Why is the transaction fee and mempool congestion increasing ?

[Edwardard]

Does btc accelerator actually work? I thought It was just some kind of joke...

ViaBTC's free tx accelerator is legit. Once you are able to submit your transaction there (which resets every UTC hr), it usually gets confirmed when they mine their next block. I will try to add your tx in the next hr if Im free or  somebody else could do it as well.

And if it failed the sent amount will still go back into my wallet right?

Yes, no need to worry about this.

Edit: Woops, I guess I couldnt accelerate your tx as it says too low fee.

[livingfree]

Does btc accelerator actually work? I thought It was just some kind of joke...

It's a legit tool that not many are using anymore because of the transactions before this congestion were okay and not that much. The jokes are those that you can find that they're telling you they'll accelerate your transaction but they're not miners but will just have to rely on any other tools that they know too like from viabtc.

I'm not really in a hurry I can wait even for a week I'm just worried about issues on this transaction. This transaction is still gonna continue right?

IIRC, maybe for 3 days that will be dropped and you shall continue it then if you see that quote or note that it's dropped or failed.

And if it failed the sent amount will still go back into my wallet right?

Yes, you're good.

This actually sucks Im not aware of the network congestion didn't know it would take a long time to confirm.

That's okay, next time you transact, you'll be obliged on how much the fees are and if the network is clogged or not. A sign that the network is clogged is when the fees are too much.

[entebah]

Does btc accelerator actually work? I thought It was just some kind of joke...

ViaBTC's free tx accelerator is legit. Once you are able to submit your transaction there (which resets every UTC hr), it usually gets confirmed when they mine their next block. I will try to add your tx in the next hr if Im free or  somebody else could do it as well.

I got that bookmark but don't know what's the minimum sat/vB that viabtc accepts. because I have been trying 5 sats/10 sats in the last 2 weeks but it still not getting accepted.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Could you suggest some best wallets which got RBF support on android ? AFAIK, my favourite ones like bluewallet and mycelium both doesnt have it unfortunately.

Electrum.

Just did a transaction and it taking too long to confirm on my Electrum wallet, I did lower the fees but I didn't know that it was going to take this long. Any advice?

Your transaction is opted in to RBF, so it is trivial for you to bump the fee using Electrum if you wish. So either do that, or just wait. (You'll likely be waiting at least several days, though.)

I got that bookmark but don't know what's the minimum sat/vB that viabtc accepts. because I have been trying 5 sats/10 sats in the last 2 weeks but it still not getting accepted.

10 sats/byte. Note that it is per raw byte, not per virtual byte.

[NotATether]

Could you suggest some best wallets which got RBF support on android ? AFAIK, my favourite ones like bluewallet and mycelium both doesnt have it unfortunately.

Electrum.

Just did a transaction and it taking too long to confirm on my Electrum wallet, I did lower the fees but I didn't know that it was going to take this long. Any advice?

Your transaction is opted in to RBF, so it is trivial for you to bump the fee using Electrum if you wish. So either do that, or just wait. (You'll likely be waiting at least several days, though.)

I got that bookmark but don't know what's the minimum sat/vB that viabtc accepts. because I have been trying 5 sats/10 sats in the last 2 weeks but it still not getting accepted.

10 sats/byte. Note that it is per raw byte, not per virtual byte.

None of that is going to help at present as just now I tried to make a payment using 20sats/byte on Electrum, and the servers rejected my transaction due to the mempool being completely full.

I hate to say it, but maybe the loophole that allows unlimited Taproot witness size needs to be closed (which would also kill Ordinals), and I'll bring this issue up to the bitcoin-dev mailing list for possible emergency measures that can be taken to halt this infinite torrent of madness.

[Agbe]

I was reading through bitcoin.com the other day and saw that there has been decreased in the global hashrate with it been around 300EH/s with also the the intervals for the next block to discovered has increased above the 10 minutes interval. So I think this could be part of it aside the fluctuations of bitcoin price.

