Lowering transaction fees will promote the use of bitcoin and adaptability?

[AB de Royse777]

As mentioned above , fees already low. Just made a transaction with 1 Satoshi per byte yesterday,and it was confirmed in less than 20 minutes

Right now fees are low but when the price increase, hashpower rate increase then transaction cost also increases. Have in mind the last all time high $BTC. It used to cost a lot to send Bitcoin. It is fine when the amount is larger but for small amount (example: $1/$2/$5), the tx is too large.

I am confident that Lightening Network is going to solve this.

[romero121]

Transaction at present is not high or low, what we have as fee is completely upon the funds transacted. Whenever there is an increase in the value of bitcoin, the transaction fee too increases. People always require a price increase, but never agree with the transaction fee increase along with the increasing price of bitcoin.

[franky1]

But you concentrate the debate too much on "but Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash", and how the Core developers are preventing that from happening. There are trade-offs, and the solution isn't as easy as increasing the block size.

There network needs to scale out.

i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned. but seeing as you have, then yea it must be highlighted that its the devs that can actually do something about it after all bitcoin is not some self coding AI

EG instead of everyone paying standard rate average.. devs could RE-implement a fee priority (yep they removed one).
for instance implement a fee where those that spend funds more than once a day pay more per transaction than someone who pays less than once a day. thus being fairer on everyone. rather than effecting everyone due to a few bad actors

p.S its you and your buddies that think the only two options are stagnate bitcoin innovation to push other networks.
there are many ways to scale bitcoins network. but all your interested in is promoting other networks while suggesting bitcoin is not easy, and shouldnt be electronic cash

but my point of the last post is people thinking 10cents is acceptable are being very ignorant to a billion people that would see an advantage for bitcoin.. yet think 10cents is ok for less than a billion people who could easily do the same thing using fiat. in other words bitcoin is being promoted as only fit for those that dont NEED bitcoin, but want it just as a profiteer route. thus missing the whole point of bitcoins invention

[squatter]

Transaction fees has not been a issue for more than a year now, so I do not see why this is such a burning issue now. You can transfer any amount of money on-chain for a few cents these days and if you want to pay even less for micro transactions, then you can use the Lightning Network. <Cheaper & faster than on-chain transactions> 

This only accounts for current transaction demand, which is relatively low. What if on-chain throughput grows 100 times higher than today? Or maybe 10,000 times higher? Micro transactions on Lightning are great, but the LN model can't escape on-chain fees entirely.

I do wonder if we're setting ourselves up for another painful scaling debate. A lot of people are waving away the issue by saying "fees are already low." Fees are just low right now. How about when average fees approach $1 again, and higher?

[figmentofmyass]

many people above are just saying "not a problem" but yet they are not showing the stats or who the problem concerns.

firstly from 2015-2016 fee's per block were BELOW $26k
in 2018 fee's per block are 4x

i know many western countries will keep on being narrow vision to say its all good for western richguys, but again those saying its all good are ignoring BILLIONS of people that have issues with money and want alternative solutions to banks.

when a TX fee costs more than an hourly wage you cant just say "its fine"

wake up people, look outside your own personal circumstance and think about the whole purpose of bitcoin
and no,this aint a time to advertise other networks.

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

[franky1]

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

wrong
1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents
    is the exact same as 4000 transactions staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fee's upto 40 cents. it makes more sense(excuse the pun) to increase transaction capacity. to both allow people to transact and not have to pay as much.. win win win

2. no one is screaming gigabytes by midnight. the growth of more transactions IS needed. but no one is saying it has to be
gigabytes by midnight. plus more importantly no one is saying that fee's are important for mining pools this next decade
so we can start progressing now. in preparation for a few decades time.. emphasis PROGRESS,
delaying and waiting a decade then suddenly jumping helps no on and certainly pee's off billions of people that are still wondering what the hell are developers waiting for

3. also needing everyone to pay an average of 20cents is bad aswell. its far better to have someone that only transacts once a wek pay only 1cent and someone that transact several times a day pay $1 each time. that way the punishment for abuseing the space fits the individual rather than spreading it across to make everyone liable no matter how efficient they are

