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

[Antotena]

- if in the future we will pay 1 cent per tx we would have one cent worth of bodyguard

We should be familiar this, the world most often work like this, you get the value of what you paid for. But my thoughts is it would be disastrous to have a future of Bitcoin where miners calls the shots in such a way, having the transaction security we have now at a very affordable price is an underrated flex I hope it doesn't get this bad like you said it would be a long time, regardless we hope for a sustainable Bitcoin future.

Then obviously, people like you and I will be left on the bench and will not be able to use bitcoin because what is the use of bitcoin to retailers and small investors that will squeeze their pockets to buy bitcoin. I doubt if bitcoin will strive as people will believe.
Anytime there is a hike in fees, the only people that benefits from this is usually the miners and that's why they refuse to speak up against ordinals, they are spamming the network but in the end, they will say what they want to say because they mostly benefits from this. If real bull run should come, it will be 3x more than this and I guess I will have to be watching my wallet.

Next halving is something I'm even looking at, if the reward of miners become halve the original value, that means there revenue will be half and if bitcoin price isn't stable as it does crash after reaching a new all time, the miners will definitely propose a change in the fee system. I'm positive of the future for Bitcoin to grow in value but the way the miners are enjoying this fees, imagine how they will feel when the reward change to less than a bitcoin at this current price. You  never can tell for the future but then anything is possible.

[1715402299]

1715402299

[1715402299]

1715402299

[1715402299]

1715402299

[1715402299]

1715402299

[Z-tight]

It's undisputable. The more the prices of the coins get the more the fees increases.

This is not true, the transaction fee rate is not tied to BTC price, just the same way the tx fee you pay for your tx has nothing in common with the amount you are sending. Transaction fee is determined by the state of the network, if it is congested or not and your input and output, the reason why the fee rate is high now is because of Ordinals. But this topic is discussing the period after all BTC's have been mined and miners only earn from tx fees, it is predicted that fees will be high then, in order to keep the network secure, so maybe high fees are inevitable in the future.

[CreepyUncleJoe]

LN could be a game-changer if more merchants adopt it. The fees for opening channels can be a hurdle, though.

[joker_josue]

But this topic is discussing the period after all BTC's have been mined and miners only earn from tx fees, it is predicted that fees will be high then, in order to keep the network secure, so maybe high fees are inevitable in the future.

Nowhere in the Bitcoin whitepaper does it say that high fees are needed to keep the network secure. This to me is a false question.

The network continues to operate as long as mining remains decentralized and functioning. You will say that with the reduction in block rewards, if the fees are low it demotivates the big miners. This may be partly true, but in reality if the use is widespread, this is no longer an issue.

What is better for Bitcoin, a block has 10 transactions with $50 fee. Or have 2000 transactions with a $0.5 fee?
I believe we all agree that the second option is best for everyone.

[Blitzboy]

- if in the future we will pay 1 cent per tx we would have one cent worth of bodyguard

We should be familiar this, the world most often work like this, you get the value of what you paid for. But my thoughts is it would be disastrous to have a future of Bitcoin where miners calls the shots in such a way, having the transaction security we have now at a very affordable price is an underrated flex I hope it doesn't get this bad like you said it would be a long time, regardless we hope for a sustainable Bitcoin future.

Then obviously, people like you and I will be left on the bench and will not be able to use bitcoin because what is the use of bitcoin to retailers and small investors that will squeeze their pockets to buy bitcoin. I doubt if bitcoin will strive as people will believe.
Anytime there is a hike in fees, the only people that benefits from this is usually the miners and that's why they refuse to speak up against ordinals, they are spamming the network but in the end, they will say what they want to say because they mostly benefits from this. If real bull run should come, it will be 3x more than this and I guess I will have to be watching my wallet.

