Angry at the high fees? That's what everyone predicted the future will be like!

[panganib999]

People should already get used to this, you can’t have your cake and eat it too you know. It’s always common knowledge for bitcoin to also become fee-intensive when its price action becomes desirable, so why always complain about it? Besides, there are layer 2 solutions in place for this like the lightning network, and I don’t see people using that feature for whatever fucking reason yet they are so quick to complain about bitcoin’s high fees when solutions are laid in front of their eyes.

We can’t do anything anymore about the high fees, it’s a flaw in the system that I doubt will get fixed, what we could do instead is make use of what features are available, and perhaps see this high-fee situation as a clear-cut sign that the network is getting busy again. Not something that is inherently negative.

[franky1]

its basic economics. if the cheapest way to acquire bitcoin on the planet (efficient mining) was $15k in 2022. no one on the same planet wants to sell below $15k. so market stays above $15k.
~
EG it used to cost hawaii-japan $75k in 2021 104k in 2022 and now its 150k+ in 2023
if you learn about the value vs premium of world economics of bitcoin you then learn the window of which the market spot price speculates within

yep hawaii-japan being most expensive to mine so when in 2021 their mining cost were $75k they were the ones happy to market buy upto the $70k ATH of 2021

Franky, just f*** stop!
Nobody cares about the electricity prices when it comes to the price of Bitcoin.
If it were like that and people in Japan would pay 70 000 then people in Venezuela would sell it for $10.

if the market was $50k may 2021 everyone can decide if they want to buy or sell
if you think venezuela can make btc for $10 and sell for $10, when the market was $50k you are deluding yourself.. learn how markets work

if you think venezuela can make btc for $10 and sell for $49,990 profit you are deluding yourself.. do some real math
even venezuela had higher costs than $10

do some proper math

i do love you taking snippets but then not understanding the context.

i dare you to look at
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1167419/000107997321000537/ex99x1.htm

Whinstone’s comprehensive energy management strategy delivers best-in-class net energy costs of approximately 2.5 cents per kWh utilizing cutting-edge technology and comprehensive analytics to deliver industry-leading low cost, reliable and responsive power.

but read the rest of the document.
such as doing the math that your stupid notion that yanky town america were making cheap bitcoin according to you in 2021
far below $15k according to you

although they talk about summer 2021 having 23946 asics they actually only had 22946 in the "year to date" may 2020-2021
now do the math.. on the electric. where "year to date" earning 924btc compares in just electric

ill give you a hint
76MW for 23946 is 72.836MW/h for 22946(may 2020-2021)
72.836MW/h 1 year (x24 x365) = 637,957,444kwh a year * $0.025 = $15,948,936(may 2020-2021)

$15,948,936 / 924btc(may 2020-2021) = $17,260 just electric per btc(may 2020-2021) (they shoulda used better efficient asics)

so stop spouting your obviously affiliated RIOT you promote as doing super cheap bitcoin mining.. even your link of their numbers reveals not so cheap

[stompix]

do some proper math
i do love you taking snippets but then not understanding the context.
~
although they talk about summer 2021 having 23946 asics they actually only had 22946 in the "year to date" may 2020-2021
now do the math.. on the electric. where "year to date" earning 924btc compares in just electric
~
72.836MW/h 1 year (x24 x365) = 637,957,444kwh a year * $0.025 = $15,948,936(may 2020-2021)

Franky, go back to kindergarten and learn what year-to-date means for something in May!
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/year-to-date-ytd/#:~:text=Year%20to%20Date%20(YTD)%20refers,up%20until%20a%20specified%20date.

Year to Date (YTD) refers to the period from the beginning of the current year to a specified date before the year’s end. In other words, year to date is based on the number of days from the beginning of the calendar year (or fiscal year) up until a specified date. I

But as always basic kindergarten definitions are beyond your ability!

$15,948,936 / 924btc(may 2020-2021) = $17,260 just electric per btc(may 2020-2021) (they shoulda used better efficient asics)

In May 2021, Riot produced 227 BTC

So it's ($15,948,936/227)/12 which is $5,854.
So you're just off by 3 times, the usual crappy math you're so addicted to.

