Excessive Bitcoin fees

[Cookdata]

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?

You are missing things together but let's de-concatenate your questions and discuss them one after the other.

When large institutional investors use Bitcoin blockchain to make transactions, it will lead to more unconfirmed transaction in the mempool waiting for miners to mine them or include them into the next block and in the case where the mempool get congested, the institutional investors and everyother that make transactions will have to pay a higher fees before their transaction can get included into the next available block for transaction to be go comfirm.

There is no way this makes the transaction to be centralized, transaction on blockchain can never be centralized but if the institutional investors make use of centralized exchanges to trade it still doesn't make bitcoin centralize. The bitcoin centralization and power lies between the miners, the node and the Bitcoin protocol. This is impossible and can't be done to Bitcoin.

[1715088648]

1715088648

[1715088648]

1715088648

[1715088648]

1715088648

[1715088648]

1715088648

[1715088648]

1715088648

[1715088648]

1715088648

[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?

You are missing things together but let's de-concatenate your questions and discuss them one after the other.

When large institutional investors use Bitcoin blockchain to make transactions, it will lead to more unconfirmed transaction in the mempool waiting for miners to mine them or include them into the next block and in the case where the mempool get congested, the institutional investors and everyother that make transactions will have to pay a higher fees before their transaction can get included into the next available block for transaction to be go comfirm.

There is no way this makes the transaction to be centralized, transaction on blockchain can never be centralized but if the institutional investors make use of centralized exchanges to trade it still doesn't make bitcoin centralize. The bitcoin centralization and power lies between the miners, the node and the Bitcoin protocol. This is impossible and can't be done to Bitcoin.

What if the exchange also runs a mining pool 

[oktana]

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 wouldn’t centralize Bitcoin but yes, it’ll affect the rate at which people transact with it. But know that no matter how high the transaction fee gets, Bitcoin will always be decentralized and you are not forced to use a centralized exchange to transact with it. But I hope it doesn’t get to that point because I can’t imagined how bad that would be.

[kawetsriyanto]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees?

I don't think only large institutions can use it. Everyone can use Bitcoin although they must pay higher fees for the transaction now. You must know it is not about large institution or small institution, all of people pay higher fees now. When you have a large number of Bitcoin, you will pay bigger fees as well.

By the way, the high transfer fees won't last forever. It will gradually decrease again when the number of transactions will be decreasing. If it is getting higher now, it is because more people trying to move their Bitcoin to CEX. They may prepare to sell their Bitcoin, they may try to rebuy when it is dropping again the price.

Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

Bitcoin can be traded in decentralized exchanges. You are wrong if you assume it is only traded in centralized exchanges.
We have many decentralized exchanges, some of them are even popular enough.
Take a look on this https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/dex/.

[Mate2237]

Op your question is very correct because there are times I also think of it why this fee is very high and if continues then average investors can't even invest in bitcoin or use the network to make some transaction because of the transaction fee. Because there are time the transaction fee is even higher than the amount of bitcoin you want to sell. The real purpose of bitcoin has not yet actualize and which is the real p2p of using it to buy things online. The ordinals of bitcoin really need to be deal with if they the developers of it have nothing to do with them but there is...

As you said time is coming that it is only the wealthy people will be using bitcoin because of the high transaction fee.

[goldkingcoiner]

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?

The fees will only go high as long there is demand for transactions and there is only demand for transactions as long as the profit of the transaction justifies the large fee. For example, when all that Bitcoin NFT (Ordinals) stuff started, those NFTs were selling for very large sums. So large, in fact, that it was worth congesting the network and paying it (for the NFT minters, not the dumb saps buying them). But that hype has calmed down and so have the fees.

Bitcoin as a store of value is well worth a 7 dollar per transaction fee. But the devs are working on updates, so I see a rosy and decentralized future for Bitcoin.

[jubalix]

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

I argued with LK on this - that there must be some g(x) where block size gets bigger as the internet gets faster and HD space gets cheaper, which it has since 2010.

Satoshi's initial idea was to scale block size.

The 1MB cap was instituted as a stop-gap measure only.

It is clear that all the high TPS and super cheap coins run into L1 centralization issues, but normies don't get this; they just want to hear TPS high and cheap.

EOS is a demonstration where you could not keep up with the rate of increase of the blocks and so end up with centralization.

DAGs may offer some solution, but I have yet to see a convincing proof.

The immutable fact is data costs space and energy to store.

The 1MB size does ensure that decentralization is high, but reaches a crunch point where miners see fees drop off.

At some point, the block size should increase, and there is some g(x).

