Bitcoin Forum
September 16, 2019, 03:52:51 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How low transactions fees could go?  (Read 312 times)
MadGamer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1020


Fun of WINBIX sales system winbix.io


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 01:26:20 PM
 #1

I believe 1 satoshi/byte is the lowest fee/unit to use. If that's indeed the case and we didn't even reach reach 20% SegWit transactions - according to SegWit.party, transactions are currently going with 1sat/byte (after a few blocks). If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?


   ▃▆█▀███████████████████▆
  ████████
█████████████████████▄
 █████████████
██████████████████▌
█████████████████
▀███████████████
█████████████████████
▀███████████
█████████████████████
▄██████████
█████████████████
▄██████████████
██████████████
▄██████████████████
████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████
▀██████████████████
██████████████████
▀██████████████
██████████████████████▄
▀█████████
█████████████████████
▄███████████
█████████████████
▄▄██████████████
 ████████████
▄▄█████████████████▌
  ███████
▄████████████████████▀
    ▀█
▄██████████████████████▀
`▄▄``````▄``````▄▄``▄▄```▄`````````▄````▄▄▄▄▄▄▄```````▄```▄`````````▄
 ██     ███     ██  ██   ██▄      ▐█▌  ▐█▀▀▀▀▀▀██    ▐█   ██▌     ▄██
 ▐█▌   ▐███▌   ██   ██   ████     ▐█▌  ▐█       ██   ▐█    ▀██   ██
  ██   ██ ██   ██   ██   █▌ ▀█▄   ▐█▌  ▐█      ▄██   ▐█      ██▄██
   ██ ▐█▀ ▀█▌ ██    ██   █▌   ██  ▐█▌  ▐█    ████    ▐█       ███
   ▐█▄██   ██▄█▌    ██   █▌    ██▄▐█▌  ▐█       ▐██  ▐█     ▄█▀ ██
    ███     ███     ██   █▌      ███▌  ▐█       ▄██  ▐█    ██    ▀██
     ██     ██▌     ██   █▌       ██▌  ▐█  ███████   ▐█  ▐█▌       ██

S A L E S   S Y S T E M




             ▄██
           ▄████           ▄▄
         ▄███▐██        ▄████
▄██████████  ▐██    ▄████▀
███▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▐██    ▀█▀
███          ▐██
███``````````▐██````██████████
███          ▐██
██████████   ▐██    ██▄
        ▀███▄▐██     ▀████▄
          ▀█████        ▀████▌
            ▀███

       ▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀█▌
        ███▀▀███
     ▄█▀        ▀█▄
   ▄█              █▄
  ██     ▄████▄     ▀█
 ██     ▐█ ▐█ ▐▀     ▐█
▐█       ▀▀███▄       █▌
▐▌``````▐▄`▐█`█▌```````▄
▐█       ▀▀██▀▀       █▌
 ▀█                  ██
   ▀█▄            ▄█▀
       ▀▀▀████▀▀▀▀


Telegram
Whitepaper
1568649171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568649171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568649171
Reply with quote  #2

1568649171
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568649171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568649171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568649171
Reply with quote  #2

1568649171
Report to moderator
1568649171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568649171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568649171
Reply with quote  #2

1568649171
Report to moderator
HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1118


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 02:24:33 PM
 #2

If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Because it won't stay that way and the transaction count that needs to be handled is only going to grow.

Even with off-chain 2nd layer scaling solutions in place we need to utilize what little blockchain space we have as best as we can. Apart from improving Bitcoin's scalability both approaches would also help improve Bitcoin's privacy -- Schnorr signatures are beneficial for CoinJoin and Bulletproofs allows sending hidden transaction amounts.

krishnapramod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1071


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 02:25:42 PM
 #3

Why would there be any need is based on the assumption that the transactional volume wouldn't increase in future. If right now, Bitcoin network had the transactional demand as in December and with 20% Segwit adoption, the fees wouldn't be anywhere near 1 Sat/byte. Segwit is just the first step towards implementing a lot of scalability innovations. Schnorr signatures is a scability implementation while confidential transactions/Bulletproofs is privacy-centric.
13abyknight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 252


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 04:16:20 PM
Merited by suchmoon (1)
 #4

why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?