4. as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot mor years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure

[figmentofmyass]

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

wrong
1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents
    is the exact same as 4000 transactions needing staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fe's upto 40 cents.

that's an oversimplified analysis. the two situations are not exactly the same in the context of block size. what matters is how many transactions can fit into a block. if all transactions can easily fit into blocks at all times, fees will approach zero because there is no competition to drive fees up. therefore, there is no incentive for miners to publish transactions or secure the chain after inflation ends.

the block size limit is the only thing that causes fees to rise above 0 at all. it doesn't matter if there is 2000 or 4000 transactions. what matters is whether there is income for miners.

as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot mor years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure

that's just because miners are subsidizing the cost of transactions. they do this because they're trying to accumulate bitcoins while the inflation rate is still high.

this situation is unlikely to exist when the hard cap is reached and fees are miners' only source of income.

[thesmallgod]

I think you are making reference to two things here. Firstly, transaction charges when trading crypto to fiat and also the transaction fee. For the transaction, I do not think the fee is too high especially when some network such as lightning network has been in existence. However, alot of phases is involved when exchanging crypto to fiat currency. The highest fee is not being charged by the bitcoin network but the third parties such as merchant that offer conversion of crypto to fiat. This is the reason why many projects are trying to bridge the gap in term of use between fiat and crypto.

[coinwizard_]

Segwit v2 has already lowered the transaction fees which were getting ridiculously high. It is more about the transaction times that will drive adoption, this is where lightning network comes into play

[franky1]

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

wrong
1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents
    is the exact same as 4000 transactions needing staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fe's upto 40 cents.

that's an oversimplified analysis. the two situations are not exactly the same in the context of block size. what matters is how many transactions can fit into a block. if all transactions can easily fit into blocks at all times, fees will approach zero because there is no competition to drive fees up. therefore, there is no incentive for miners to publish transactions or secure the chain after inflation ends.

the block size limit is the only thing that causes fees to rise above 0 at all. it doesn't matter if there is 2000 or 4000 transactions. what matters is whether there is income for miners.

as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot more years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure

that's just because miners are subsidizing the cost of transactions. they do this because they're trying to accumulate bitcoins while the inflation rate is still high.

this situation is unlikely to exist when the hard cap is reached and fees are miners' only source of income.

and all of your rebuttals are empty
simply because you wish to avoid scaling the blockchain now. when fe's are not needed, to incentivise more adoption... purely to stifle adoption with debates that only concern things in many decades.

its far better to make things cheap and easy to use now. ONCHAIN to get people using bitcoin. and then let th miners concerns play out in a decouple decades. than it is to say bitcoin shouldnt scale now or ever, purely to promote other networks and harp on saying that blockchains cant work. (but they can)

[franky1]

Segwit v2 has already lowered the transaction fees which were getting ridiculously high. It is more about the transaction times that will drive adoption, this is where lightning network comes into play

segwit has not lowered fee's

pre segwit fee's were only a couple cents (under $26k a day)
post segwit fee's are more than 10cents (over $50k a day)

the whole segwit 2015 promise were cheaper fee's where people were expecting sub-penny prices again.. but instead fee's are higher

its like walmarts fake offers
all that happened was cheese rose by 2000% and then reduced by 5x to make it empty feel like a discount from temporary bubble.. yet still expensive compared to previous norms.

put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
if you have not yet done this then...
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
and then ask yourself about the utility of btc

but here we go ago, another dude trying to promote lightning without understanding that its a different network thats not encapsulating features purely for bitcoin.

[Elqui]

Of course. Lowering transaction fees of bitcoin can promote it to people especially those people who don’t know what is bitcoin. If someone is enjoying the use of something, of course he or she will share it to thier loved ones and if they always use bitcoin because of low transaction fees, that alone will be effortlessly promoting bitcoin. Just like my brother, he first start using bitcoin than me then he likes it so he shares it with me and i get interested because it has great features.

[Wind_FURY]

But you concentrate the debate too much on "but Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash", and how the Core developers are preventing that from happening. There are trade-offs, and the solution isn't as easy as increasing the block size.

