Excessive Bitcoin fees

[moonie]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

[1714546570]

1714546570

[1714546570]

1714546570

[Mia Chloe]

 From the look of things right now, Bitcoin is progressing when it comes to fees. During late periods of last year to very early this year, Bitcoin fees were drastically high due to conjestions caused by ordinals.
However as I type, Bitcoin fees have come so low to an average of about 24sat/byte for normal fees which would arrive between periods of an hour to 30 minutes.

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

If the network is conjested, fees on centralized exchanges will also increase. So theoretically they still can't control transaction rates since miners are the ones who confirm transactions not exchanges although some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation.

[BitMaxz]

I'm a bit confused about what you trying to say but Bitcoin will never become centralized because Satoshi made Bitcoin for decentralization.

If the fees are rising it's just temporary there is something going on that is why you see transaction fees rise just like today because the price touched above $50k that is why people right now panic to move their BTC to the exchange before it drops and make a profit.

[Upgrade00]

Fees have dropped earlier today to the lowest range we have seen in the recent months and the mempool is not as clogged as it was. No current situation suggests that rising fees would make it impossible for regular people to transact, this would be a problem for several decades down the line when mining rewards is majorly transaction fees and miners need to charge an amount that would cover their cost of mining.

There are several solutions that exists to fix the fees problem and more would be implemented down the road. One of them is off chain transations, this should become more popular and attract more users, taking much of the load off on-chain transactions.

[Charles-Tim]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

I guess bitcoin developers will not let it get to that point. Also there are layer 2 solutions like lightning network and liquid network. Bitcoin network to become centralized has nothing to do with the transaction fee. You can hold small amount using lightning network or liquid network and hold huge amount on the blockchain.

[moonie]

I'm a bit confused about what you trying to say but Bitcoin will never become centralized because Satoshi made Bitcoin for decentralization.

If the fees are rising it's just temporary there is something going on that is why you see transaction fees rise just like today because the price touched above $50k that is why people right now panic to move their BTC to the exchange before it drops and make a profit.

Mining is the decentralization mechanism. My implication is that, if only big players have sufficient capital to bribe miners with transaction fees, then the peer-to-peer aspect of the network could be effectively undermined (no pun intended). I recall this same thing happened in 2017, so it appears to be a recurring issue.

What about people with only small portions of bitcoin, that end up being stuck, because transaction fee exceeds total value?

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

I guess bitcoin developers will not let it get to that point. Also there are layer 2 solutions like lightning network and liquid network. Bitcoin network to become centralized has nothing to do with the transaction fee. You can hold small amount using lightning network or liquid network and hold huge amount on the blockchain.

LN is a hub-and-spoke design which inherently promotes centralization, just like a major airport. As channels grow increasingly popular, they begin to look more and more like a bank, at least in my eyes.

From the look of things right now, Bitcoin is progressing when it comes to fees. During late periods of last year to very early this year, Bitcoin fees were drastically high due to conjestions caused by ordinals.
However as I type, Bitcoin fees have come so low to an average of about 24sat/byte for normal fees which would arrive between periods of an hour to 30 minutes.

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

If the network is conjested, fees on centralized exchanges will also increase. So theoretically they still can't control transaction rates since miners are the ones who confirm transactions not exchanges although some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation.

"Some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation"

This is exactly the type of centralization I'm voicing concern about. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest if CEX's use in-house mining pools to add their own txs to the blockchain? What happens when these exchanges form a consortia? This work-around doesn't seem to lead us down a sustainable path...

[BitMaxz]

I recall this same thing happened in 2017, so it appears to be a recurring issue. What about people with only small portions of bitcoin, that end up being stuck, because transaction fee exceeds total value?

Well, there are some people here who had this issue before who are stuck on sending BTC to other wallets or exchanges due to the fee exceeding the total amount of BTC.
What they can only do is wait for the network to become less congested and fees drop suggested by mempool.space there is nothing we can do about this issue.