Transaction size is also a major factor contributing towards transaction fees. With multiple inputs and outputs in a single transaction, the transaction obviously shoots up in size, and if optimal fees would be like it was a month ago, (>500 satoshis/byte) problematic times of long confirmation times would come back sooner or later. Since nobody wishes to live those nightmares again, proposals to decrease transaction size should be considered even amidst presence of Segwit and Lightning Network.

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 2023

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
February 27, 2018, 05:29:40 PM
 #5

While it's great to see SegWit reduce TX fee, it's only temporary solution and high fees problem will emerge again when more users adopt or/and often make transaction. LN, Schnorr, Bulletproof, MAST and other's proposal have many goals besides reduce TX fee such as reduce on-chain TX size, increase users privacy, faster transaction confirmation and obviously fix scaling problem in future.

About lowest transaction fees, i think it could be lower if there's option to set TX fee manually regardless the TX size (such as input 1 satoshi).

jmiro1
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 237
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 06:13:42 PM
 #6

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
ahmad21
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 270


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 07:23:30 PM
 #7

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.
Thirdspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 717


Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com


View Profile
February 27, 2018, 09:53:09 PM
Merited by achow101 (1)
 #8

I believe 1 satoshi/byte is the lowest fee/unit to use.
well we used to be able to send with 0 fee Grin but those days is over, I think all miners only accept min 1s/B fee now.

If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum, why there would be any need for Schnorr, Bulletproofs or any other proposal that could decrease transactions size?
Because it won't stay that way and the transaction count that needs to be handled is only going to grow.
I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once.
the scaling problems will never disappear as easy as that.
I agree with HeRetiK the transaction counts will only grow with time
it just that in time like this, for whatever reasons there are only small number of transactions being made
the more users joining the network, the more bitcoin adoptions, the more frequent users make payments and so on
thus more transactions will be made... therefore the scaling problems will always exist when bitcoin usage increases

"If we ever go to 100% (or anything near it) and fees reach their minimum"
when we are at 100% segwit txs, min fees reached and low tx counts, that means the network is at lowest level of scaling problems
what happen if 100% segwit transactions but the number of transactions multiplied 10x times
because there 5x new users and each make 2 transactions constantly every day? network load will increase drastically!
then there will be competition for transactions inclusion in block followed by increase of transaction fee
you need to take in the # of transactions and bitcoin popularity when talking about scaling problems

J_CCreate
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 28, 2018, 09:10:20 AM
 #9

If Lightning will be implemented, the fees will be extremely low. Even lower than it is now.
jtipt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 526



View Profile
February 28, 2018, 12:19:10 PM
 #10

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.

If Lightning will be implemented, the fees will be extremely low. Even lower than it is now.
off chain transactions will help with the fees but they aren't a viable option to transact huge amount, AFAIK a lighting channel has a limit of maximum BTC as well as a transaction also has a maximum limit for now. 
Because of this larger amounts of BTC will still be transacted on chain and eventually the fess can increase.
alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
February 28, 2018, 12:48:50 PM
 #11

One sat/byte is not the minimum. Whole numbers are a concept that the blockchain doesn't really approve of.

Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
Thirdspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 717


Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com


View Profile
February 28, 2018, 06:06:38 PM
 #12

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.
can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy
if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue

shield132
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 542


In bit we sler, Bitsler


View Profile
February 28, 2018, 09:24:04 PM
 #13

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.
can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy
if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue
I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.

BitMaxz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1244


Beware on fake ledger nano, trezor and electrum.


View Profile WWW
February 28, 2018, 10:58:34 PM
 #14

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.
can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy
if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue
I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.
Before this could be possible but right now its impossible to happen. Before when i was new in bitcoin honestly i tried not to pay the miners fee using electrum before i think almost 2 years ago but the transaction sent and confirmed. But right now even these days the fees drop a lot i think miners always set their miner to accept higher miner fees.
More likely your transaction can be stuck or rejected by mempool. That's why they are doing double spend or "Child Pays For Parent"
And increase the miners fee just to confirm your first stuck transaction..  So i think there's no miners fee these days..  unless if you are the miner and confirm your own transaction..

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
February 28, 2018, 11:12:36 PM
 #15

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.

Hey, but why don't we think about the negatives instead of the positives?

Negative transaction fees!

Just think - miners pay users! What a wonderful world that would be.

Just think it out logically. Fees going down is good. So, fees going down a lot more is good. Therefore, negative fees are the best!