Next halving is something I'm even looking at, if the reward of miners become halve the original value, that means there revenue will be half and if bitcoin price isn't stable as it does crash after reaching a new all time, the miners will definitely propose a change in the fee system. I'm positive of the future for Bitcoin to grow in value but the way the miners are enjoying this fees, imagine how they will feel when the reward change to less than a bitcoin at this current price. You  never can tell for the future but then anything is possible.

Cryptocommunity rituals increasingly include it. The relationship between miners, fees, and Bitcoin price is complicated, right? Miners benefit from increasing fees, but the next halving will change everything. Bitcoin is designed to make us question and reconsider continually. Its reasonable to worry about small investors being sidelined. Bitcoin, once a democratizing force, appears to be dominated by major entities. Remember, the crypto market is volatile and unpredictable. Today's underdog can be tomorrow's kingpin on this wild rollercoaster.

The post-halving future is mixed, right? Miners may demand more fees to offset lower payouts. This might backfire if Bitcoin adoption and trust drop, forcing the community to seek alternatives. The community's aim for affordable, decentralized currency and miners' profitability are in conflict. Whats ahead is unknown, but crypto's intrigue comes from its uncertainty and possibilities.

[Z-tight]

Nowhere in the Bitcoin whitepaper does it say that high fees are needed to keep the network secure. This to me is a false question.

As miners confirm BTC tx's, they keep the network secure and running, and miners are incentivized with block reward + tx fees, when there is no more block reward to be earned, miners will earn only from tx fees and if they are not making enough profit from the fees they earn, so many miners will stop mining. Fewer miners also mean a lower hashrate, and if it is significant, then it is a security problem, this is where some of that logic comes from.

The network continues to operate as long as mining remains decentralized and functioning. You will say that with the reduction in block rewards, if the fees are low it demotivates the big miners. This may be partly true, but in reality if the use is widespread, this is no longer an issue.

The point here is not on the decentralization of mining, for mining to function effectively, miners have to earn rewards that is higher than the cost of BTC production. BTC being widely used then isn't the question, but about miners, their reward and the network's hashrate, if miners are demotivated, this would affect the hashrate and become a security problem.

What is better for Bitcoin, a block has 10 transactions with $50 fee. Or have 2000 transactions with a $0.5 fee?
I believe we all agree that the second option is best for everyone.

Will the second option also be best for miners? Will it be enough to keep them in operation after all their investment in gears and maintenance to keep the network secure?

[joker_josue]

What is better for Bitcoin, a block has 10 transactions with $50 fee. Or have 2000 transactions with a $0.5 fee?
I believe we all agree that the second option is best for everyone.

Will the second option also be best for miners? Will it be enough to keep them in operation after all their investment in gears and maintenance to keep the network secure?

Just do the math:
10x50$ = 500$/block
2000x0.50$ = 1000$/block

Increasing fees only reduces the massive use of Bitcoin, because high fees only pay off for large transactions and whales. And we know that these types of transactions are the smallest in bitcoin.

If we want Bitcoin to be used by everyone, the fees must remain affordable for most people. Furthermore, you have to count on the expectation that the value of BTC will continue to increase, and this in turn increases mining profits.

In turn, the market must start pressuring manufacturers to make miners even more efficient, and not continue with this current scheme in which they only create more powerful machines, consuming practically the same amount of energy.

I remember that 10 years ago, most miners used PCs to mine blocks, which was not profitable - and no one thought it would be worth what it is worth today, and that wasn't why the network was less secure.

[tjtonmoy]

Only LN? No!
You still need an on-chain transaction for starting to use LN, so the network capacity must still be large enouhg to allow millions of channels to be opened and closed. But since nowadays usage is limited, it would cover it pretty much, the long term it will still need a capacity increase.
We are billions! on this planet. There is no mass adoption without billions using it!

So lightning Network could be an alternative but it's having limited power makes it not the perfect solution right? It could be a temporary solution for time like this one what we are facing right now when the blockchain is crowded. But it doesn't add up to the future situation when there will be no mining reward instead minus will have to live on fees collected from each transaction.

