High transaction fees

[Congyang]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

[1715054311]

1715054311

[1715054311]

1715054311

[1715054311]

1715054311

[Vishnu.Reang]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

I can't agree with this. So currently the Bitcoin exchange rate is $50,000 per coin and the average transaction fee is around $20. You are saying that if the Bitcoin exchange rate climbs to $250,000, then we can expect a fee of $100 per transaction. And if by some miracle the price hits $1 million per coin, then the fee will be $400 per transaction. Are you really fine with this? Because I'm not. If the fee climbs to such levels, then I am afraid that I need to look towards other alternatives.

[AGD]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

snip

If the fee climbs to such levels, then I am afraid that I need to look towards other alternatives.

Which would be Lightning.

[TangentC]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

snip

If the fee climbs to such levels, then I am afraid that I need to look towards other alternatives.

Which would be Lightning.

If the Bitcoin deposit/locking fee reaches $1000, then lighting would not be a usable alternative.
It still forces people into lower fee altcoins with ample onchain capacity.

Also if you look at Offchain Solutions such as lighting ,
to truly take advantage you need 100s to 1000s of transactions,
which the only ones that would have that many transactions monthly are corps and banks, not a normal person.

[Twentyonepaylots]

This has been a problem seen by a few people in the early conception of bitcoin. Perhaps Satoshi believed that bitcoin wouldn't be used as a store of value and instead as a full-pledged currency instead which of course will not cause problems with transaction fees. Then again if that's the case he allowed a very big flaw in his otherwise perfect invention. Hopefully some day someone does something about this, since if transaction fees reach 1k, lightning network wouldn't be able to help us anymore.

[AGD]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

snip

If the fee climbs to such levels, then I am afraid that I need to look towards other alternatives.

Which would be Lightning.

If the Bitcoin deposit/locking fee reaches $1000, then lighting would not be a usable alternative.
It still forces people into lower fee altcoins with ample onchain capacity.

Also if you look at Offchain Solutions such as lighting ,
to truly take advantage you need 100s to 1000s of transactions,
which the only ones that would have that many transactions monthly are corps and banks, not a normal person.

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

[TangentC]

whatever your problem, I think the increase in bitcoin is reasonable because as we know now the price of bitcoin has increased, so it is balanced for the current bitcoin gas fee which has increased.

snip

If the fee climbs to such levels, then I am afraid that I need to look towards other alternatives.

Which would be Lightning.

If the Bitcoin deposit/locking fee reaches $1000, then lighting would not be a usable alternative.
It still forces people into lower fee altcoins with ample onchain capacity.

Also if you look at Offchain Solutions such as lighting ,
to truly take advantage you need 100s to 1000s of transactions,
which the only ones that would have that many transactions monthly are corps and banks, not a normal person.

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.
As you can see LN, already makes no sense for the normal person, due to overly high transaction fee.
You need to be sending like $10K worth of btc for a $20 transaction fee not to bother you, so the rich will use btc, but the rest,
hell, I just write a check and mail it off , or even pay with visa extra $5 fee and come off cheaper than LN with Bitcoin.
So LN won't be the solution for the little guy , LN & Liquid are the solution for the banks, which they probably let people open direct offchain accounts with then and use their LN Bitcoins, but that won't be any better for us than fiat was.

The solution for the little guys that wants to use crypto, is altcoin with ample onchain transaction capacity such as Doge, LTC, BCH, or any other altcoin that their developers have not artificially limited their blocksize and speed.

[Wind_FURY]

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.

Who said banks would practically pay $1,000 for a “locking fee”? That’s based on assumptions, and your own biased assumptions at that. Bitcoin Exchanges, which should be, in my opinion, the biggest liquidity providers for Lightning has not adopted it yet.

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

Are you listening, or getting the context of AGD’s post? Who would be so stupid to pay $18 to open an channel for $50?

[TangentC]

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.

Who said banks would practically pay $1,000 for a “locking fee”? That’s based on assumptions, and your own biased assumptions at that. Bitcoin Exchanges, which should be, in my opinion, the biggest liquidity providers for Lightning has not adopted it yet.