There network needs to scale out.

i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned. but seeing as you have, then yea it must be highlighted that its the devs that can actually do something about it after all bitcoin is not some self coding AI

EG instead of everyone paying standard rate average.. devs could RE-implement a fee priority (yep they removed one).
for instance implement a fee where those that spend funds more than once a day pay more per transaction than someone who pays less than once a day. thus being fairer on everyone. rather than effecting everyone due to a few bad actors

p.S its you and your buddies that think the only two options are stagnate bitcoin innovation to push other networks.
there are many ways to scale bitcoins network. but all your interested in is promoting other networks while suggesting bitcoin is not easy, and shouldnt be electronic cash

but my point of the last post is people thinking 10cents is acceptable are being very ignorant to a billion people that would see an advantage for bitcoin.. yet think 10cents is ok for less than a billion people who could easily do the same thing using fiat. in other words bitcoin is being promoted as only fit for those that dont NEED bitcoin, but want it just as a profiteer route. thus missing the whole point of bitcoins invention

Haha. Me and my buddies? Stick to the debate.

Taking that aside, Bitcoin will not be compromised so that billions of people can use the network for their coffee transactions that will be recorded in the blockchain FOREVER. Do you believe that censorship-resistant value transfers should be used to buy coffee? There are trade-offs, and there will be costs to keep the network decentralized while scaling out.

[franky1]

Haha. Me and my buddies? Stick to the debate.

Taking that aside, Bitcoin will not be compromised so that billions of people can use the network for their coffee transactions that will be recorded in the blockchain FOREVER. Do you believe that censorship-resistant value transfers should be used to buy coffee? There are trade-offs, and there will be costs to keep the network decentralized while scaling out.

you said to put your buddies aside...
yet then go into a speach that your buddies have used time and time again about coffee..
not original, not new, and not the point.

atleast try to sound original by doing some research.
the coffee debate is outdated and laughed at. try picking a rebuttal with substance that actually shows good technical reason to avoid blockchains.

but lets update you...
1. no where on the blockchain would it ever say "coffee". what developers dont want is value of less than $3 being used on a blockchain(equivalent of coffee)

2. in a CENSORSHIP RESISTANT VALUE TRANSFER system, should developers be choosing to CENSOR and RESIST VALUE TRANSFERS of under $3

remember $3 is a weeks wage in some countries..(think before you reply)

[DooMAD]

i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned.

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?  

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    

[Rawoyemi]

I know that the topic I made is very common and I just want to revive it here with new discussions since time flies so fast and we should adapt the new trend especially with the crypto market. Now, it seems that investors had gone for a while for not playing trading with bitcoin and it made at some point where bitcoin stabilizes in terms of its market price. We know that many are expecting it that somehow bitcoin market may gone good. Yet, only few are using bitcoin and promoting its purpose to eradicate high transaction fee through Peer to peer transactions. Probably only few are using bitcoin for this purpose because instead it can lower transaction fees done by the banks it made even more gone expensive because after bitcoin exchange it will undergo fiat exchange to which it will cost another transaction fee. Is there anything that this will be minimized and promote the use of bitcoin? Lowering transaction fee may do I suggest.

Lower transaction fees are to be closely coupled with the idea of a scalable solution. The faster the transactions, the more scalable > more blocks > less fees required to keep people incentivised.

[franky1]

i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned.

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?  

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    

oh here goes doomad meandering the topic way off topic... he pokes the bear so lets bite.
firstly i talk about alot of things. but i talk about the deeper stuff. and the cause/effect

 its not like there is much code diversity to oppose/object to/counter the roadmap.
and when there is, the roadmap advocates do everything they can to push non roadmap off the network

i do understand how bitcoin works. more so than you. i also know what events actually occured. where as you deny they even happen.
you have been pushing hard to deny that august 1st 2017 happened. you have been pushing hard to deny the REKT campaigns even happened.

yet the developers have been happy to admit their actions. it is only you and your buddies who deny such events.
so spend less time on your social drama. and spend more time researching, and maybe you will learn what bitcoin is really about and what actually occurred.