However, if you still insist on making a transaction while the network is congested you can try to make a transaction with low fees and accelerate it using Viabtc accelerator just make sure that transaction doesn't exceed the 0.5 KB size so that you can submit it to the free accelerator.

[franky1]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

I guess bitcoin developers will not let it get to that point. Also there are layer 2 solutions like lightning network and liquid network. Bitcoin network to become centralized has nothing to do with the transaction fee. You can hold small amount using lightning network or liquid network and hold huge amount on the blockchain.

to use LN means abandon using the bitcoin network regularly..
most LN users do not care for bitcoin when they are playing on the other network.. because they are not using it daily so dont monitor it..
so LN actually causes more centralisation due to abandonment of using bitcoin

most LN users are not carrying their laptops/desktops around with them when buying small things. they use phone apps. thus not even full nodes.
most LN users use phone apps. thus using central hub inbound balance/rented channels, thus not even sole control/ownership of funds

anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
 instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

[Mia Chloe]

"Some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation"

This is exactly the type of centralization I'm voicing concern about. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest if CEX's use in-house mining pools to add their own txs to the blockchain? What happens when these exchanges form a consortia? This work-around doesn't seem to lead us down a sustainable path...

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

[moonie]

I recall this same thing happened in 2017, so it appears to be a recurring issue. What about people with only small portions of bitcoin, that end up being stuck, because transaction fee exceeds total value?

Well, there are some people here who had this issue before who are stuck on sending BTC to other wallets or exchanges due to the fee exceeding the total amount of BTC.
What they can only do is wait for the network to become less congested and fees drop suggested by mempool.space there is nothing we can do about this issue.

However, if you still insist on making a transaction while the network is congested you can try to make a transaction with low fees and accelerate it using Viabtc accelerator just make sure that transaction doesn't exceed the 0.5 KB size so that you can submit it to the free accelerator.

I'd argue that the blockchain is not exactly congested, but rather, it is constrained. We should be able to do better than to tell people not to use Bitcoin when others are using Bitcoin too, moving money is the whole point of the network.

I have used ViaBTC in the past, but honestly, it's just a work-around...the core issue remains unaddressed.

"Some large exchanges have mining pools for faster confirmation"

This is exactly the type of centralization I'm voicing concern about. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest if CEX's use in-house mining pools to add their own txs to the blockchain? What happens when these exchanges form a consortia? This work-around doesn't seem to lead us down a sustainable path...

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

I know how Bitcoin works, thank you. Selfish mining already grants a disproportionate advantage to miners controlling just 25% of hash-rate (they can make up to 1/3 of blocks). Imagine what happens when the exchanges and miners band together; you've just taken the scenic route to recreating the problems with our existing banking system.

[franky1]

I bet you it won't work. Mining requires hash rate to confirm transactions and create new Bitcoins. This hash rate is usually higher depending on the computation power of the computer you are using. Because the faster the miner's node setup can find hashes that that fit in the block, the faster you can proceed to computing the next hash problem. Now of course setting this up will require large sum of money especially if you are to run a pool .

Aside that if centralized exchanges should try to centralize Bitcoin, the will end of losing because the will be doing us the the people transacting good by confirming transactions with low fees for us and also be losing Because of the electrical cost of running the pool.

your under the premiss that miners are poor unless they have fee's. for decades fee's were not the salary, fee's were the bonus
we are a long time away from the flippening where fee's become the salary and rewards are a minor bonus

miners are not in poverty without fee's. they were not poor when the reward was
a. 6.25btc at $15k($93,750), december 2022
nor poor at
b. 6.25 at $50k($312,500), today

the hashrate at (a) was ~250exa
the hashrate at (b) is ~600exa

the hashrate has 2.4x between (a)->(b) meaning the $15k rate feels like $36k rate today.. yet prices are $50k and thats before even considering fees

at the halving even $64k at this hashrate will be the same as the feeling of the 2022 low..
.. and yes the spot market is what helps the miners. we are a long time away from needing fee's to supplement miners. they are not poor and the spot market is not broke

[Haunebu]

BTC is already centralised to a certain extent though it's still largely decentralised thankfully. Ordinals and bullish behaviour are forcing fees to move upwards again and again which is something that everyone have already gotten used to at this point.