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

Are you listening, or getting the context of AGD’s post? Who would be so stupid to pay $18 to open an channel for $50?

Hmm,
I know you are only 12,  it is stupid to pay $18 to lock up $50, which is why the LN coffee shop myth is blown.
Which was the point , junior.

Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees. They do still teach math to 12 year olds, or do you skip school alot?

Maybe you should ask Maxwell to explain it to you.
Blockstream is partnering with Banks to use Liquid.
https://www.coindesk.com/unpacking-the-avit-avanti-banks-new-digital-asset-being-built-with-blockstream

According to Blockstream CEO Adam Back, the asset will be issued on Liquid – a network developed and overseen by Blockstream that is meant to move bitcoins around more quickly than the Bitcoin blockchain itself. Assets on Liquid can be traded in atomic swaps, or smart contracts that allow for exchanging assets without an intermediary. In the traditional world, ACH payments to an exchange take several days to settle.

https://www.coindesk.com/in-first-pure-crypto-hire-silvergate-bank-recruits-blockstream-liquid-network-exec

At Blockstream, an outfit pursuing bleeding-edge tech improvements for bitcoin, Richman was responsible for the growth of Liquid, a sidechain, or parallel network sometimes used to move money between exchanges.

In his new job, Richman will be in charge of crypto customer growth for Silvergate. He is taking over the duty from the executive vice president of corporate development, Ben Reynolds, who will focus on the bank’s newer initiatives such as crypto-collateralized loans and the bank’s application for a New York trust company license.

FYI:
By Blockstream artificially limiting bitcoin onchain transaction capacity which keeps the fees high.
This gives them the potential to create profit for their company by creating offchain networks for banks.
Oh, you thought they made LN for the little guy, and you were wrong.  
No worries the banks will still drive the price of BTC higher, but don't expect to be sending alot of bitcoins onchain unless you are rich or a bank.

[AGD]

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.

Who said banks would practically pay $1,000 for a “locking fee”? That’s based on assumptions, and your own biased assumptions at that. Bitcoin Exchanges, which should be, in my opinion, the biggest liquidity providers for Lightning has not adopted it yet.

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

Are you listening, or getting the context of AGD’s post? Who would be so stupid to pay $18 to open an channel for $50?

Hmm,
I know you are only 12,  it is stupid to pay $18 to lock up $50, which is why the LN coffee shop myth is blown.
Which was the point , junior.

Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees. They do still teach math to 12 year olds, or do you skip school alot?

Maybe you should ask Maxwell to explain it to you.
Blockstream is partnering with Banks to use Liquid.
https://www.coindesk.com/unpacking-the-avit-avanti-banks-new-digital-asset-being-built-with-blockstream

According to Blockstream CEO Adam Back, the asset will be issued on Liquid – a network developed and overseen by Blockstream that is meant to move bitcoins around more quickly than the Bitcoin blockchain itself. Assets on Liquid can be traded in atomic swaps, or smart contracts that allow for exchanging assets without an intermediary. In the traditional world, ACH payments to an exchange take several days to settle.

https://www.coindesk.com/in-first-pure-crypto-hire-silvergate-bank-recruits-blockstream-liquid-network-exec

At Blockstream, an outfit pursuing bleeding-edge tech improvements for bitcoin, Richman was responsible for the growth of Liquid, a sidechain, or parallel network sometimes used to move money between exchanges.

In his new job, Richman will be in charge of crypto customer growth for Silvergate. He is taking over the duty from the executive vice president of corporate development, Ben Reynolds, who will focus on the bank’s newer initiatives such as crypto-collateralized loans and the bank’s application for a New York trust company license.

FYI:
By Blockstream artificially limiting bitcoin onchain transaction capacity which keeps the fees high.
This gives them the potential to create profit for their company by creating offchain networks for banks.
Oh, you thought they made LN for the little guy, and you were wrong.  
No worries the banks will still drive the price of BTC higher, but don't expect to be sending alot of bitcoins onchain unless you are rich or a bank.