[franky1]

funny how you shout my $15m electric costs per year are wrong. but then you then realise they are correct for the year. and then use that number with your "monthly amount"

now calculate the hardware and labour cost .. its not all free you know..

and none of the numbers are anywhere near your "$10" you think some people have costs of

[joker_josue]

As a miner high fees feel good.
As a seller of items using btc for my payment high fees suck.

So I am in a personal conflict of interest on 2 catagories.

I also trade a tiny bit the effect on trading is harder to understand
lastly I mine and hodl

so just me alone and I  am In a complex situation.

other absolute supermoon of btc price most of the time I have no idea what to root for ie multi hedged for safety’s sake.

Combining things so that everyone is satisfied is clearly impossible at this point.

I believe more that the solution was to create more competition in mining. Especially in mining equipment manufacturers.
Basically the market is dominated by two or three manufacturing companies. And they are almost all in Asia.
More manufacturers were needed, so that the market is not so concentrated on one or two brands. Which gives them a lot of influence across the entire mining ecosystem.

[philipma1957]

yeah back to topic. big players can do a lot to make fees high.

Me with 350kwatts of power am just a small player that has to pick spots and shift with ease to survive.

eventually I will be squeezed out unless I use a switching technique which means I need 500 to 600 kwatts of paid off gear that allow me to switch from one algo to another.

Big guys can do this and Smaller guys can do it to.

So there will be a vested interest from big plays to boost fees and profits for short times and switch excess gear via software controlled multi guides.

Thus the ability to boost btc fees to the moon only needs to be done for 2-3 days. move your excess btc miners to btc and reap profits. lowers the diff on ltc/doge when the low diff hits on scrypt load up on scrypt

when the diff goes high on scrypt switch to btc.

the switch  to btc does not mean you always jack btc fees just once in a while.

you bread and butter is the extra million you mkae on ltc and doge every other doge diff adjustment.

this will not end it will simple repeat 🔁 whenever big players want it to.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Sorry for asking these beginner questions. I guess this was asked before, or maybe not. Isn't increasing the block size possible to contain more transactions simultaneously? How difficult is it to increase the block size? When I see mempool, the maximum blocks contain around 4500 transactions. Wouldn't it be great if a single block could handle more than ten thousand transactions? Also, sometimes, I see the gap between block times. Sometimes, we see three blocks in ten minutes, and sometimes three blocks in an hour. Why is that? Is it fixable?

[joker_josue]

this will not end it will simple repeat 🔁 whenever big players want it to.

But if this path is followed, we will reach a point where we will have 3 or 4 players controlling the entire mining market and transaction fees.
Don't you think that's bad for Bitcoin's fundamentals, and for Bitcoin itself?

I think so, and I can't see LN as a possible alternative for day-to-day transactions. Now it works, but if it scales it will no longer be efficient, and you will suffer the same type of problems with fees.

The alternative I see is to force a percentage of the block to allocate older transactions. For example, 10% of the block was allocated to transactions with more than 24 hours on the waiting list. In other words, you would reduce the waiting time to a minimum viable time, while giving you the freedom to choose the fee to guarantee faster transactions.

[philipma1957]

this will not end it will simple repeat 🔁 whenever big players want it to.

But if this path is followed, we will reach a point where we will have 3 or 4 players controlling the entire mining market and transaction fees.
Don't you think that's bad for Bitcoin's fundamentals, and for Bitcoin itself?

I think so, and I can't see LN as a possible alternative for day-to-day transactions. Now it works, but if it scales it will no longer be efficient, and you will suffer the same type of problems with fees.

The alternative I see is to force a percentage of the block to allocate older transactions. For example, 10% of the block was allocated to transactions with more than 24 hours on the waiting list. In other words, you would reduce the waiting time to a minimum viable time, while giving you the freedom to choose the fee to guarantee faster transactions.

doubt that works.  Look at it this way Scrypt has a vested interest in fucking up btc fee payments.

Scrypt makes about 45-80 million a day in mining payouts.

Doge rewards do not shrink over time they stay at 10,000 a block.


