bitcoin transactions costs in the future

[Betwrong]

I really do not complain about BTC transaction costs. I am a trader and I have many ways to avoid BTC trading but money can still come back to my wallet very quickly. For example, if you are trading on an exchange, you are holding 1 BTC. You can divide it and sell it at altcoins with low transaction fees like Nano, XRP, LTC, ETH, CS, ... then we can convert to 1 wallet and everything will become very simple.

You call that simple?
You first sell your BTC for altcoins, you pay fees, you also have to set up wallets, and...you end up with shitcoins!!!

Most of us are concerned about sending BTC and receiving BTC not converting into some shitcoin.

What am I going to do if I want to send somebody some bitcoin, send them to an exchange...convert them to an altcoin, send the guy the altcoin then he sends to the exchange and converts them to BTC ...and he withdraws?
Paying twice the fees for BTC, twice conversion and withdraw fees?
Calling that simple!!!!!

I have the same feeling about all of this, and that's why I never bother exchanging my BTC to some fast alts in order to make a fast and cheap transaction. However, it would be interesting to see the real numbers. I bet you will lose more money in the process compared to just sending BTC and paying the highest reasonable transaction fee, like 40k+ sats currently, but it would be interesting to see the following calculations.

Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.

[LUCKMCFLY]

In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.

[shoreno]

In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.

In the future its expected that the value of bitcoin and other cryptos will be super high because they will be indemand therfor the price of transaction fees will also be super high and it does not matter if the miner uses a solar power or not because miners will still choose the best highest possible fee so that they can profit easily and their effor of mining a transaction wont be wasted  . however at some point i think your also right  because in the future the value of cryptos are still volatile same as today  .

[ralle14]

I have the same feeling about all of this, and that's why I never bother exchanging my BTC to some fast alts in order to make a fast and cheap transaction. However, it would be interesting to see the real numbers. I bet you will lose more money in the process compared to just sending BTC and paying the highest reasonable transaction fee, like 40k+ sats currently, but it would be interesting to see the following calculations.

Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.

Depends on the exchange if they're using a popular exchange like Binance for converting it's usually more than spending a recommended miner fee for Bitcoin because of the fixed withdrawal fee. Apart from the additional miner fee from the deposit if $500 worth of BTC is BTC0.06 then Binance is charging like 0.1% on trading fees there's a BTC.0006 trading fee(plus the fix eth fee) total estimated cost is $15 after conversion. This is assuming the price of ETH is stable, the cost or loss in value could be greater as the rates from exchanges are different.

[Distinctin]

In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.

In the future its expected that the value of bitcoin and other cryptos will be super high because they will be indemand therfor the price of transaction fees will also be super high and it does not matter if the miner uses a solar power or not because miners will still choose the best highest possible fee so that they can profit easily and their effor of mining a transaction wont be wasted  . however at some point i think your also right  because in the future the value of cryptos are still volatile same as today  .

That would be the relation between price and possible fees. It is a common thing to happen as miners will urge people to pay it high otherwise they'll never process their transactions or causing long delays due to prioritization. That is why I've never wanted it to be more expensive cause it came into the point that we can't afford it to buy and transaction fees will stay at low.

[fauzan Ichsan]

In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.

In the future its expected that the value of bitcoin and other cryptos will be super high because they will be indemand therfor the price of transaction fees will also be super high and it does not matter if the miner uses a solar power or not because miners will still choose the best highest possible fee so that they can profit easily and their effor of mining a transaction wont be wasted  . however at some point i think your also right  because in the future the value of cryptos are still volatile same as today  .

That would be the relation between price and possible fees. It is a common thing to happen as miners will urge people to pay it high otherwise they'll never process their transactions or causing long delays due to prioritization. That is why I've never wanted it to be more expensive cause it came into the point that we can't afford it to buy and transaction fees will stay at low.

logical too, indeed the more the price of bitcoin rises, of course transaction costs will be more expensive, because it is calculated in units of dollars. but as demand increases, price increases cannot be avoided

[semobo]

I think it will be definitely very low when the Bitcoin demand increases then there is lots of options available to transact the Bitcoin into different types so at that time it gives the free transaction method will be very useful for everyone to get connected with Bitcoin very easily.

[pinkpanther03]

I think using renewable energy for the electricity in mining bitcoin is a brilliant idea. The monthly cost for the electricity will be reduced, but not for free though there still initial cost in setting up the plant and also maintenance cost. So, the electric cost will not totally gone. Thus, transaction fee would still be there for the miners.

[wuvdoll]

Even with clean energy the amount of work put into creating that energy will be still a lot. Nuclear is another topic which we do not like to talk but honestly it is such a power that just one plant could give you enough energy to cover most of the underdeveloped world, I do not remember where I read it but if we had like 200 nuclear plants all over the world then we could have enough energy to cover all energy need ever.

We can move to clean afterwards but nuclear is technically "clean" energy as long as nothing bad happens. The only reason why it is not like is the risk of leakage and something like Chernobyl to happen. With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.

[Helpme_please]

I think using renewable energy for the electricity in mining bitcoin is a brilliant idea. The monthly cost for the electricity will be reduced, but not for free though there still initial cost in setting up the plant and also maintenance cost. So, the electric cost will not totally gone. Thus, transaction fee would still be there for the miners.

using renewable energy as electricity source in mining bitcoin must pay expensive cost.maybe only huge miner pools that able to set this.for medium or even small miner that will use commoin electricity.