This is incorrect.

I also notice this in my early age in bitcoin. I even downloaded the app but someone told me that I should not use the app or the website because it is not the original website, so with that information, I also abandoned the app well because I don't want scammers or online scammers use me to sight eye. So that bitcoin.com is not the real website of bitcoin.

Firstly, I would point out that bitcoin.com is a BCash scam site entirely designed to trick newbies in to believing a dying shitcoin is the "real" bitcoin. I would avoid it like the plague.

Yes the best way to deal with them is to avoid them. Don't even go close to the website because those guys are subtle that can use all means to get their victims.

Secondly, the current average block time for this difficulty epoch is around 10 minutes and 12 seconds. This is the difference between 144 blocks a day and 141 blocks a day. This is a difference of 3 blocks and therefore 3 MvB at most, and not nearly enough to explain the >100 MvB of unconfirmed transactions we currently have.

Those minutes and seconds are depending on the fee rate of the transaction. From what I discovered yesterday and today, the more coins you try to transfer from Electrum, the more the charge increase and when you bring down the coin to like 0.001 or 0.0002 then the transaction fee will also comes down (reduce)

This quote in particular goes to show the author has absolutely no idea what he is talking about:

Meanwhile, block intervals have slowed down and surpassed the average ten-minute mark, with the most recent block taking a total of ten minutes and 50 seconds to be validated.

The time it takes a single block to be found is utterly meaningless when considering the global hashrate or the average for the epoch. We could double the hashrate and still wait an hour for a block, or we could lose 90% of the hashrate and still find the next block in 20 seconds.

exactly, the global hashrate is very high at this period. And the transaction is very slow.

[stompix]

I got that bookmark but don't know what's the minimum sat/vB that viabtc accepts. because I have been trying 5 sats/10 sats in the last 2 weeks but it still not getting accepted.

10 sats/byte. Note that it is per raw byte, not per virtual byte.

ViaBTC is simply annoying with this fork war thing they are still mad about, they are probably the only service left with this kind of counter, so the 10sat/vb is actually closer to 20, if you want to save to the last satoshi to go above the limit and you have a ton of inputs and output you're in for a major headache., so better go to a tx size counter before broadcasting or RBF one!
But ironically, Viabtc is also the only true accelerator left.

None of that is going to help at present as just now I tried to make a payment using 20sats/byte on Electrum, and the servers rejected my transaction due to the mempool being completely full.

Huh? Try broadcasting it directly in services like Viabtc!
I see no reason why nodes refusing on one over 20sat/b, not even the default mem size nodes are dropping those, and there are plenty with more, mine still has room.
 

[entebah]

Secondly, the current average block time for this difficulty epoch is around 10 minutes and 12 seconds. This is the difference between 144 blocks a day and 141 blocks a day. This is a difference of 3 blocks and therefore 3 MvB at most, and not nearly enough to explain the >100 MvB of unconfirmed transactions we currently have.

Those minutes and seconds are depending on the fee rate of the transaction. From what I discovered yesterday and today, the more coins you try to transfer from Electrum, the more the charge increase and when you bring down the coin to like 0.001 or 0.0002 then the transaction fee will also comes down (reduce)

from where did you discover that? As I know that bitcoin transaction fees are based on how much total data that our transaction is made.
not by how much the total coin you send, I saw a few transactions that 1 BTC and 0.0005BTC, and their transaction fees are the same around 0.00015BTC.

[o_e_l_e_o]

None of that is going to help at present as just now I tried to make a payment using 20sats/byte on Electrum, and the servers rejected my transaction due to the mempool being completely full.

RBF will definitely help, and my default settings node has a current minimum fee of around 10.9 sats/vbyte, which is in keeping with mempool.space's 11 sats/vbyte. Seems like you are just connected to a bad server.

From what I discovered yesterday and today, the more coins you try to transfer from Electrum, the more the charge increase

from where did you discover that? As I know that bitcoin transaction fees are based on how much total data that our transaction is made.

