What do you think need bitcoin blockchain improvement?

[rokon1234]

Now I can see in many sites and wallets that the transaction cost of Bitcoin is much higher.Is this problem because Bitcoin has not improved its blockchain? What do you think about this?

[1714135104]

1714135104

[1714135104]

1714135104

[1714135104]

1714135104

[1714135104]

1714135104

[mk4]

Since Bitcoin transaction fees are priced in sats, then obviously as bitcoin's price rises the fee also becomes more "expensive".

Now, is it a problem? Sure. But it's really mostly not mostly Bitcoin's fault.

1. Blockchain.com, Binance, and a few other exchanges/wallets still doesn't have SegWit support.

2. A lot of people in general still doesn't use SegWit. I'm still seeing a good number of legacy Bitcoin addresses(outside address staking) being used here on Bitcointalk.

3. Lightning network is pretty decent now, but unfortunately most exchanges still doesn't support them though some exchanges vowed to support Lightning this year.

4. A lot of times, people simply just unnecessarily overpay transaction fees because of the really inaccurate fee recommendation of the wallet they're using.

[masterrex]

Now I can see in many sites and wallets that the transaction cost of Bitcoin is much higher.Is this problem because Bitcoin has not improved its blockchain? What do you think about this?

That's very common nowadays, especially that the Bitcoin price is skyrocketed the transaction fees are also rising but the confirmation time also becomes lengthy. That's why I wish that the lightning Network will push through and be in use in all of the Bitcoin transactions if the Lightning Network will be fully implemented I think that's enough already to satisfy most of the Bitcoin users.  

[fiulpro]

Now I can see in many sites and wallets that the transaction cost of Bitcoin is much higher.Is this problem because Bitcoin has not improved its blockchain? What do you think about this?

I think it's best that blockchain stays simple at the end of the day it's really hard to use the network instantly , the lightning network and the segwit needs a lot of improvement. We do have seen that over the years the memepool is getting constricted and it's taking a lot of time to actually initiate the transactions which are of low priority.
You have to understand the fact that not everyone would be willing to pay the high fee and thus this problem of fee needs to be taken into account for sure. Plus we have seen how the gambling sites are now using even one confirmation to put the funds into the wallet and I do think its indeed an amazing feat! This can be used for sure but there is another invention that am worried about. The one that might send money back to your wallet once the transaction has been made or has an error , the person on the other hand needs to write the password given by the sender and this might be used inappropriately but still we have to see much more soft forks in the future but I do think fee and security is the one that needs attention the most right now.
I am a bit worried about the quantum computers!

[sheenshane]

Since Lightning Network is very young at this moment, we didn't feel yet any improvements since this is the most answer to those people who wanted to lower the fees, the Lightning Network support, and use SegWit wallet.

There are some exchanges and wallets that supported Lightning Network and SegWit wallet.  Just like this article says that UK Exchange CoinCorner Adds Bitcoin Lightning Network Support, CoinCorner, Bitfinex, and River Financial are those exchange platforms that supported LN.  Might from time to time, this LN will become widely used but I'm afraid about this Bitcoin's Lightning Network: Three Possible Problems, will probably the reason isn't easy to adopt on most platforms related to a Bitcoin transaction.

IMO, we're our own way of improving the Bitcoin transaction problem, for now, find a better alternative to lessen the fees.

[ChrisPop]

Solutions are being developed. At my current technical level I see Segwit as the first technology "layer" to reduce fees and the Lightning Network as the second one. Both of them need increased adoption.
Bitcoin blockchain is perfect as it is and the fees should regulate themselves.

Here's how the miners economy work at a very high level. Crypto mining companies purchase rigs from different vendors. They have to support the purchase price, electricity fees, space leasing and staff. Those are their costs. Now they need to cover those costs with the mining fees and also get a little extra surplus - most companies are made for profit. So if the bitcoin price increases, miners would naturally require less satoshis to cover their expenses so they are going to mine lower fee transactions as well. On a statistical level fees that network users pay should decrease in BTC terms as the Bitcoin price against USD goes up.

I hope my explanation helps is not too confusing.

[jossiel]

Now I can see in many sites and wallets that the transaction cost of Bitcoin is much higher.

It is in terms of satoshi per byte and because of bitcoin's current high price I say in $33k+. People will understand it as an expensive fee because they've already converted it in their minds by just looking at how much sats/b you've paid for.

Is this problem because Bitcoin has not improved its blockchain? What do you think about this?

We've got solutions already and it just needed time to be adopted by most bitcoin folks.

[acquafredda]

Slow transaction speed. This is the main problem in my opinion.