Even though you are starting to become offending, I will clear up things for you about Lightning:

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

If you are an enduser, you might want to open a channel for more than just 50$ and the fee to open that channel depends on what the actual fee for a btc tx is. So right now you pay about 1000 Satoshis btc tx fee to open a channel, which will save you alot of fees in the future.
You don't need to open a channel to every coffee shop you are going to, but you would have a channel open to a well connected node and all of your payments will be forwarded by that node to your favorite coffee shop (if he is also well connected to other lightning nodes which I assume)

...Blockstream blah ...

Nobody incl Bitcoin cares about what this company and its individuals are doing (or not)

Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees.

You don't understand Lightning. A transaction this big would cost a fortune on Lightning, because the fees on Lightning depend on the number of Satoshis you are sending, while Bitcoin transactions depend on their size in bytes. As I said, Lightning is a solution for the enduser and not for banks.

[hitsnorth]

You've got a point. Buying and sending small amounts of BTC is not profitable. But for this cases you should use altcoins. BTC is for HODLing.

[GeorgeJohn]

At this point I understand that the trafficking in cryptocurrencies is getting much,so before this will come down according to op it will take some period of time, and I was told that while the fees is getting higher is because  of lack of developers but is not quite understanding that a developers determine the charges of any cryptocurrencies.

[DeathAngel]

4 sats per byte fees are now confirming. The mempool is much clearer than it’s been for some time, might be a good idea to consolidate smaller amounts now if you want to.

[bryant.coleman]

4 sats per byte fees are now confirming. The mempool is much clearer than it’s been for some time, might be a good idea to consolidate smaller amounts now if you want to.

Yeah.. a few hours back, some of my transactions got confirmed immediately, after paying as little as 11 Sat/Byte in fee. The Mempool is still quite bit, with 100 MB of transactions pending to be confirmed. But this is a big improvement when compared to the situation we had two weeks ago, when the size had swelled to around 250 MB. I hope everyone makes use of this opportunity to combine their smaller outputs, so that the fee can be reduced in the future.

[repear7]

Yes, it is a higher transaction fee for smaller amounts.  BTC prices are high now,  The higher  price is a reson of higher transaction fee. However, I think the price and demand of BTC will not decrease due to its high transaction fees.  When we want to buy something with cryptocurrency, most of the time we have to pay with BTC. BTC is always in demand

[jerry0]

4 sats per byte fees are now confirming. The mempool is much clearer than it’s been for some time, might be a good idea to consolidate smaller amounts now if you want to.

Yeah.. a few hours back, some of my transactions got confirmed immediately, after paying as little as 11 Sat/Byte in fee. The Mempool is still quite bit, with 100 MB of transactions pending to be confirmed. But this is a big improvement when compared to the situation we had two weeks ago, when the size had swelled to around 250 MB. I hope everyone makes use of this opportunity to combine their smaller outputs, so that the fee can be reduced in the future.

When you say 11 Sat/Byte in fee, how much satoshi is that and how much USD is that approximately?


So you could send a transaction right now with 2 sat/byte and it would work but take very long?

[hv_]

With high fees or funny LN you have no P2P transaction system any more

Introduces counterparties to pay, interface whatever nonsense

[MUG1WARA]

Small purchases are impractical. This is a problem.

For that reason alone Bitcoin is over rated. I'm not surprised it is crashing and dragging the alt coins down with it. Now I realize why Bitcoin hard forked into Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin's transaction fees will limit it's growth in the future. I will not buy bitcoin unless transactions fees can be reduced. I don't have long term confidence in Bitcoin. It has a growth limit because transaction fees will increase with it's growth.

I have concluded Bitcoin is flawed unless you are rich and always make large purchases. I once considered buying bitcoin to purchase cannabis seeds overseas. Not anymore. It is not worth it because of the transaction fees. Add the volatility of the price to that. Why? Why would I bother? I think many others will conclude the same.