So if my idea that Bitmain controls 55% of the L7's in the world and switch them back and forth as I have postulated Bitmain smoke every other scrypt adjustment say 55 % of 45 million  an extra 25 million every 3 days.

They can keep their games up forever.

[johnsaributua]

Yes that's right, I was annoyed a few days ago with the surge from 60 sats/byte to above 200 sats/byte, I transacted with a small nominal and felt enough. turnover with price movements but this is a sign that the bitcoin ecosystem is alive with an increase and many are using, let's toast. !

There is reciprocity between validators and transactions, it's logical, rarely do you want to do work if you don't cover the basic costs with increasing work? and runs for the long term, meaning there is no motivation to become a miner if income is low, this is important and increasing fees is part of security for the future.

[jubalix]

I take no side in the big block small block argument, but it has to be the case that block size should increased at some point as this will solve a lot of the fees issue, its just a question of how much the block size should increase.

[joker_josue]

The alternative I see is to force a percentage of the block to allocate older transactions. For example, 10% of the block was allocated to transactions with more than 24 hours on the waiting list. In other words, you would reduce the waiting time to a minimum viable time, while giving you the freedom to choose the fee to guarantee faster transactions.

doubt that works.  Look at it this way Scrypt has a vested interest in fucking up btc fee payments.

Right, it won't stop this stupid joke of influencing Bitcoin fees. But it will ensure that all transactions, regardless of the fee amount, are handled.
Because, no matter the fee used, if the transaction is more than 24 hours old, it is included in the list to enter the next block, in this dedicated 10% space.

Well, this is just an idea, to create a mechanism for all types of transactions to have the opportunity to go through, and not wait endlessly for fees to go down.

If this continues like this, in a few years, it will no longer be viable to make transactions because of the fees. And this takes Bitcoin away from its objective, being a means of payment.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Right, it won't stop this stupid joke of influencing Bitcoin fees. But it will ensure that all transactions, regardless of the fee amount, are handled.
Because, no matter the fee used, if the transaction is more than 24 hours old, it is included in the list to enter the next block, in this dedicated 10% space.

Well, this is just an idea, to create a mechanism for all types of transactions to have the opportunity to go through, and not wait endlessly for fees to go down.

But then there could be another problem. People will use low fees knowing their transaction will get confirmed within 24 hours and the number of transactions with low fees will increase dramatically. After that, you will see a lot of transactions with low fees, and 10% dedicated space of each block won't be able to clear all the low fees transactions.

As a result, still there will remain some transactions that are older than 24 hours. I am bad at explanation but I guess you got what I am trying to explain here.

[franky1]

Sorry for asking these beginner questions. I guess this was asked before, or maybe not. Isn't increasing the block size possible to contain more transactions simultaneously? How difficult is it to increase the block size? When I see mempool, the maximum blocks contain around 4500 transactions. Wouldn't it be great if a single block could handle more than ten thousand transactions? Also, sometimes, I see the gap between block times. Sometimes, we see three blocks in ten minutes, and sometimes three blocks in an hour. Why is that? Is it fixable?

yes
years ago devs actually cared about lean transactions. where every byte of a transaction had a purpose of proving the movement of the bitcoin.
these days transactions for absolutely no meaningful reason can be upto 4mb FOR ONE TRANSACTION

there used to be other rules where 1 transaction could not take up the total space of a block. ... things have changed. rules have been relaxed

think about it, why should any decentralised person need to make a transaction paying using 20,000 utxo's
the relaxed rules allowing such instances have caused 'transaction bloat' where the limits(or lack of) have no rational explanation apart  from allowing people to overuse the blockspace. and now its worse by having stuff in transactions thats not even required to be validated by any ruleset

we need to get back to the idea of lean transactioning so that every byte counts. and punish those who do perfume bloated tx's specifically so that only the spammer pay the premium. rather than forcing everyone to may more due to the spammer

[Synchronice]

Every single time a newbie asked what would happen when there would be no mining reward he got the same response over 10 pages, miners will live on from fees, and the security of the blockchain will be generated from fees! And here we are, although the fees are not quite high enough yet!

|snip|

To make it as short as possible, for the network to have the same security as now without a block reward we would need each block to have twice as big fees in the future, that's how things work!
So, are you angry with high fees? Yes, we all are, but, wasn't this the design?