If lightning Network can provide a temporary solution for higher fees and faster transaction, we can hope for a better alternative in the future for sure. But this also raises more question. It's about energy to reward. If lightning network consumes less energy than the regular blockchain then the fees can be less. This is what I think. But it is unlikely to happen given the fact that it's a pay to win situation. The more you pay, the better security you get. I guess we will have to pay the double fee in the future, but that future is way too far for us to live. Some of us won't be alive to see that future.

[Faisal2202]

Doesn't work like that because paying for a product is not the product.
If you had the choice of paying 10$ of bread but it would cost you 0 with a vis card, 10 cents with Doge and 10$ with BTC, what ar you going to do?
Furthermore, this is what happens when the block reward is gone, I highlighted that in the first post.

I know you have stated it already, and of course, if I have to buy bread at 0$ via Visa card then I might not hesitate but at what cost, privacy, decentralization, and all the features that BTC provides us? But if I have to use Doge or any other coin then I might keep my privacy maintained or some other features out of all the features that BTC provides us.

Well, it is bad and there should be some solution to it other than LN.

[dezoel]

Bitcoin's high transaction fees frustrate me after a few days. I haven't seen any permanent solution to Bitcoin's extra transaction fees so far. If I have to pay 10 to 15 dollar transaction fee to trade the amount of BTC that I need to trade, it is a big loss for me because I am not that big of an investor. I have stopped doing Bitcoin transactions now because of the extra transaction fees. A few days ago Bitcoin transaction fees were somewhat normal but now Bitcoin transaction fees have become abnormal again. Even if I need to now, I have to wait to trade bitcoins because it is not possible for me to trade bitcoins with 10 to 15 dollars.

What about the Lightning Network? It is still there, so isn't it considered as a permanent solution? There are also others like SegWit and the said Ordinals. Your decision of not trading for a while is, one of the solutions that you can do to not incur a loss. The surge in fees can still subside later on. It wouldn't take that long. Maybe it is only shocked for the recent increase that we have.

As an investor in BTC, this is one of the hindrance that we can face if we are doing a DCA. So those who say that doing a DCA is the best method for investing is wrong. Also as a small BTC user, that 10 to 15 dollars in the fee is already a big thing for us but for those who are dealing with greater amounts. They can still be able to continue. Again, this is what separates us from them. This is what they say that the rich are only getting richer while the poor are only getting poorer.

[Synchronice]

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!

Future is future, what we experience right now, is not normal. Even if the future looks like this, I want to underline it again, future, we shouldn't have the same situation today that awaits us in the future. But since we talk about the future, after analyzing things in my mind, I think that we won't have high fees in the future. If we really talk about the future of Bitcoin, then I imagine it as the cryptocurrency with 100 times, 1000 times more transactions than it has today. If we increase the block size, which I believe will happen and with 1000 times more users + with high BTC price, miners will collect a fair amount of fees. So, high number of blocksize and transactions will keep fees very low while all of these will pay well for miners.

[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?

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

Then what blocking devs from making this change? If I am not wrong, someone has to propose it, and most of the devs have to agree on it. Isn't that how it works? Since Bitcoin is maintained by a lot of devs, the majority of them have to agree to make any changes. Is it how it works?

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!

Ah, that makes sense. Actually, I do not understand those things very much and never thought to dig out. So bitcoin network needs more miners to to handle more transactions. But as far as I know, Bitcoin miners do not make much money in regular time. They make money during the congestion and by holding the reward.

[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?

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

Then what blocking devs from making this change? If I am not wrong, someone has to propose it, and most of the devs have to agree on it. Isn't that how it works? Since Bitcoin is maintained by a lot of devs, the majority of them have to agree to make any changes. Is it how it works?

unless you are a known trusted entity that core devs have already formed a relationship with.. where they see you believe in their roadmap..  expect pitchforks and witch trials if you dare propose a protocol level change that goes against their 5 year roadmap plan

[digaran]

Ah, that makes sense. Actually, I do not understand those things very much and never thought to dig out. So bitcoin network needs more miners to to handle more transactions. But as far as I know, Bitcoin miners do not make much money in regular time. They make money during the congestion and by holding the reward.