Don't get too comfortable with any coin forked from bitcoin, and bitcoin isn't overrated, maybe you just don't understand or have a clue of why you should buy some, at this time there's no point arguing, you can just go to CoinMarketCap and choose between the 6,000+ altcoins we have in the market and buy one instead of fudding about bitcoin here.
also I don't see how bitcoins transaction cost will limit its growth in the future, a few months ago Ethereum was charging higher and no one said anything.

[bitbunnny]

Higher Bitcoin price brings us higher transaction fees. No one likes that but U guess at the current Bitcoin transaction concept this is something that can't be avoided and some price has to paid.
However, I don't think that high fees are showstopper for Bitcoin and that it will not affect the overall volume of transactions.

[TangentC]

I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.

Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.

Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.

For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.

Who said banks would practically pay $1,000 for a “locking fee”? That’s based on assumptions, and your own biased assumptions at that. Bitcoin Exchanges, which should be, in my opinion, the biggest liquidity providers for Lightning has not adopted it yet.

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

Are you listening, or getting the context of AGD’s post? Who would be so stupid to pay $18 to open an channel for $50?

Hmm,
I know you are only 12,  it is stupid to pay $18 to lock up $50, which is why the LN coffee shop myth is blown.
Which was the point , junior.

Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees. They do still teach math to 12 year olds, or do you skip school alot?

Maybe you should ask Maxwell to explain it to you.
Blockstream is partnering with Banks to use Liquid.
https://www.coindesk.com/unpacking-the-avit-avanti-banks-new-digital-asset-being-built-with-blockstream

According to Blockstream CEO Adam Back, the asset will be issued on Liquid – a network developed and overseen by Blockstream that is meant to move bitcoins around more quickly than the Bitcoin blockchain itself. Assets on Liquid can be traded in atomic swaps, or smart contracts that allow for exchanging assets without an intermediary. In the traditional world, ACH payments to an exchange take several days to settle.

https://www.coindesk.com/in-first-pure-crypto-hire-silvergate-bank-recruits-blockstream-liquid-network-exec

At Blockstream, an outfit pursuing bleeding-edge tech improvements for bitcoin, Richman was responsible for the growth of Liquid, a sidechain, or parallel network sometimes used to move money between exchanges.

In his new job, Richman will be in charge of crypto customer growth for Silvergate. He is taking over the duty from the executive vice president of corporate development, Ben Reynolds, who will focus on the bank’s newer initiatives such as crypto-collateralized loans and the bank’s application for a New York trust company license.

FYI:
By Blockstream artificially limiting bitcoin onchain transaction capacity which keeps the fees high.
This gives them the potential to create profit for their company by creating offchain networks for banks.
Oh, you thought they made LN for the little guy, and you were wrong.  
No worries the banks will still drive the price of BTC higher, but don't expect to be sending alot of bitcoins onchain unless you are rich or a bank.

Even though you are starting to become offending, I will clear up things for you about Lightning:

Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.

If you are an enduser, you might want to open a channel for more than just 50$ and the fee to open that channel depends on what the actual fee for a btc tx is. So right now you pay about 1000 Satoshis btc tx fee to open a channel, which will save you alot of fees in the future.
You don't need to open a channel to every coffee shop you are going to, but you would have a channel open to a well connected node and all of your payments will be forwarded by that node to your favorite coffee shop (if he is also well connected to other lightning nodes which I assume)

...Blockstream blah ...

Nobody incl Bitcoin cares about what this company and its individuals are doing (or not)

Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees.

You don't understand Lightning. A transaction this big would cost a fortune on Lightning, because the fees on Lightning depend on the number of Satoshis you are sending, while Bitcoin transactions depend on their size in bytes. As I said, Lightning is a solution for the enduser and not for banks.

Gotcha , you think blockstream can do no wrong.
Most Bitcoiners think that way.

As far as LN goes, keep your eyes on it,
in time it will be apparent to all , that only Banks are suitable to use LN, and since they will be running the LN hubs,
they will earn those fees, that you think they can't afford.

Have  a Nice Day.