It's not 2140 today, is it? So, we aren't expecting high fees right now and things don't work as intended for sure. Fees are increased because bitcoin blockchain is spammed via ordinals and these spammers are willing to pay as much as possible to get it confirmed. This is not normal, we have to get rid of them and continue healthy transactions.

So, as a conclusion or encouragement or whatever, don't be angry at the fees, they help secure the network, and this is how it was designed to be in the first place, otherwise, we would end up like Bitcoin Gold or Ethereum classic, shitcoins getting 51% attacked 3 times in a row.

And of course, for now, we could actually start using LN rather than complaining, but that would be a solution that involves doing something!

Again, it's not 2140 today and high fees are not normal because they are the result of spam.
By the way, I think, one day we will end up with fork on Bitcoin that will be supported by everyone, i.e. current Bitcoin will have some modified or additional features. At the moment, Lighting Network looks promisable but I believe it will be alright to upper the block size because in 2023 disk space is not a problem.

[joker_josue]

Right, it won't stop this stupid joke of influencing Bitcoin fees. But it will ensure that all transactions, regardless of the fee amount, are handled.
Because, no matter the fee used, if the transaction is more than 24 hours old, it is included in the list to enter the next block, in this dedicated 10% space.

Well, this is just an idea, to create a mechanism for all types of transactions to have the opportunity to go through, and not wait endlessly for fees to go down.

But then there could be another problem. People will use low fees knowing their transaction will get confirmed within 24 hours and the number of transactions with low fees will increase dramatically. After that, you will see a lot of transactions with low fees, and 10% dedicated space of each block won't be able to clear all the low fees transactions.

As a result, still there will remain some transactions that are older than 24 hours. I am bad at explanation but I guess you got what I am trying to explain here.

However, this allocation would only occur if the transaction was not processed in less than 24 hours.
If all transactions had low fees, the network would function normally and process them normally as it happens now.

Basically, it's not even a question of the rate being high or low, the question is for blocks to reserve space to pass transactions that have already been waiting for a long time to be processed. This would only ensure that transactions were not stopped for several days or weeks waiting for approval.

The point is: the user knows that regardless of the rate used and network congestion, their transaction will end up being processed within 24-48 hours. And that is an added value for everyone. Because the user often chooses a rate that, at the time they approve the transaction, is appropriate for the next blocks. However, suddenly an increase in fees may appear, and your transaction ends up being delayed for an indefinite period of time. The existence of a mechanism that guarantees that transactions are always processed after X amount of time, I believe to be an added value for the network.

[Lucius]

I just paid nearly $70 in fees to move $300 between wallets. I have concluded within myself that I am going to avoid micro transactions as much as possible.
~snip~

Was it really necessary and inevitable that you make that transaction at a time when the fees are much higher than usual? In addition, if it is about transactions that you do between your wallets, you could put a much smaller fee and hope that the situation will improve in the coming days, and if you have the RBF option, you can always "bump fee" if you don't want to wait any longer.

In addition, the ViaBTC accelerator could also help you (if the transaction meets the conditions). Anyway, $70 to make a $300 transaction definitely doesn't make sense.

[stompix]

Sorry for asking these beginner questions. I guess this was asked before, or maybe not. Isn't increasing the block size possible to contain more transactions simultaneously? How difficult is it to increase the block size?

Technically, not that much.
Making people do it, prepare to get a pitchfork the moment you propose it!

Also, sometimes, I see the gap between block times. Sometimes, we see three blocks in ten minutes, and sometimes three blocks in an hour. Why is that? Is it fixable?

You can't fix something that is not broken, blocks are found in different intervals because of normal variation, you won't be able to fix it to 10 minutes because that would mean no matter what hashrate is added you will have the same difficulty,  which to explain it as simple as it I can, it won't matter if you mine with a cpu or a trillion asics you will find the solution in the same time, which is...impossible!