The silver lining here is that fees drastically drop in a short period of time based on what I observed.

[moonie]

What if we wanted to give 100sat to every one of the 5.3B networked people on the planet and jumpstart a new global economy? I guess we couldn't, at least not with Bitcoin as is... that should be the goal tho

[bolshojkush]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

It's very simple, there will be a massive outflow of capital into other cryptocurrencies and bitcoin will cease to be No. 1.

[franky1]

What if we wanted to give 100sat to every one of the 5.3B networked people on the planet and jumpstart a new global economy? I guess we couldn't, at least not with Bitcoin as is... that should be the goal tho

no single currency in the world operates for all working age adults
USD only works for 250m
Yuan only works for 1b
pound only works for 40m

bitcoin is not supposed to replace all the world fiats, for one currency
bitcoin is not suppose to be for people to use bitcoin for every real life purchase..
its suppose to be a secondary choice to offer an option alongside fiat.
but yes it should be more open compared to the current "wait/be patient/use just once a year to avoid congestion" proposition people are trying to push

[moonie]

Indeed, no single currency unites us atm. But crypto could. Thanks for coming around mate.

[lombok]

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

[franky1]

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

bitcoin devs knew of the exploit that would allow junk into the blockchain in 2016 when they were designing changes to bitcoin.. they ignored the problem
bitcoin devs knew of the exploit when it started to be abused in 2023(ordinals).. they ignored the problem

bitcoin since 2016 has multiplied from $1k to $70k yet they didnt put in fee bump, dust, fee rate changes to effectivelly allow fee's to even be 10x less to stay within reasonable range
instead they changed fee bump from 1sat/byte(1000sat/kb) to 5sat/byte (5000sat/kb) in 2017
they should have in those years changed to 100sat/kb(1sat/10byte)

so if you are waiting for devs to do something. you have already been waiting 7 years.. so.. when?

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
 instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

[Myleschetty]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees? Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

This won't centralize the network. It will create some level of security for the network if we look at the bright side of it, not the high transaction fee.
Having said that, there are alternative means already created to fend off huge transaction fees which LN is one of them, and it will be nice to adopt the use of it.

[moonie]

As many of the members above have said, if Bitcoin fees go up and it happens for a very long time, the first thing the devs do is find a way out so that Bitcoin fees go down again. The ups and downs in Bitcoin fees won't happen forever, maybe only for a few days. Improvisations will continue to be made, updates will also continue to be made to improve the system in the Bitcoin Blockchain so that it is able to process more transactions and at low costs.

bitcoin devs knew of the exploit that would allow junk into the blockchain in 2016 when they were designing changes to bitcoin.. they ignored the problem
bitcoin devs knew of the exploit when it started to be abused in 2023(ordinals).. they ignored the problem

bitcoin since 2016 has multiplied from $1k to $70k yet they didnt put in fee bump, dust, fee rate changes to effectivelly allow fee's to even be 10x less to stay within reasonable range
instead they changed fee bump from 1sat/byte(1000sat/kb) to 5sat/byte (5000sat/kb) in 2017
they should have in those years changed to 100sat/kb(1sat/10byte)

so if you are waiting for devs to do something. you have already been waiting 7 years.. so.. when?

ill ask again
anyone else think that the next node release should measure fees in bumps of 1sat per 10byte(100sat/kb)
 instead of 5sat per byte(5000sat/kb) bump default, especially when entering the year of the next halving cycle/ATH year

where by if a 226byte tx was
266sat(1sat/byte) then 1356sat (6sat/byte) then 2486sat(11sat/byte) defaults
but instead were starting from
23sat(1sat/10byte) 46sat(2sat/10byte) 68sat(3sat/10byte)

Sure, it sounds reasonable to me for base fee to adjust in order to reflect increasingly valuable satoshis.
In fact, your account makes me think... what if devs conspire to keep base fee high in exchange for kickbacks from miners?