[Nov 2024] Fees are low, think about Consolidating your small inputs @2.0 sat/vb

[LoyceV]

Bump: fees are a bit better again

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can have high priority with just 8 sat/vb, so better consolidate or make important trades today.

I stumbled across this transaction: fed7f8dec7952a16c2130c882bd0b01678eef967d32542e6d551ea0af64410c4. Does anyone know what's that? I have never seen it before. Seems like a bad coinjoin with dust amounts and address reuse. It isn't Ordinals, as far as I can see. It's neither an experimental Tapscript, just an ordinary Segwit, which spends 451 inputs and creates 451 outputs with approximately the same values.

[stompix]

I stumbled across this transaction: fed7f8dec7952a16c2130c882bd0b01678eef967d32542e6d551ea0af64410c4. Does anyone know what's that? I have never seen it before. Seems like a bad coinjoin with dust amounts and address reuse. It isn't Ordinals, as far as I can see. It's neither an experimental Tapscript, just an ordinary Segwit, which spends 451 inputs and creates 451 outputs with approximately the same values.

Somebody moving his inscriptions
It's those things:
https://www.ord.io/bc1qu2em6g2zaeqkluvxvjpa7zvesafu44u7ug2un0

CREATED March 19, 2024, 8:15 PM GMT+2 60 days ago

with this
https://mempool.space/tx/2d30cd255aa308e2ea0275350390965b30786238b3d5d0465b088539f059a123

Bump: fees are a bit better again

I wonder how much better it can get, current block rewards are:
Total fees   ‎0.087 BTC $5,853
this means anyone willing to pay $6k to have his own block all by himself can do so, if we go even lower at 4 cents it's half of that, and we know there are guys willing to pay 2 million for a satoshi...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Somebody moving his inscriptions
It's those things:

Got it. So trash.

this means anyone willing to pay $6k to have his own block all by himself can do so, if we go even lower at 4 cents it's half of that, and we know there are guys willing to pay 2 million for a satoshi...

Two things:

• If someone broadcasts 4 MB with the highest priority, it doesn't mean they are immediately mined. Such action would simply abruptly rise the high priority fee rate.
• $6k isn't nothing. It's $6k for just 10 minutes. That's $864k for one day with clogged up network, and that's without taking into consideration the fact that some people will simply choose to pay more than the spammer.

[LoyceV]

I wonder how much better it can get, current block rewards are:
Total fees   ‎0.087 BTC $5,853
this means anyone willing to pay $6k to have his own block all by himself can do so

I don't think that's how it works: the highest paying transactions in a block are much more expensive to replace than the average. To get the entire block, you must outbid the highest fee.

Somebody moving his inscriptions
It's those things:

Got it. So trash.

Yep. Create dust, move dust. Madness.

[stompix]

I don't think that's how it works: the highest paying transactions in a block are much more expensive to replace than the average. To get the entire block, you must outbid the highest fee.

Pools can easily choose what transactions they want to include based on their requirements if there is enough demand for those and they see they can have either a full block at 10sat/vb or 99% of it at 1sat/vb and one tx at 100sat/vb they can choose the largest one, plus with income this low no pool will refuse and extra 5k on the block with a behind the curtain deal, remember that these are extra money they will not pay the miners for it 

• $6k isn't nothing. It's $6k for just 10 minutes. That's $864k for one day with clogged up network, and that's without taking into consideration the fact that some people will simply choose to pay more than the spammer.

Oh, it might look for us as much, but when you take into consideration how many we are in this world and how some spend money it becomes peanuts. Ordinals have in the first wave managed to keep fees above 30sat/vb for 4 months, that's two years of tx at 5sat/vb and let's not forget that once the fees go down there are also genuine transactions and consolidations happening.

And even one block a day, that's close to 1% of the capacity, imagine the headlines and how much Bitcoiners would laugh if a kid were able to cut 5% of Visa capacity in day with $30k. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Oh, it might look for us as much, but when you take into consideration how many we are in this world and how some spend money it becomes peanuts.

What's the point of clogging up the network for a day? You'll be spending around a million dollars to force people rise their fee rates. So what? And how long can you retain this attack? If it's money waste, then it can't operate forever. There has to be profit for this to realistically occur.

And even one block a day, that's close to 1% of the capacity, imagine the headlines and how much Bitcoiners would laugh if a kid were able to cut 5% of Visa capacity in day with $30k.

Honest question. I know you're a miner. How do you expect for the network to survive if the average transaction fee is not extremely expensive in the future? Comparing Visa with Bitcoin is like comparing apples with spacecrafts.

[LoyceV]

How do you expect for the network to survive if the average transaction fee is not extremely expensive in the future?

Allow me to inverse the question: How do you expect Bitcoin to survive if the average transaction fee is extremely expensive in the future?

I admit, it's a bit of a rhetorical question. I don't expect Bitcoin to disappear because of fees, but the average Bitcoin user won't be able to make a transaction. And can you really call someone "a user" if he can't actually use it?

