a transaction that supports features SegWit, Taproot, RBF. He sent ‎0.09447688 BTC ($3,428) and at first paid 230 sat/vByte, then, after 28 minutes, he increased fee up to 26,790 sat/vByte (Overpaid 82x) and paid 0.03804212 BTC ($1,380).
In what world does it make any sense? I can't believe this is a mistake or a bug.

Here is the transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/dd8a15f6492e3d570053024c743a8571167c415eb3b5ea2b83f18cf06b2f7f3d

[LoyceV]

he increased fee up to 26,790 sat/vByte (Overpaid 82x) and paid 0.03804212 BTC ($1,380).

Now check the receiving address: it has received hundreds of transactions with ridiculously high fees.

In what world does it make any sense?

My guess: in the world of ordinal spammers.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

A responsible way is always send with a trezor. It has a boost option so problem is solved.

Man philipma1957, I'm surprised you say that as if Trezor is the only option that RBF allows, especially with the anti-privacy turn they've taken lately. The point is to leave RBF enabled, in case you have to bump the fee later, but there are many options other than trezor.

[Synchronice]

he increased fee up to 26,790 sat/vByte (Overpaid 82x) and paid 0.03804212 BTC ($1,380).

Now check the receiving address: it has received hundreds of transactions with ridiculously high fees.

In what world does it make any sense?

My guess: in the world of ordinal spammers.

Ordinal spammers pay high fees to create their ordinals ASAP and they need to get transaction confirmed ASAP, right? But this isn't ordinals, is it? I checked transaction and address on Ordiscan and didn't detect any inscription. Maybe I am super bad in analyzing blockchain, I don't know 

By the way, even in the world of ordinal spammers, I can't imagine paying so much in fees and this is not the only example. You can discover tons of transaction in bitcoin blocks where people pay ridiculously high transaction fees. That's what I don't understand, one could easily pay two times, three times, probably 5 times more fees than recommended to get it confirmed ASAP but even why should ordinal spammers pay 20 times, 50 times and higher fees? Their point is to make money from garbage and I expect them to be savvy on fees.

[stompix]

Here is the transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/dd8a15f6492e3d570053024c743a8571167c415eb3b5ea2b83f18cf06b2f7f3d

I wonder whether that person actually wanted perform bump to 267 or 268 sat/vB instead. It doesn't make sense either since even if you use top 0.X vMB based on certain mempool data, you probably pay around 3xx - 4xx sat.vB.

I don't think that's where the mistake was, the replaced tx is not the same size so we have
The first one is Size   ‎13.05 kB
The second one Size   ‎193 B
So the size is down by ~70 times,

First fee,    2,996,700
The second fee, 3,804,212

I think that when he bumped the fee he forgot he reduced the tx, if he hadn't changed the tx size the fee would be just about the next block requirement, from 230 sat/vB to ~ 300sat/b,  enough for the next block confirmation at that time.

[LoyceV]

Ordinal spammers pay high fees to create their ordinals ASAP and they need to get transaction confirmed ASAP, right? But this isn't ordinals, is it?

I don't know. I don't care enough about ordinals to learn how that shit works

By the way, even in the world of ordinal spammers, I can't imagine paying so much in fees and this is not the only example. You can discover tons of transaction in bitcoin blocks where people pay ridiculously high transaction fees. That's what I don't understand, one could easily pay two times, three times, probably 5 times more fees than recommended to get it confirmed ASAP but even why should ordinal spammers pay 20 times, 50 times and higher fees? Their point is to make money from garbage and I expect them to be savvy on fees.

None of this makes sense. The receiving address' balance is ‎0.11259245 BTC. It received 811 transactions with a total of 4.67225750 BTC paid in fees.

[JayJuanGee]

A responsible way is always send with a trezor. It has a boost option so problem is solved.

Man philipma1957, I'm surprised you say that as if Trezor is the only option that RBF allows, especially with the anti-privacy turn they've taken lately. The point is to leave RBF enabled, in case you have to bump the fee later, but there are many options other than trezor.