the reason developers are to blame more so than users is this.
1. developers develop the code.. users dont.
2. developers put code in to bypass peoples wishes (mandated bypasses, inflight upgrades)
3. users dont get as much of a decision if they are always treated as "compatible" and dont get a opt-in or opt-out. it just changes without choice.
4. when there is a choice lately its not a if opt-out it dont happen. but more so if opt-out your thrown off the network to fake a vote of acceptance

so like before its you that needs to decide ar you a flip or a flop.
because some days you pretend users get a vote/choice. and others your anti-vote mindset shouts that people dont get a vote.
its you that does not understand the issues and how bitcoin had/should function vs how it has been run lately

so spend less time replying and more time researching until you yourself can stick to a rhetoric that atleast matches data found on the blockchain

...
any way
sorry folks doomad does that alot.
hopefully he doesnt reply and spends the time to learn more about bitcoin. but i expect he prefers to keep replying and now derail this topic.. and then play the victim

[daarul50]

I know that the topic I made is very common and I just want to revive it here with new discussions since time flies so fast and we should adapt the new trend especially with the crypto market. Now, it seems that investors had gone for a while for not playing trading with bitcoin and it made at some point where bitcoin stabilizes in terms of its market price. We know that many are expecting it that somehow bitcoin market may gone good. Yet, only few are using bitcoin and promoting its purpose to eradicate high transaction fee through Peer to peer transactions. Probably only few are using bitcoin for this purpose because instead it can lower transaction fees done by the banks it made even more gone expensive because after bitcoin exchange it will undergo fiat exchange to which it will cost another transaction fee. Is there anything that this will be minimized and promote the use of bitcoin? Lowering transaction fee may do I suggest.

The problem is not in the costs of bitcoin transactions but in people's awareness of bitcoin. There are still many who don't use bitcoin because of the volatility and price fluctuations that occur in bitcoin, so these two things should be overcome to be able to grow bitcoin in everyone's eyes.

[metalglowd]

it seems that every project even though offering a low fee transaction is just a pretext to make investors more hooked on their actual project. But sometimes those real stuff project is wouldn't reach the goal. So its like they want to extend and extend to make it real just to see how they grab investors money

[franky1]

The problem is not in the costs of bitcoin transactions but in people's awareness of bitcoin. There are still many who don't use bitcoin because of the volatility and price fluctuations that occur in bitcoin, so these two things should be overcome to be able to grow bitcoin in everyone's eyes.

volatility is not a problem
every week we see retailers changing the prices of bread, milk. people are actually used to seeing prices of things fluctuate
EG when the dollar-pound moved from $1.60 to $1.25 not many people were screaming bluemurder that forex is broke.

if bread moved from £0.80-£1 and then to £0.70 people have not been going out and doing strikes/protests. they just treat it as norm

volatility is not a problem
i have travelled to many countries and the biggest issue is using bitcoin where each transaction is an hours minimum wage is the thing that makes 'the unbanked' not want to use bitcoin.

too many people are stuck in their own basement mindset of 'its ok for americans'
and too many people are happy to censor out billions of people purely due to racial motives of only wanting the west to get rich.

(im a white brit with a large hoard, but i can atleast see beyond my personal circumstance)

anyway, right now we do not need to concern ourselves with excuses to stifle bitcoin innovation onchain under the fake narrative of doing it for the benefit of miners. because for DECADES the miners will be incentivised by non fee's

so we should be concentrating on scaling bitcoin getting the adoption. and then.. IN DECADES let the fee's interplay.

the real foolish thing is this
before fee's are even an issue. the roadmap is to push people off network already so that without scaling. user utility of bitcoin declines onchain and drops the fee's(total) thus making it become a situation that all individuals ned to pay more.

thats like taking trains off the tracks to convince people to use buses and then say train tickets are cheaper, even though there ar not enough train seats being allowed to cope with normal demand because they are pretending that all the efforts of reducing train usage is to give train operators a christmas bonus. yet its not even giving them a bonus. its just charging less people higher prices.
the complete opposite of charging more people less fee's