More miners mean more competition and has nothing to do with how many transactions they can include in blocks, in order to have more TXs per block, everyone has to use segwit, taproot to reduce the size of each TX, and there has to be an increase of at least 1MB for block size every 2 or 4 years to increase the max limit.

There should also be some  penalty for those sending excessive dust transactions, sending non-tx data such as ordinals, NFT tokens, other garbage and junk etc, if you increase the fee for scammers, they will scam less and also will have to pay several times more than monetary-tx, regular users.

These things should be developed and implemented by the dev team the miners and nodes will upgrade to make the new changes effective, but if they refused to upgrade, people will see them as the real scammers behind these manipulations and start leaving Bitcoin.  Though this is happening even now, when they don't take any action to stop this fee manipulation, people will start to seek better and cheaper alternatives, and believe me when I say this, crypto users never signed a contract to promise to stay with Bitcoin no matter what, NO, once they realize miners are taking advantage of them, they will gradually migrate to other networks, therefore in a long run, these greedy miners will suffer more loss than what they are earning now.

Do you know how lust can control our behaviour? Either it be sexual, emotional etc. It's the blinding desire to want something so bad that it renders you unable to think about the consequences. For now people are drowning in "money lust" aka greed.

How to snap out of it? By becoming a user yourself and experience the situation as a normal user and then you can understand.

[joker_josue]

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!

Ah, that makes sense. Actually, I do not understand those things very much and never thought to dig out. So bitcoin network needs more miners to to handle more transactions. But as far as I know, Bitcoin miners do not make much money in regular time. They make money during the congestion and by holding the reward.

All blocks are mined approximately 10 minutes ago, with only 1 miner or millions. Each block supports x transactions, it doesn't matter if there are many or few miners, the maximum is always the same. A single miner is capable of handling millions of transactions. One block at a time as the network dictates. In other words, there is no need for millions of miners for the network to support millions of transactions.

This is why it increases transaction fees. When the network has many transactions to process, exceeding the maximum block size, they are placed in a waiting queue. In turn, the network/miners prioritize transactions with the highest fees, leaving others behind until there is space in a block. This means that a transaction may have to wait 10 days or weeks if its rate is lower than the remaining transactions that are pending.

That's why I think we need to adjust the way transactions with several waiting hours are evaluated.

[buwaytress]

Got to agree with OP in a certain way, though I think personally it's less the dollar cost of the fee (although this will for a long time be the focus) but the percentage of the tx amount. So yes, miners will need the fees incentive but if the sat cost becomes too high, it makes it less interesting for me.

To be as objective as possible, me paying 1 mbtc in fees only becomes worthwhile for a 0.1 BTC send. Right now, I'm actually okay with the the 10k sat fee to pay for a 3 input spend of 10 mbtc. But I can imagine it's annoying to spend 1 mbtc for a couple of pizzas now without LN.

Still think the benefit of sending something over such a secure network is well worth the cost. Was hardly ever my issue anyway, LN or my debit card should cover my pizza spends...

[franky1]

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!

stompix has it the wrong way around..

difficulty adjusts each 2016 blocks(fortnight) to adjust to try to keep blocks on track..
if there are more than 2016 blocks per fortnight. the network is too fast(too much hashrate) so makes difficulty go up so next session produces less blocks a fortnight to average out
if there are less than 2016 blocks per fortnight. the network is too slow(not enough hashrate) so makes difficulty go down so next session produces more blocks a fortnight to average out

 if the network was CPU mining. the difficulty would be low. if the network was trillion asics the difficulty would be high... the difficulty wont be the same and produce the same time if cpu or or trillion asics