Where this is up for question, but when BTC does increase this, it risks losing the narrative to BCH or some other scheme, as BTC has committed to 1MB.

Luke Jr actually advocated for 1/2 MB blocks, which is why I said fine, but what is your g(x)?

There must be some, and a reasonable one could solve the fee issue.

[ancafe]

What will happen when only large institutions can afford to use Bitcoin's blockchain, due to rising fees?

Transaction costs will always rise and fall, no balance regarding transaction costs? In fact, it is not only large institutions that are able to use Bitcoin because there are many individual people who have done it and even I myself have been charged large fees when making transactions.

Won't this centralize the network if most can only trade bitcoin on centralized exchanges?

Satoshi never created a centralized bitcoin and that is not the concept of bitcoin because the development carried out on bitcoin was decentralized. The relationship with the exchanges that people use is a choice of paths and certainly cannot be said to be completely centralized. If people don't want to incur large fees then they should wait for cheaper transactions and usually when transactions are not too busy then fees will go down.

[MusaMohamed]

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

Bigger block size means nothing useful if people don't use that bigger-sized blockchain.

Bitcoin forks are altcoins and even they have much bigger block sizes, their blocks have never been fully used by their blockchain users. Demands are smaller than maximum block sizes and it is kind of waste.

How many Bitcoin forks are there.

People were hyped and attracted to Bitcoin forks initially but with time, they realized that Bitcoin is the best.

[jubalix]

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

Bigger block size means nothing useful if people don't use that bigger-sized blockchain.

this is not apples to apples, the use of BTC is not the same as BTCCASH or BTCSV. They are different things.

A bigger block size will lower fees as supply goes up, and it achieves the origonal L1 soloution that satoshi outlines.

There was no mention of L2 or LN in the BTC white paper, but there were calculation by satoshi to show L1 could scale, by blocksize.

The people seeking to use and do use BTC is much higher than BTCCASH or BTCSV and the latter do achieve a much lower relative cost for fees.

[rodskee]

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 is not permanently happen mate and don't look at it as the fees are always that high
because you are wrong , look at it now even there is a super bullish moment yet the fees are just
doing smooth meaning congestion is already subsided .
and also it is not only for Large institution because you can still use bitcoin anytime(just
that fee in which you need to consider sometimes)

[moonie]

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

My goal was to draw attention to securely scaling Bitcoin's L1 by any means possible. Otherwise, it'll just be like gold sitting in a vault. (Not very exciting)

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

This is more of an indication that the market values general protocol consensus over force-fed bigger blocks. 2015 was a different time w/XT (see this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html)

I argued with LK on this - that there must be some g(x) where block size gets bigger as the internet gets faster and HD space gets cheaper, which it has since 2010.

I have a 12 TB raid10 array. Just 10TB would suffice to store nearly 2 decades of 10MB Bitcoin blocks. Mining does become more game-able as block propagation time increases, however.

Satoshi's initial idea was to scale block size.

Perhaps, but this approach is not an indefinite solution.

It is clear that all the high TPS and super cheap coins run into L1 centralization issues, but normies don't get this; they just want to hear TPS high and cheap.

PoS can be a real POS

EOS is a demonstration where you could not keep up with the rate of increase of the blocks and so end up with centralization.

EOS=POS

DAGs may offer some solution, but I have yet to see a convincing proof.

DAGS help tremendously with transaction serialization speed,since they forego a requirement of linear order present in typical blockchains. The problem arises when determining final order over these transaction sets, as the DAG can become fragmented in widely-distributed networks. See the Crystal Whitepaper for how this can be potentially addressed with Bitcoin-NG design.

The 1MB size does ensure that decentralization is high, but reaches a crunch point where miners see fees drop off.

Smaller blocks do not necessarily mean greater decentralization. There are, for example, socioeconomic implications of smaller blocks which render more power to exchanges/mining pools.

At some point, the block size should increase, and there is some g(x).

Where this is up for question, but when BTC does increase this, it risks losing the narrative to BCH or some other scheme, as BTC has committed to 1MB.

I struggle to believe that a technical setting entails Bitcoin's entire narrative. Bitcoin is more about overall consensus. There are things which should really never change, such as the cryptographic functions themselves (barring necessity) and the coin supply schedule.

Luke Jr actually advocated for 1/2 MB blocks, which is why I said fine, but what is your g(x)?

He's a real hoot

[Hamza2424]

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?