[stompix]

Honest question. I know you're a miner. How do you expect for the network to survive if the average transaction fee is not extremely expensive in the future?

The same way Toyota does versus Ferrari, you sell 10 millions cars instead of 100, in bigger batches..you know what I mean 

What's the point of clogging up the network for a day? You'll be spending around a million dollars to force people rise their fee rates. So what? And how long can you retain this attack? If it's money waste, then it can't operate forever. There has to be profit for this to realistically occur.

Yup, like going long with 10x leverage on Solana 

Allow me to inverse the question: How do you expect Bitcoin to survive if the average transaction fee is extremely expensive in the future?

Once the block reward is gone, simply, it won't! 
With fees not making a dent in the reward, the security of the network halves every for year compared to the sums of money it guards, fast forward 10 times in the future and you have Fort Knox guarded by an obese 90 yo armed with a pack of tic tacs.

[BlackHatCoiner]

And can you really call someone "a user" if he can't actually use it?

Bitcoin will survive, just not as magic Internet currency in the base layer. It might sound like too-Saylor, but it is true: the base layer is the asset layer. The bet is to produce a working layer on top of that base. A second layer like lightning is what I'd rather recognize as a "transaction layer". Lightning payments fit better the definition of a "transaction", because you'd expect from a transaction to complete instantly, very inexpensively and more importantly: to be feasible to make nearly infinite (small) transactions.

I'm absolutely not saying that lightning is ideal, not even working great. It's just an attempt to implement one such layer. It's good that we acknowledge that such layer is needed. I see a lot of altcoiners being proponents of big block sizes, and that this is the solution to sustainability and cheap fees, which is evidently false.

To answer your question, you can call someone a user, as long as they use bitcoin. Be it on the base layer, or not. The bet is to develop second layers, and depend on them when we want financial transactions.

The same way Toyota does versus Ferrari, you sell 10 millions cars instead of 100, in bigger batches..you know what I mean

If you increase the block size limit (which is what I presume you mean), you're destroying the fee market competition, and you're making less money as a miner. So, it's worse.

[tranthidung]

Bitcoin will survive, just not as magic Internet currency in the base layer. It might sound like too-Saylor, but it is true: the base layer is the asset layer. The bet is to produce a working layer on top of that base. A second layer like lightning is what I'd rather recognize as a "transaction layer". Lightning payments fit better the definition of a "transaction", because you'd expect from a transaction to complete instantly, very inexpensively and more importantly: to be feasible to make nearly infinite (small) transactions.

The biggest disadvantage and also barrier of Lightning Network is, people have to make an on-chain transaction to open their Lightning Network channel and start using Lightning Network for "small" transactions. The prerequisite step is not too attractive for people who simply want to save transaction fee at beginning and for people who don't usually make transactions. That first transaction is actually expensive if Bitcoin mempools are congested.

If people have to surpass this "barrier" by using centralized platforms that support Lightning Network, it sucks because they will have to give up control on their coins. These platforms might only broadcast transactions through Lightning Network sparsely within a day, it sucks again, it's not smooth experience.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The same way Toyota does versus Ferrari, you sell 10 millions cars instead of 100, in bigger batches..you know what I mean

If you increase the block size limit (which is what I presume you mean), you're destroying the fee market competition, and you're making less money as a miner. So, it's worse.

Bumping stompix!

The biggest disadvantage and also barrier of Lightning Network is, people have to make an on-chain transaction to open their Lightning Network channel and start using Lightning Network for "small" transactions.

That's actually the least of the barriers. You can open more than three lightning channels for less than $3. The biggest problem, in my view, is routing failures. It's extremely annoying, speaking out of personal experience. When I want to make a transaction, I want to be certain it will finish, and it's almost certainly the case that at least a quarter of my lightning payments fail. You can only reduce the failure probability by opening more and more channels, but then you have another problem: you're suddenly holding thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin in a hot wallet, which by the way requires more than just a seed phrase to back up.

[LoyceV]

The biggest problem, in my view, is routing failures. It's extremely annoying, speaking out of personal experience. When I want to make a transaction, I want to be certain it will finish, and it's almost certainly the case that at least a quarter of my lightning payments fail. You can only reduce the failure probability by opening more and more channels

This is another reason why I like custodial LN wallets (for small amounts): in my experience, they're much better connected than my own channels.

[cryptosize]

The biggest problem, in my view, is routing failures. It's extremely annoying, speaking out of personal experience. When I want to make a transaction, I want to be certain it will finish, and it's almost certainly the case that at least a quarter of my lightning payments fail. You can only reduce the failure probability by opening more and more channels

This is another reason why I like custodial LN wallets (for small amounts): in my experience, they're much better connected than my own channels.

What stops you from creating a channel with a well-connected node (like Kraken for example)?

[LoyceV]

What stops you from creating a channel with a well-connected node (like Kraken for example)?

It's been years since I tried, but back then (not with Kraken) the well-connected nodes still didn't solve the problem.