Transaction speed is set in stone in the protocol: on average, we will always get one block after 10 minutes. Changing that is out of question: we have LN to improve tx speed and if you find yourself annoyed by the fact that bitcoin is "slow" then you can go use another coin/protocol.
So, if you tell me that Proof of Work consensus is the main problem, I am sorry but you should go study that to understand why bitcoin has been designed this way.

[ReiMomo]

Slow transaction speed. This is the main problem in my opinion.

Transaction speed is set in stone in the protocol: on average, we will always get one block after 10 minutes. Changing that is out of question: we have LN to improve tx speed and if you find yourself annoyed by the fact that bitcoin is "slow" then you can go use another coin/protocol.
So, if you tell me that Proof of Work consensus is the main problem, I am sorry but you should go study that to understand why bitcoin has been designed this way.

Exactly, why we should modify the bitcoin protocol for the fastest confirmation of the transaction, let's accept that bitcoin will work this way.
Most people think that bitcoin is a part of an asset, as an investment to hold in a long time, not just a daily of having transaction, though we know that this isn't the goal of Satoshi, the creator of bitcoin. Yes, we have a P2P transaction but it doesn't mean we will not consider the fee and the speed of the transaction.

I guess this is a good way to hold your bitcoin not to spend.

[tranthidung]

Since Bitcoin transaction fees are priced in sats, then obviously as bitcoin's price rises the fee also becomes more "expensive".

Now, is it a problem? Sure. But it's really mostly not mostly Bitcoin's fault.

Totally agreed with you. There are few sides in the story: Bitcoin Protocol, Bitcoin miners, Exchanges/ services, and bitcoin users.

• Exchanges/ Services: They mostly apply static (fixed) withdrawal fees. They don't mind to change this fee when aveverage transaction fee on network is high or very very low. The static fee is high enough to be good in days with very high fees.
• Users
  
  • They don't use Segwit, don't consolidate their small inputs when fees on the network is low.
  • They don't have strategies and plans for transactions. If they have such, they can take advantage of weekend and working-hour effects. See in Guide to check fees: Taker, maker, deposit, withdrawal, transaction fees

In order to save transaction fees, you need to have a good strategies and solid plans.

Strategies

• Consolidate your small inputs when fee rate is cheap, as a preparation for your bitcoin transaction later (with a single or less inputs) when fee rate is higher. See the guide from LoyceV
• Try to use Segwit address (Bech32 address - bc1): it helps you to reduce transaction size that in turn help you to reduce transaction fee (at same fee rate)
• Have clear plans to move your bitcoin (when - hours, days, bi-weekly). See that topic on weekend effects

Plans

• Weekends are best days to move bitcoin: Sundays usually give cheaper fee rates than Saturday. See details
• Hour frames from 0 to 12 UTC are best to move bitcoin. See details
• Within a day, avoid hours of funding rate on BitMEX. The daily BitMEX broadcast at 13:08 UTC

1. Blockchain.com, Binance, and a few other exchanges/wallets still doesn't have SegWit support.

You missed the updated support for Segwit from Binance. Frankly, I wish that the support from Binance will trigger a way for Segwit support on other exchanges.

2. A lot of people in general still doesn't use SegWit. I'm still seeing a good number of legacy Bitcoin addresses(outside address staking) being used here on Bitcointalk.

Sure. Segwit adoption and usages are still very low.

3. Lightning network is pretty decent now, but unfortunately most exchanges still doesn't support them though some exchanges vowed to support Lightning this year.

Lightning network has good growth in number of nodes and channels but network capacity only surpasses the all time high in May 2019 recent months.
Check

• Lightning network nodes
• Lightning network channels
• Lightning network capacity

4. A lot of times, people simply just unnecessarily overpay transaction fees because of the really inaccurate fee recommendation of the wallet they're using.

It can come from bad fee estimate tool in wallet or from users' bad practices when they don't know or don't care to choose the good option for this tool.

Example, in Electrum wallet, they would differentiate between ETA, static, and mempool options. Also practice to use slider smoothly to customize fee estimate.

[kryptqnick]

Apart from Segwit and the LN, I think it would be beneficial to start adopting zero-confirmation transactions. Sure, they can be manipulated, but perhaps some system of tracking the manipulators can be created, and I really think that the majority of people wouldn't try to manipulate. Since the fees are a problem for small transactions, it could be really used for these. Apart from making the transactions cheap, it would allow physical retailers (like shops) to accept BTC payments because there would be no need to wait for the first confirmation. And if it's used for small transactions only, it reduces both the risk for a shop of using a lot of money, and that people would feel motivated enough to cheat. But this idea doesn't seem to be popular due to the risks it involves.

[ABCbits]

2. A lot of people in general still doesn't use SegWit. I'm still seeing a good number of legacy Bitcoin addresses(outside address staking) being used here on Bitcointalk.