Bitcoin network is way cheaper haha when it comes to comparing it with the ETH network, haha I'm not gonna make comparisons but a reference is important to provide a decent piece of information with clarity I've paid even 0.3$ for a transaction on the Bitcoin and the highest I've ever paid on BTC network fees is around 5$ hmm, it will be close to this, but in the ETH network, I've even Paird around 32$ for the single transaction even 50$ I can recall for an urgent transaction, and for now 76$ 133 gwei is transection cost haha so you can imagine how costly it is.

__SNIP____

Wrong quote buddy, remove the last [/quote] from the post

[icalical]

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 believe there will eventually be some solutions to increasing Bitcoin fee, bitcoin is evolving as we have the BIP, and it looking at the history there is always improvement like how the community implemented SegWit. For what I know the recent increase in transaction fee is because the Bitcoin Ordinals trend, and if the community think the fee is getting ridiculous, there will be some solution to limit or even ban Bitcoin transaction.

One of the reason why most people believe in Bitcoin is because it is decentralized, so the one who take the decision on how Bitcoin grow and evolve is the community no the Big Company. 

[NewRanger]

I believe there will eventually be some solutions to increasing Bitcoin fee, bitcoin is evolving as we have the BIP, and it looking at the history there is always improvement like how the community implemented SegWit. For what I know the recent increase in transaction fee is because the Bitcoin Ordinals trend, and if the community think the fee is getting ridiculous, there will be some solution to limit or even ban Bitcoin transaction.

One of the reason why most people believe in Bitcoin is because it is decentralized, so the one who take the decision on how Bitcoin grow and evolve is the community no the Big Company. 

Even though it is considered by some circles to be a new innovation in blockchain technology, what we feel is that it is just uncomfortable. That's right, as you said above, if we look closely since April 2023, there has been an increase in the cost of printing Bitcoin Ordinal which has increased by up to 700% and this is also one of the triggers for increasing costs besides network congestion. .

Of course, those who make small transactions will really feel it, but even so, as task users we can only be smart, if you really want to make transactions with small fees, try setting a medium or low fee, but the risk will take a long time. process, especially when the network is busy because miners always prioritize those who charge large fees. when the transaction is made.

[moonie]

I believe there will eventually be some solutions to increasing Bitcoin fee, bitcoin is evolving as we have the BIP, and it looking at the history there is always improvement like how the community implemented SegWit. For what I know the recent increase in transaction fee is because the Bitcoin Ordinals trend, and if the community think the fee is getting ridiculous, there will be some solution to limit or even ban Bitcoin transaction.

One of the reason why most people believe in Bitcoin is because it is decentralized, so the one who take the decision on how Bitcoin grow and evolve is the community no the Big Company. 

Even though it is considered by some circles to be a new innovation in blockchain technology, what we feel is that it is just uncomfortable. That's right, as you said above, if we look closely since April 2023, there has been an increase in the cost of printing Bitcoin Ordinal which has increased by up to 700% and this is also one of the triggers for increasing costs besides network congestion. .

Of course, those who make small transactions will really feel it, but even so, as task users we can only be smart, if you really want to make transactions with small fees, try setting a medium or low fee, but the risk will take a long time. process, especially when the network is busy because miners always prioritize those who charge large fees. when the transaction is made.

Ordinals are just a new way of identifying individual satoshis on-chain. Using this method people self-assign special attributes to individual units of bitcoin, making NFTs. Of course, as the network caters to increasingly high-profile clientele, Bitcoin is naturally conducive maintaining this sort of 'art'. (despite the cost)

[Eddie Sockittome]

I struggle to understand how the fees are calculated and even online calculators rarely bring it down to an actual $ fee.

If some whale decided to sell 1,000 Bitcoin today in one transaction, what would the actual fee would be in dollars and cents? Can it even be estimated ahead of time?

[ChiBitCTy]

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 never going to get like this in my opinion.  Bitcoin/Blockchain is a technology that can always be updated/made better and that's exactly what's going on right now and has been for the last few years.  Implementing things like the lightning network and Taproot are examples of what can be done to bitcoin to help with it's transaction time frames as well as costs. 

[Reatim]

Thus why we should hope for bitcoin to not reach that point

The reason why the transaction fees are so high is because of
congested mempool which is not forever and besides we are now
seeing various solutions for this we just need to find the best one

[btc78]

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 believe there will eventually be some solutions to increasing Bitcoin fee,

Well we have layer 2 blockchain as a solution which would help bitcoin to have a faster and cheaper transaction process

It might not be perfect right now however I am quite sure that it can still be improved. Every day there are many many minds that are trying to make bitcoin better than what it is right now and I know that in no time, we will have the solutions for this.