[stompix]

The same way Toyota does versus Ferrari, you sell 10 millions cars instead of 100, in bigger batches..you know what I mean

If you increase the block size limit (which is what I presume you mean), you're destroying the fee market competition, and you're making less money as a miner. So, it's worse.

Then we should reduce the space to 10kb, allowing only $10k+ tx because buying coffee with bitcoin is pointless, right?   

To be honest I would love for the ones being against bigger blocks would make up their mind and form a group so they don't go against each other cause I keep hearing contrarian arguments
- fees won't go down because blocks are bigger, but the miner's revenue won't increase
- just bigger blocks won't make more transactions, but bigger blocks would somehow still be full and still, pay less

Every single thing in this world from air travel to superstores has become attractive because of scaling, driving prices cheaper, and making it more affordable for everyone driving more customers and revenue than you could do with a premium product and this hope in the future that users will actively pay $50 for a simple tx to keep the same level of the security as we have now is just daydreaming.

If you want usage, make it affordable!
If you want security, someone has to pay!
Both can be achieved only one way!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Then we should reduce the space to 10kb, allowing only $10k+ tx because buying coffee with bitcoin is pointless, right?   

That's not what I said nor meant, though. 

To be honest I would love for the ones being against bigger blocks would make up their mind and form a group so they don't go against each other cause I keep hearing contrarian arguments

To be honest, I would love if you could propose a solution to the problem other than complaining about it forever. Bigger blocks is not a solution, that's one thing for certain. If you still think it is, then you're delusional. If you rise the block size limit, then you're destroying the fee market competition, which is your only source of income as time goes by. And that's without even mentioning other issues that arise with that decision.

- "B-b-but, isn't 10 or 20 MB enough to sustain the fee market while alleviating the scaling problem?" Maybe, but that's what you do: you alleviate it, you don't solve it. It will still be expensive and extremely slow for point-of-sale.

So, I'm all ears. What's the solution since merely changing a block size limit constant won't resolve the issue?

[stompix]

To be honest, I would love if you could propose a solution to the problem other than complaining about it forever.

I've already said it a hundred times, doubling capacity at every halving!

Bigger blocks is not a solution, that's one thing for certain.

Nope, that's your opinion, not a certainty, and please don't start comparing again with forks it's like saying that Acombolofulo payments doesn't need worldwide servers for their business 

Maybe, but that's what you do: you alleviate it, you don't solve it.

At least it's doing something other than praying for a magical fix.

If you rise the block size limit, then you're destroying the fee market competition,

Yup just like Ford destroyed car manufacturing, like jumbo jets destroyed air travel, like huge chain hotels destroyed tourism and so on..
It's just funny that no matter what no matter how many people use bitcoin, no matter how much they use it we should stick to this 1MB block because that will do it no matter what, good that the world population is not going up because I would envision 2500 with 200 billion people all competing to get their tx in the same 1 MB block.

So, I'm all ears. What's the solution since merely changing a block size limit constant won't resolve the issue?

I've already said it, there is only one, and I am also all ears what do you think the solution would be?

[LoyceV]

If you rise the block size limit, then you're destroying the fee market competition, which is your only source of income as time goes by. And that's without even mentioning other issues that arise with that decision.

- "B-b-but, isn't 10 or 20 MB enough to sustain the fee market while alleviating the scaling problem?" Maybe, but that's what you do: you alleviate it, you don't solve it. It will still be expensive and extremely slow for point-of-sale.

With 10 times bigger blocks, fees still won't be zero. There will be more transactions and more people could use Bitcoin. That means more people pay fees, so the total fee will still pay millions to miners.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I've already said it a hundred times, doubling capacity at every halving!

Great. Block subsidy is dropping, so let's drop some more to 0 by eliminating the fee market competition!

Nope, that's your opinion, not a certainty, and please don't start comparing again with forks it's like saying that Acombolofulo payments doesn't need worldwide servers for their business

I wasn't even talking about forks. And my "opinion" is just basic economics. If you rise the block size limit, there's more supply of a block size with demand remaining the same. As a consequence, the block reward declines.

At least it's doing something other than praying for a magical fix.

Second layers isn't "praying for a magical fix". It's a work in progress. Here's a list of promising second layer solutions: https://l2.watch/. "Doing something", which might turn out a terrible decision, merely for the sake of a temporary solution is not the ideal approach for shaping the future of money.

It's just funny that no matter what no matter how many people use bitcoin, no matter how much they use it we should stick to this 1MB block because that will do it no matter what, good that the world population is not going up because I would envision 2500 with 200 billion people all competing to get their tx in the same 1 MB block.

More complaining here, as usual.

I've already said it, there is only one, and I am also all ears what do you think the solution would be?

Layer 2, with careful OP code activation through softforks. This could allow solutions such as sharing one UTXO with multiple users to be implemented.

With 10 times bigger blocks, fees still won't be zero. There will be more transactions and more people could use Bitcoin. That means more people pay fees, so the total fee will still pay millions to miners.

What's plan B in the plausible scenario that the people that use it as currency don't do a 10x?