Correct. Transaction size (and therefore your fee) is based on the number of inputs and outputs in your transaction, and not on the amount of bitcoin being sent.

[apogio]

None of that is going to help at present as just now I tried to make a payment using 20sats/byte on Electrum, and the servers rejected my transaction due to the mempool being completely full.

RBF will definitely help, and my default settings node has a current minimum fee of around 10.9 sats/vbyte, which is in keeping with mempool.space's 11 sats/vbyte. Seems like you are just connected to a bad server.

From what I discovered yesterday and today, the more coins you try to transfer from Electrum, the more the charge increase

from where did you discover that? As I know that bitcoin transaction fees are based on how much total data that our transaction is made.

Correct. Transaction size (and therefore your fee) is based on the number of inputs and outputs in your transaction, and not on the amount of bitcoin being sent.

I have posted this question in another thread, but here there are many people so I can get more answers and ideas.

Scenario that takes place in the future:
So I have a signed timelocked transaction that a relative gave me 25 years ago. It has been signed with a fee of X sats/vbyte

Today I want to broadcast it but the fee is 10 times higher. The transaction can't be broadcasted.

Some knowledgeable people gave me 2 options:
1. I wait until the mempool is less congested.
2. I pay a miner to include my transaction.

Any other ideas? Thank you

[o_e_l_e_o]

Some knowledgeable people gave me 2 options:
1. I wait until the mempool is less congested.
2. I pay a miner to include my transaction.

At the moment, yes, those are your only two options.

When you broadcast transactions to other nodes, each transaction must pass all policy requirements on its own merits. It doesn't matter if you also broadcast a CPFP transaction with a high fee - receiving nodes will not at present consider both transaction as a unit, and so the parent transaction with the low fee will not be accepted.

However, there is a proposal known as "package relay" in active development which would change this. This will allow you to broadcast a "package" of transactions, and have receiving nodes consider the overall fee rate of the entire package, not the individual fee rate of individual transactions. See here for more information: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1382. This means that you could simultaneously broadcast your low fee timelocked transaction along side a high fee CPFP transaction, and have nodes accept both based on their overall fee.

[apogio]

Some knowledgeable people gave me 2 options:
1. I wait until the mempool is less congested.
2. I pay a miner to include my transaction.

At the moment, yes, those are your only two options.

When you broadcast transactions to other nodes, each transaction must pass all policy requirements on its own merits. It doesn't matter if you also broadcast a CPFP transaction with a high fee - receiving nodes will not at present consider both transaction as a unit, and so the parent transaction with the low fee will not be accepted.

However, there is a proposal known as "package relay" in active development which would change this. This will allow you to broadcast a "package" of transactions, and have receiving nodes consider the overall fee rate of the entire package, not the individual fee rate of individual transactions. See here for more information: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1382. This means that you could simultaneously broadcast your low fee timelocked transaction along side a high fee CPFP transaction, and have nodes accept both based on their overall fee.

Oh it's in development. That's great! I am trying to think of other ideas. Perhaps if fees weren't attached to the transactions but instead they were separate transactions. Meaning that the transaction that is time-locked can be broadcasted allowing the recepient to spend from their own wallet to cover the fees. Therefore if I was to receive a transaction, at the time of the broadcast I could add a fee from a personal wallet.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Meaning that the transaction that is time-locked can be broadcasted allowing the recepient to spend from their own wallet to cover the fees. Therefore if I was to receive a transaction, at the time of the broadcast I could add a fee from a personal wallet.

So you can already do this, but it requires the timelocked transaction to be set up in a specific way when it is first created.

All bitcoin transactions contain a field known as the SIGHASH. You can read more about this here: https://btcinformation.org/en/developer-guide#term-signature-hash. Essentially, it's a field which tells the protocol which part of the transaction you are signing. The vast majority of transactions use the default SIGHASH_ALL, which as the name suggests, means you are signing all the inputs and all the outputs, so no inputs or outputs can be changed or added.