According to https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/segwit-usage, SegWit usage is about 45%-50%, so it's not that bad. I think people still show legacy address because they don't want bother with user who use bad wallet.

3. Lightning network is pretty decent now, but unfortunately most exchanges still doesn't support them though some exchanges vowed to support Lightning this year.

Unfortunately LN isn't very useful if you rarely make transaction since you need to make 2 on-chain transaction (to open and close channel).

[dothebeats]

As bitcoin's price in USD/fiat rises, surely does the fees since most people are looking at it in its USD equivalent and not in the sat/byte category. It has remained relatively okay amid the rises in prices, paired with a lot of platforms still not supporting Segwit on their channels. LN seems to be a nice workaround as well, though it will take time before people realize that there is a 'bypass' that exists on the bitcoin network that they could use.

Apart from Segwit and the LN, I think it would be beneficial to start adopting zero-confirmation transactions. Sure, they can be manipulated, but perhaps some system of tracking the manipulators can be created, and I really think that the majority of people wouldn't try to manipulate. Since the fees are a problem for small transactions, it could be really used for these. Apart from making the transactions cheap, it would allow physical retailers (like shops) to accept BTC payments because there would be no need to wait for the first confirmation. And if it's used for small transactions only, it reduces both the risk for a shop of using a lot of money, and that people would feel motivated enough to cheat. But this idea doesn't seem to be popular due to the risks it involves.

I still think that 1 confirmation should be the minimum here, no compromises. We couldn't really rely on the thought that people are basically good, and will not try to do RBF or double-spend to save some bucks. There have been far too many instances of crimes that could have been prevented had it been for people installing even the most basic precautionary measures to protect themselves and their merchandise. This is similar to bitcoin IMO. The world is getting shittier by the day, you just can't expect that people wouldn't do bad things just because there's a small amount involved.

[tranthidung]

According to https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/segwit-usage, SegWit usage is about 45%-50%, so it's not that bad. I think people still show legacy address because they don't want bother with user who use bad wallet.

I did not know that page, thank you. I have some details to support your info.  

• BTC stored in Bech32 address has increased about 15% since 31 December 2020 till today, from 1.278 mil. to 1.478 mil. Compares to 01 Jan 2020, it has increased 279.9% (from 381.9k to 1.478 mil.).
• Bech32-UTXOs has a parabolic growth.
• Check with tool from BitMEX: https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1&from=now-5y&to=now

[ecnalubma]

If all exchanges and crypto gambling site use Bitcoins lightning network then fees and speed would not be a burden anymore. Even the scaling solution is been around for years but seems the adoption is very slow, people need to be re-educate about the benefits of the upgrade.

[Kittygalore]

Slow transaction speed. This is the main problem in my opinion.

I do think so too but I wouldn't really mind that my transactions are that slow when it comes to bitcoin, I don't use that much in my daily expense. One thing that I can see that helps to this problem is solving the problems with the network congestion that causes the back logs of transactions and the increases in the prices as the price suddenly increases because of the increase in the traffic, I don't know any solutions to that but monitoring and optimizing the network might help. If the problem with network congestion can be solved, I think that the prices for each transaction could be driven down drastically, and speed will definitely improve.

[ChiBitCTy]

As many others here have already stated, there is certainly a need for quite a bit of stuff do be done to make the blockchain more efficient. I am honestly not sure if SegWit did anything for the blockchain.  That was rolled out a couple years ago and it doesn't seem like it brought very much change about.  I am also not sure what's taking the Lightning Network so long, but I do have great faith in it having used it before. 

It's important to remember that we are just in the first inning when it comes to bitcoin and it's blockchain...Rome wasn't built overnight after all.

[bassbity]

There are two perspectives here, namely the cost and legality of bitcoin itself. In this case the cost is often a big obstacle where instant transactions cannot be realized. But in my opinion, the quality of bitcoin itself is commensurate with its current existence as the parent of the most expensive and rarest crypto. So it is almost the same based on the substance, which is 1: 1.

[huff87]

I think bitcoin can be improved by making transactions faster and adding some privacy to them or put some conditions to see these transactions like having some BTC on your wallet or mining history to be sure that your data is partially protected.

[cyriljundos]

Now I can see in many sites and wallets that the transaction cost of Bitcoin is much higher.Is this problem because Bitcoin has not improved its blockchain? What do you think about this?

Bitcoin transactions and blockchain is quite slow when sending to a specific address because many transactions every minutes and it causes address traffic. Other crypto traders convert bitcoin into other alternative coins in order of them to fasten the transactions and lowers the fee. If the bitcoin blockchain will improve many traders would prefer bitcoin in making their transaction day by day.