<<<satire>>>
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1299


https://bit.ly/2FR9nyn - free python tutorials


View Profile
February 28, 2018, 11:29:33 PM
 #16

I think instead of coming up with the negatives we must think about positives. With fees going down to 1sat/byte I think the scaling problems will almost disappear for once. I think its quite an achievement if you see that despite of such a huge network load bitcoin has been able to cope up with the load. With fees the transaction time has also fallen down. Needless to say that it cannot be reduced than 10 minutes due to its inherent problem but still 10 minutes is very much usable. With more and more adoption will surely will see some new advancements coming our way.

10 minutes is actually pretty quick. It takes 3 days/72 hours minimum in my country for a credit card/debit card transaction to get confirmed (for fraud protection purposes). I think international ones would take even longer. 
So an hour for a transaction to go through is actually pretty good!
Hey, but why don't we think about the negatives instead of the positives?

Negative transaction fees!

Just think - miners pay users! What a wonderful world that would be.

Just think it out logically. Fees going down is good. So, fees going down a lot more is good. Therefore, negative fees are the best!

<<<satire>>>

It'd definitely make bitcoins adoption increase if every week, a big pool gave 1 bitcoin to a random address in a lottery (or maybe a chance to enter to get your total transaction fees paid back to you). It's obviously not going to happen since the large miners are too intent on centralising the Bitcoins network (and take over the world! - or at least pump dump it until they get bored of getting money).

jtipt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 526



View Profile
March 01, 2018, 03:21:46 AM
Merited by shield132 (1)
 #17

I agree, I also believe 1 satoshi/byte is the least transactions fees possible. But situations might not go that far.
Last week someone got a 0.65 sat/byte fee transaction confirm in the first block. And it's absolutely possible to even send 0 fees transactions, but no miner will include that transaction.
can you tell me the txid? I want to know which node/miner mined that tx.
If it accepts <1 s/B might as well try with 0 fee, we could try push 0 fee tx to that node Cheesy
if the tx pushed successfully, most likely it will be queued and included in the next block by that node
nothing wrong with trying it, eh? we won't lose our bitcoin Tongue
I think jtipt read it mistakenly, he read 0.65 sat/wu instead of 0.65 sat/byte. Let's look into this for example: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/328997526
If I am wrong, please post transaction. I have no idea if someone used less than 1 sat/byte these days/months. Those days when we could send transaction with 0 fee has gone.
No, I'm pretty sure it was 0.65 sat/byte. I saw the transaction in a post on r/Bitcoin, can't seem to find it now :l

Edit:
Found it! https://blockchain.info/en/tx/748a9298545c0e120b99abafcdb0ac149dba4c637000926ab6493cabcdf05af0
Thirdspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 717


Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com


View Profile
March 01, 2018, 10:04:09 AM
 #18

No, I'm pretty sure it was 0.65 sat/byte. I saw the transaction in a post on r/Bitcoin, can't seem to find it now :l

Edit:
Found it! https://blockchain.info/en/tx/748a9298545c0e120b99abafcdb0ac149dba4c637000926ab6493cabcdf05af0
Code:
Height 510400 (Main Chain) Size 1,208,921 Bytes
Timestamp 2018-02-22 12:06:35 Stripped Size 892,244 Bytes
Relayed By AntPool Tx Count 472

thanks for the info, saved my time searching it Grin
that block was mined by AntPool and has dust output 0.00001752 BTC (no dust amount restriction?)
too bad there is no web interface to directly push tx to AntPool node. anyone know how?
or has anyone succeeded pushing/broadcasting 0 fee tx recently (to any node)?

Abrham90210
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 01, 2018, 10:09:49 AM
 #19

Last time i used it it was about 0.84$ since i was new to this forum i only had like 8$ maybe when bitcoin rises the fee may lower a bit
RNC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 01, 2018, 01:10:32 PM
 #20

Last time i used it it was about 0.84$ since i was new to this forum i only had like 8$ maybe when bitcoin rises the fee may lower a bit
if you was use to buying a glass of water at $0.05 a cup but then the sun came out and the price went to $50.00 per cup then
would you ever forget ?

This is the problem the miners face now they have proven not to be trustworthy and since those crazy days the price
of the coin has been on a downwards slope ever since because the damage has been done and is far from forgotten.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!