It's not 2140 today, is it? So, we aren't expecting high fees right now and things don't work as intended for sure.

No it's not and I'm not sure what you're asking!
I specifically said in the OP, this what you experience right now will be the future once there is no block reward, I didn't say anything about this situation continuing, this being the norm, this ...anything! As I mentioned again in the topic, this is a topic so that people understand when they preach about "miners will keep working for fees" what this really implies!

The alternative I see is to force a percentage of the block to allocate older transactions. For example, 10% of the block was allocated to transactions with more than 24 hours on the waiting list. In other words, you would reduce the waiting time to a minimum viable time, while giving you the freedom to choose the fee to guarantee faster transactions.

It won't solve a thing even if it were possible.

At first, you will have the same capacity and the same demand, right now for somebody who would not be able to pay the minimum fee it will take him about 15 days at 10% capacity for tx already in the pool to get a confirmation. But fast forward it will also favor a ton of spam, some will just unload huge tx at 1 sat/b and you will have no way around it other than to confirm it, leading to a capacity decrease, making an attack even easier.

[Porfirii]

People should already get used to this, you can’t have your cake and eat it too you know. It’s always common knowledge for bitcoin to also become fee-intensive when its price action becomes desirable, so why always complain about it? Besides, there are layer 2 solutions in place for this like the lightning network, and I don’t see people using that feature for whatever fucking reason yet they are so quick to complain about bitcoin’s high fees when solutions are laid in front of their eyes.

We can’t do anything anymore about the high fees, it’s a flaw in the system that I doubt will get fixed, what we could do instead is make use of what features are available, and perhaps see this high-fee situation as a clear-cut sign that the network is getting busy again. Not something that is inherently negative.

Every time this topic about high fees arises in the Spanish board, it surprises me that my colleagues seem to forget that LN even exists. It is really simple to use, enables instant transactions, and it is almost free. Yes, there are risks linked to that solution, but for everyday expenses it is a really useful tool that most people in my environment didn't even try, those who are knowledgeable in the matter included. Idk what is the problem with this solution's awareness, but there is a real problem with it.

For bigger transactions, it is true that I wouldn't send sats with a value of thousands of dollars through LN. But, if I had to send such big amounts, paying high fees would be the least of my problems.

[joker_josue]

It won't solve a thing even if it were possible.

At first, you will have the same capacity and the same demand, right now for somebody who would not be able to pay the minimum fee it will take him about 15 days at 10% capacity for tx already in the pool to get a confirmation. But fast forward it will also favor a ton of spam, some will just unload huge tx at 1 sat/b and you will have no way around it other than to confirm it, leading to a capacity decrease, making an attack even easier.

I clearly understand the point. We must try to avoid this type of situation.
But we must also look for a way to combat attacks on the contrary, which generates absurd increases in rates. Because for large miners, it is not difficult to try to inflate fees, as they know that they will always end up winning, even if they spend a large amount to generate transactions with high fees.

Anyway, creating a balance is not easy at all. But it's good to stop this, so as not to get into an unbearable situation.



EDIT:

Every time this topic about high fees arises in the Spanish board, it surprises me that my colleagues seem to forget that LN even exists. It is really simple to use, enables instant transactions, and it is almost free. Yes, there are risks linked to that solution, but for everyday expenses it is a really useful tool that most people in my environment didn't even try, those who are knowledgeable in the matter included. Idk what is the problem with this solution's awareness, but there is a real problem with it.

For bigger transactions, it is true that I wouldn't send sats with a value of thousands of dollars through LN. But, if I had to send such big amounts, paying high fees would be the least of my problems.

Despite being an interesting technology, I don't think LN is yet at a point where it can be used massively.
On the other hand, the problem is not resolved.

Let's assume that LN is widespread and easy to use.
Friday arrives and I want to go out to dinner. I decide to move BTC from my cold wallet to my LN wallet in order to pay for dinner.
When I'm going to load my LN with 200$ to have money for the weekend, for that dinner. I face a $50 fee to receive the money in my LN in less than 1 hour.
I think I would rather have dinner at home than spend the $50 on fees, which would be more expensive than the price of dinner.