ill explain
 if difficulty was fixed but hashrate vary (from cpu to asic) . the solve time would vary DRAMATICALLY whether it was CPU or trillion asics.. because CPU would solve in months and a trillion asics will solve in seconds with a fixed difficulty

the only way to even achieve a fixed TIME.. there would need to be fixed difficulty and fixed amount of miners (to control things somewhat) that can solve in only say 8mins or less. but then only broadcasts at the 10th minute where rejected if seen too soon

however the ramifications of putting in controls and fixed default amounts are, if the last block solved at 7m:20s it cant broadcast to the network for another 2m:40s but can secretly mine ontop of itself at that 7th min 21st sec and produce another block before any competitors get a chance. which leads to centralisation

trying to fix block times is where the decentralised competition ends

All blocks are mined approximately 10 minutes ago, with only 1 miner or millions. Each block supports x transactions, it doesn't matter if there are many or few miners, the maximum is always the same. A single miner is capable of handling millions of transactions. One block at a time as the network dictates. In other words, there is no need for millions of miners for the network to support millions of transactions.

yep no need to increase miners to sort transactions. as thats not how things works..
the actual solutions is in the data of the block itself, such as
the leanness of transactions (new validation rules of counting bytes and ensuring each byte has a purpose for the transaction)
the block space limit
penalising bloaty transactions that waste bytes (bloaters get penalised not everyone)
penalised transactions that spend every block (too often) (spammers get penalised not everyone)

thus allowing more people to make daily transactions without as many delays or excess costs

[PrivacyG]

I agree with the @OP stand but one thing is lacking here, and that is the development of Bitcoin.  I believe Bitcoin will continuously evolve and be upgraded to be suited to the needs of users and miners.  If there is no changes in the structure of the Bitcoin system scalability, with larger adoption up ahead, we might see a larger transaction fee than this.  So I am not surprised if one day only a few individuals can afford an on-chain transaction and many probably will be using lightning-network-like implementation.

It is hard to change a monster like Bitcoin.  Shit Coins come and go.  They are here one moment and disappear the next.  Bitcoin stood standing in all Cryptocurrency winters and every time there was a big bomb in the Market.

It will not be necessarily about how many afford On Chain Transactions.  I believe it will rather be that majority will choose to mostly and only accept the second Layer instead.  Why make On Chain Transactions less affordable if you can make second Layer more convenient, easier to understand, almost instant, close to free.  You will want to buy things and they will only accept, say Lightning.  That is how things will change.

[jrrsparkles]

Got to agree with OP in a certain way, though I think personally it's less the dollar cost of the fee (although this will for a long time be the focus) but the percentage of the tx amount. So yes, miners will need the fees incentive but if the sat cost becomes too high, it makes it less interesting for me.

Exactly, the fee increases in terms of dollar price it isn't gonna be an issue but when the fee needed is about 10 or 20% of the TX size of day-to-day transactions then the system could fall apart, to be honest.

LN can be the only solution to avoid this from happening but it is a slow gradual process and it will take a while to be adopted until then we may have to halt the TX which isn't worth transacting due to sudden congestions and I stand by that way as well.

Anyway, I don't expect this congestion to last more than a couple of weeks from now.

[digaran]

So the 2 previous posters believe in LN, Ok, but ask this from yourselves: why would people join a centralized network and trust  third parties when there are decentralized and fairly stable with low fees and fast confirm alternative(s)? Alright, do you know why dictators never admit that they are dictators?
Because they believe they are on the right path, they'd only realize their mistakes when it's already too late, with what I have observed it seems like we are collectively pushing Bitcoin to that phase of realization of mistakes. Saying that "this is decentralization" and everyone is free to do whatever they want and we shouldn't try to stop them because it's bad, it's censoring etc, is the definition of anarchy.

If a system can't prevent abuse, exploitation, that system will fail.
If a system can't differentiate harm and benefit, that system is useless.
If a system can't identify friends from foes, that system is not immune and will lead to cancer if not treated well AND IN TIME.