[stompix]

~

Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.

ralle14 has already given an answer on this but the thing is a bit more complicated.

For larger amounts it makes no sense, over 1000$ the minimum fee for a small trader would be 2$ so it would really make no point paying withdraw and tx fee for the shitcoin.

However for smaller amounts, like 100$ if you benefit from 0.05% exchange fee and the shitcoin you're dealing is really cheap to transfer then you might do it cheaper than a simple BTC<>BTC transfer.

It will always be about how much will a btc transactions cost.
At 30sat/b this makes no sense whatsoever, but at 200sat/b when you try to transfer 25$ it might.

I do not remember where I read it but if we had like 200 nuclear plants all over the world then we could have enough energy to cover all energy need ever.

There are ~500 nuclear powerplants already in the world and they only produce 10% of the energy we consume.

[Julunguul]

Using solar energy as energy for miners costs more or less like making 3-5 tools for mining. of course profits will come but you have to be more patient because the cost of making solar energy is very expensive. When usually ROI without solar energy comes within 6-8 months, then using the solar energy should be take 16-32 months.

[haidil]

Using solar energy as energy for miners costs more or less like making 3-5 tools for mining. of course profits will come but you have to be more patient because the cost of making solar energy is very expensive. When usually ROI without solar energy comes within 6-8 months, then using the solar energy should be take 16-32 months.

absolutely right, this will cost a lot and of course there will be results as well. but for as long as it really has to be considered

[marketone]

In the future the cost of transactions with bitcoin will be similar to now, the reason is simple, it may be that in the future the price of bitcoin is high then their fees will be high and if the price is low, the fees will not be so high, not only in mining, because there may be many miners with very large solar cells but in the same way the Exchanges will charge their corresponding fees according to the bitcoin price for the moment.

Yes, most of the people are concerned about the fee, definitely, there will be a high fee if the price of Bitcoin start increasing automatically the price of the transaction will surely increase. Yes, even exchanges will charge the same fee but the value of the transaction will fee will be high corresponding with the $.

[BitHodler]

We can move to clean afterwards but nuclear is technically "clean" energy as long as nothing bad happens. The only reason why it is not like is the risk of leakage and something like Chernobyl to happen.

You seem rather optimistic about something we shouldn't be so optimistic about. Nuclear waste isn't going to miraculously vanish. It's a concern for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years after.

With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.

I doubt it, but even if so, Bitcoin mining isn't happening in one centralized spot that you can provide energy for from one single nuclear plant. You need a lot of these nuclear plants around the world the way mining is distributed.

Things aren't as easy as they may seem when it comes to energy consumption. You can't possibly pool the entire network together with one energy source. It makes you an easy target for governments too.

[laredo7mm]

I think it will be definitely very low when the Bitcoin demand increases then there is lots of options available to transact the Bitcoin into different types so at that time it gives the free transaction method will be very useful for everyone to get connected with Bitcoin very easily.

When market demand for bitcoin increases and prices also increase. fees certainly follow up because prices have increased. the reduction in the fee itself will also be a problem because the longer we have to wait for bitcoin to enter.

[Freny250]

Once bitcoin is generally adopted and being used by major industries to execute trade and transactions the price wil be low as most merchants strife to integrate bitcon in their transaction process

[slocker]

Say, someone buys $500 worth of ETH with his BTC. Sends ETH to wherever he wants. Exchanges ETH for BTC there. How much this person will really lose in the process? I assume, it can be more than $5, but I don't know how much exactly.

For this example if we look at exchanges they become to greedy in this process. Most take to much if we send BTC but in conversion to ETH then this could be interesting. We spend something for transaction but eventually if we then this ETH convert to bitcoin again we could ended in same thing. Thing that small amount are the ones that are used most in this but when sending bigger amount think that nobody dont look into this with reason.

[figmentofmyass]

With just one nuclear plant we can literally cover ALL bitcoin mining operation electricity requirements and then some (a lot more) which is why if we want free bitcoin transactions we should totally focus on nuclear plants.

i don't follow your logic. how does this equate to free bitcoin transactions?

in my mind, the days of free transactions are over. it doesn't look like block size will be increased any time soon. that means as users increase, fees are gonna increase as well. it has nothing to do with the hash rate or the energy sources miners are using.

[Betwrong]

~
One of the biggest critics made to bitcoin so far are the expensive costs that a transaction can reach when the network is overloaded. However on long run, specialists and enthusiasts defend it's not a problem, as the hardwares, responsible for the mining operation are evolving, getting more powerful to process the transactions faster and with less effort.
~

I think it's worth pointing out that processing the transactions is not what requires a lot of energy resources. All the transactions put in a block can be processed by any node in a fraction of a second without spending any significant resources. What requires energy is proving to the network of nodes that it's your node that deserves the block reward with all the transaction fees included. I mean, mining tools are not evolving in order "to process the transactions faster and with less effort". They are evolving to solve the computationally difficult  problem, namely that the SHA-256 hash of a block's header(hash of the previous block, version, difficulty target, timestamp, Merkle root, and nonce) was lower than or equal to the network target.

I understand that many people here know this without my explanation, but judging by some replies and by the OP article itself, I thought it needed some clarification.