However, there are other options available. For this scenario, the person making the timelocked transaction could sign it using SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY. This means that they sign their input and output so these cannot be changed, but they allow the addition of other inputs and outputs in to the transaction as well. So years later you can take the timelocked transaction, add your own additional input to it, use some of that input to pay a higher fee, add your own change address for the rest of your input to go to, and then sign and broadcast this new transaction. The core of the timelocked transaction (send x BTC from A to B) can't be changed, but you can add an extra input and output to increase the fee before you broadcast it.

[apogio]

Meaning that the transaction that is time-locked can be broadcasted allowing the recepient to spend from their own wallet to cover the fees. Therefore if I was to receive a transaction, at the time of the broadcast I could add a fee from a personal wallet.

So you can already do this, but it requires the timelocked transaction to be set up in a specific way when it is first created.

All bitcoin transactions contain a field known as the SIGHASH. You can read more about this here: https://btcinformation.org/en/developer-guide#term-signature-hash. Essentially, it's a field which tells the protocol which part of the transaction you are signing. The vast majority of transactions use the default SIGHASH_ALL, which as the name suggests, means you are signing all the inputs and all the outputs, so no inputs or outputs can be changed or added.

However, there are other options available. For this scenario, the person making the timelocked transaction could sign it using SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY. This means that they sign their input and output so these cannot be changed, but they allow the addition of other inputs and outputs in to the transaction as well. So years later you can take the timelocked transaction, add your own additional input to it, use some of that input to pay a higher fee, add your own change address for the rest of your input to go to, and then sign and broadcast this new transaction. The core of the timelocked transaction (send x BTC from A to B) can't be changed, but you can add an extra input and output to increase the fee before you broadcast it.

You re very helpful. Unfortunately I have no sendable merit to give you. Thank you!

I have actually been able to do this using sparrow wallet. That's exactly what I wanted!!!

[o_e_l_e_o]

I have actually been able to do this using sparrow wallet. That's exactly what I wanted!!!

No problem. Happy to help.

As always, before you lock up any significant amount of bitcoin, create a test transactions first with only a very small amount of bitcoin which has both a timelock and uses SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, check you cannot broadcast it before the timelock is up, and then check you can add a second input to it and broadcast it after the timelock is up.

[WillyAp]

Since the past few days (probably a week), Im observing that the bitcoin transaction fee (for a tx to get confirmed and included in the next block) has increased to an unreasonable level and is not ready to come down.

Some people paying good fees to make the network congest. Many suspect a conspiracy as usual nowadays.

AFAIK, it's related to Bitcoin ordinals[1]. If you're transacting on a regular basis, then maybe it's better to try and stick to the lightning network for now.

Use Litecoin or any other coin which is fast and decentralised. Better and more convenient than the Lightning network.

[Jon_Hodl]

As far as I am able to tell, it is a bunch of NFT grifters minting tokens on bitcoin and bloating the mempool.

My buddy sent me this link. It's all of the "BRC-20" tokens: https://brc-20.io/ and it shows all of the crap that is bidding up the fees.

I think it's best to just hodl until all of this blows over and we can get back to normal. If yo ave a miner lying around, it might be a good time to get it mining some of these absurd fees.

[Woodie]

Since the past few days (probably a week), Im observing that the bitcoin transaction fee (for a tx to get confirmed and included in the next block) has increased to an unreasonable level and is not ready to come down. My tx used to get confirmed at 1sat/vB in the past months. I was just curious to know as to what has caused this sudden congestion in the mempool? I cant find a reason.

Because a plague named NFT hit Bitcoin blockchain. Those greedy bustards inscribe more than 5k NFT in each block.. Seekers of easy money load a lot of traffic to blockchain, making every low fee transaction stuck there for days and weeks, which turns into fee increase. These bustards are turning BTC blockchain into ETH Remember times when transactions on Ethereum cost +50 bucks and still could fail? We can get same in BTC. Funny that those people will be first to complain that they no longer can pay few cents for transaction

With bitcoins block times these NFT treasure hunters are just hurting the network if this is whats behind the surge in transaction fees and the ought to be ashamed  of themselves...can't they pick on a different  blockchain that won't hurt their pocket while they are it.