I am a pretty BIG fan of the Trezor too, even though I understand that various hardware wallets have various features and sometimes some wallet manufacturers have engaged in questionable behaviors.

I was also thinking that if any of us is sending transactions to multiple recipients at the same time, then maybe we could end up sending several at once and the fees would not be very much more than from a single recipient but having multiple recipients would average out to be way less fees (costs) per recipient..

We could therefore end up sending our transaction with a higher transaction fee to make sure that the transaction goes through yet in the end it would still have lower costs per recipients if we are sending to several recipients at the same time.. the more recipients in any given transaction, then the cheaper per recipient  (at least in terms of the fees that exist at that time and our chosen level of speed that we would like the transaction to go through). 

One of the disadvantages in regards to sending to multiple recipients at the same time, the recipients can see the other recipients, even if they might not be sure which is which or who they are.. but they might be able to guess..or estimate further and even figure out more about various transactions or even reuse of addresses that might be happening.

[LoyceV]

One of the disadvantages in regards to sending to multiple recipients at the same time, the recipients can see the other recipients, even if they might not be sure which is which or who they are.. but they might be able to guess..or estimate further and even figure out more about various transactions or even reuse of addresses that might be happening.

I use "send to many" whenever possible. Even better if I don't end up with any change. For the recipient, there's no difference between sending to my own addresses or someone else's.

[philipma1957]

A responsible way is always send with a trezor. It has a boost option so problem is solved.

Man philipma1957, I'm surprised you say that as if Trezor is the only option that RBF allows, especially with the anti-privacy turn they've taken lately. The point is to leave RBF enabled, in case you have to bump the fee later, but there are many options other than trezor.

I said "a responsible way is always use a trezor to send as it has a boost option."

that does not mean

"Trezor is the only option that RBF allows, especially with the anti-privacy turn they've taken lately."

it means "a responsible way" which means there are other responsible ways.

I own multiple Trezor models as my only hardware wallets. 
Thus I will only recommend what I know works.

Since I do not own any other hardware wallet I do not mention any other as good.

So "a responsible way" is always use a trezor with active rbf.

if others want to testify to other responsible ways cool.


"Trezor model 1 works fine with rbf" as tested by me.

[LoyceV]

(source)

I've seen this before: suddenly, the size of the mempool drops quite a lot, but it's the fees "in the middle" that disappear. If it's not a bug on the site, all I can think of is that someone with many large transactions paying 10 sat/vbyte decided to double spend some of the inputs, thereby invalidating the older much larger transactions. But I have no idea if that's what happened.

[serveria.com]

The fees are clearly getting out of hand. This is crazy, I have survived the first fee surge during the hard fork times and I can say that current fees can compare. I remember paying several grand for moving my hard fork gains. Well I believe we're going into that direction. Kinda stupid: Bitcoin price will moon but the fees will be too high to withdraw. 

Thanks monkey pic fans! 

[stompix]

I've seen this before: suddenly, the size of the mempool drops quite a lot, but it's the fees "in the middle" that disappear. If it's not a bug on the site, all I can think of is that someone with many large transactions paying 10 sat/vbyte decided to double spend some of the inputs, thereby invalidating the older much larger transactions. But I have no idea if that's what happened.

Normally is a major purge on tx from a lot of nodes, the 300MB default hitting a huge chunk of tx waiting in the mempools, but as I see it now, rather than a major purge in the 10sat/b or a replacement I would put the bet on some major ordinal inscriptions being canceled by a double spending.


That means from block to 821156 to block 821187, 31 blocks would have found impossible to clear that, 63vMB have disappeared, if they would have been replaced they would have been confirmed but only 30 of them, leaving 33 plus the extra incoming tx still in the mempool and not erased.
This is more than even Binance is able to spit out, no way a mixer or another exchange would have left that much hanging in the mempool for so long.