Talking of ethereum and network clogging,  what was it again..the cat game, cryptocats cant even recall the name but it was bad ,good thing it didn't last long lol.

[serjent05]

None of that is going to help at present as just now I tried to make a payment using 20sats/byte on Electrum, and the servers rejected my transaction due to the mempool being completely full.

RBF will definitely help, and my default settings node has a current minimum fee of around 10.9 sats/vbyte, which is in keeping with mempool.space's 11 sats/vbyte. Seems like you are just connected to a bad server.

And if we are at the receiving end, CPNP will also greatly help if we wanted to hasten the confirmation.  We have to pay higher fee though.

From what I discovered yesterday and today, the more coins you try to transfer from Electrum, the more the charge increase

from where did you discover that? As I know that bitcoin transaction fees are based on how much total data that our transaction is made.

Correct. Transaction size (and therefore your fee) is based on the number of inputs and outputs in your transaction, and not on the amount of bitcoin being sent.

this means that we will pay more transaction fee even though we are sending a smaller amount of BTC if it is coming from different multiple transactions than sending a bigger amount of BTC coming from a single transaction.


This current attack is really making a mess of Bitcoin transactions, I wonder when these people stop playing with transaction fees...

Since the past few days (probably a week), Im observing that the bitcoin transaction fee (for a tx to get confirmed and included in the next block) has increased to an unreasonable level and is not ready to come down. My tx used to get confirmed at 1sat/vB in the past months. I was just curious to know as to what has caused this sudden congestion in the mempool? I cant find a reason.

Because a plague named NFT hit Bitcoin blockchain. Those greedy bustards inscribe more than 5k NFT in each block.. Seekers of easy money load a lot of traffic to blockchain, making every low fee transaction stuck there for days and weeks, which turns into fee increase. These bustards are turning BTC blockchain into ETH Remember times when transactions on Ethereum cost +50 bucks and still could fail? We can get same in BTC. Funny that those people will be first to complain that they no longer can pay few cents for transaction

With bitcoins block times these NFT treasure hunters are just hurting the network if this is whats behind the surge in transaction fees and the ought to be ashamed  of themselves...can't they pick on a different  blockchain that won't hurt their pocket while they are it.

Talking of ethereum and network clogging,  what was it again..the cat game, cryptocats cant even recall the name but it was bad ,good thing it didn't last long lol.

I do not think it is the treasure hunters that is hurting the network, I think it is an attack from anti-Bitcoin to lessen the integrity of the Bitcoin network.

[AmoreJaz]

Some knowledgeable people gave me 2 options:
1. I wait until the mempool is less congested.
2. I pay a miner to include my transaction.

At the moment, yes, those are your only two options.

When you broadcast transactions to other nodes, each transaction must pass all policy requirements on its own merits. It doesn't matter if you also broadcast a CPFP transaction with a high fee - receiving nodes will not at present consider both transaction as a unit, and so the parent transaction with the low fee will not be accepted.

However, there is a proposal known as "package relay" in active development which would change this. This will allow you to broadcast a "package" of transactions, and have receiving nodes consider the overall fee rate of the entire package, not the individual fee rate of individual transactions. See here for more information: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1382. This means that you could simultaneously broadcast your low fee timelocked transaction along side a high fee CPFP transaction, and have nodes accept both based on their overall fee.

in short, for those who can't wait, you will suffer expensive fees. so better think of the reason why you need to transfer these days. if there's no urgency, better delay it for a bit. last week was already quite expensive already but today, much much more!
i believe this is another hurdle in btc life that i think we can surpass. the fees are not favourable to small time holders for now. but i have high hopes that this will be resolve sooner. we will not be in this situation for long.