$78 Fee for a single bitcoin transaction

[rogerver]

I think this is a major major problem for the future of Bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/817147027683360769

[Vizique]

Ouch, that hurts.

And not a good example when one is evangelising Bitcoin

Viz

[Rmcdermott927]

Oh no! The only time I have paid a fee like that was the time I wrote the tx amount in the space for a fee a vice versa. That was many moons ago but I learned an expensive lesson on being careful when sending Bitcoin.

[piebeyb]

events like this do not happen to just one person alone I think there might be some other people who pay Fee is greater than that, but I believe every problem there is a way out

[chopstick]

It is a major problem. Bitcoin needs to move past Core if we are going to succeed. These people do not have the best interests of the community, let alone the world, in mind.

So, when is BU or classic going to fork? Can someone give an update on this process?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It is a major problem. Bitcoin needs to move past Core if we are going to succeed. These people do not have the best interests of the community, let alone the world, in mind.

So, when is BU or classic going to fork? Can someone give an update on this process?

I have heard sometime this month (January).

Agreed re: upgrading the network, besides transaction problems - there are a ton of other problems that follow Blockstream Core and it's best the network is moved away.

[Intriguing]

When the blockchain get clogged its really a pain and a hassle to add a high enough which during those clogs are pretty high, and if bitcoin wants to get adopted by the majority it really needs to fix this. Though a $78 fee was definitely not necessary.

[Decoded]

I'm not sure why you're complaining, Roger.

Hm... I don't know... maybe it's because you almost SIX HUNDRED INPUTS!!!

Think about it. If I were to own five hundred bank accounts, and one wire transaction would have a fee of $25 outgoing, and I were going to send money from all of the 600 accounts at once, it would not only turn alot of heads from the bank, but cost fifteen thousand dollars. Plus it would take multiple days to transfer.

$70 is fine. Don't cry. To all the people over here who are not even looking at the transaction and saying 'You shouldn't have to pay that much for a transactionnnnnnn", get it through your thick skulls that transaction fees are not static, they are based on how many inputs and outputs of your transaction. In this case, many hundreds of times more than average.

[LiteCoinGuy]

sounds like a great use case for LN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h00DeS16FMY

[Windowly]

I think this is a major major problem for the future of Bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/817147027683360769

I agree 100%. The last few days I have had to pay around 20-60 cents for very very basic transactions with only a few inputs.

The way bitcoin has been almost wants me to switch to Monero (although I'm wary of their continuing supply of coins) and if they also will be able to scale well.

I have pretty much all of my money in bitcoin; I want to be able to use it in the future without having to pay a big tax on each transaction (which is what the bitcoin fees add up to)

[Decoded]

I think this is a major major problem for the future of Bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/817147027683360769

I agree 100%. The last few days I have had to pay around 20-60 cents for very very basic transactions with only a few inputs.

The way bitcoin has been almost wants me to switch to Monero (although I'm wary of their continuing supply of coins) and if they also will be able to scale well.

I have pretty much all of my money in bitcoin; I want to be able to use it in the future without having to pay a big tax on each transaction (which is what the bitcoin fees add up to)

There's a crapton of congestion in the network, i've got to admit. Lots of little bits of spam and with the growing userbase and price, it is only going to be more so. More the reason we need a blocksize fix. Badly. I don't think either one of the segwit or 2MB upsize gimmmicks will do the trick, we need a dynamic blocksize system, either based on total fees in the mempool, or the total amount of transactions in the mempool. This means we will have a much more predictable mempool size and lower fees while keeping a reasonable amount of demand for the user's transaction to get put into a block.

However I do still think roger is making a mountain out of a molehill, with 600 inputs in his transaction.

[rizzlarolla]

However I do still think roger is making a mountain out of a molehill, with 600 inputs in his transaction.

Kind of, as luckily Roger was sending enough value - 32 btc+ - to keep the fee percentages down.
Is it possible the 600 inputs were all customers of roger, all sending to separate addresses within 1 wallet. (as would be "recommended"?)
If that was a bank account, it would be sent into 1 account. Rogers bitcoin are in 1 bitcoin account (wallet), but 600 different addresses.
To send 600 inputs from that 1 bank account would require 1 fee. To send Rogers bitcoin from that 1 wallet required 600 fees.

Ok Roger paid approx 0.3% fee. As you say, not all that bad maybe.
Rogers 600 inputs average 0.05 btc. (about $50 each input at $1000 per btc) Quite large sums?
(also, the customers will have paid equal fee as Roger paid when they sent, maybe purchasing, doubling the total cost of fees in that "sale"?)

What of the smaller business?

If your average customer sends 0.005 btc, about $5, now fees are 3%. (6% of sale cost?)
What if your average customer sends 0.0005 btc, about $0.5, now fees are 30%. (60 % of sale cost?)

I don't think 50 cents should be too small to send on the Bitcoin network.
I don't think satoshi thought so either. That is why there are large block rewards in these earlier years.
The fees are too high too soon. The security is already paid by the block rewards. Adoption suffers.
Fees are now only needed to exclude adopters from full core blocks.

There must be a lot of excluded bitcoiners due to these fees.
All those new bitcoiners who earned 10 cents here 25 cents there 5 cents elsewhere. Advised to use multiple addresses.
Fees on that 40 cents will be about 80 cents. They probably can't make a mountain out of a mole hill like Roger can. They will probably leave bitcoin.

[rogerver]

These ~600 inputs were all received into one single wallet, and then sent from that wallet.
I don't think the analogy of 600 separate bank accounts is a fair one.

[Decoded]

These ~600 inputs were all received into one single wallet, and then sent from that wallet.
I don't think the analogy of 600 separate bank accounts is a fair one.

I think you're focusing on the fact that they are linked to a wallet too much. An address is an address. They are totally disconnected and can't be traced to each other without any shared transactions. You know that saying, that in bitcoin, you are your own bank? Let's stop saying it and get into the actual mindset. Hence, your wallet is the bank, and the addresses are accounts within. Sure, you may own many of them, but if you have ever used multiple bank accounts (Different credit cards, savings, savings for family members, etc), you would understand that the bank doesn't really give a crap about who owns it, the bank just sees them as accounts.

Hence my reasoning.

[Westernory]

These ~600 inputs were all received into one single wallet, and then sent from that wallet.
I don't think the analogy of 600 separate bank accounts is a fair one.

Yeah, if you had just one bitcoin wallet but you received with a few hundred addresses i think that still means that you are using one wallet, not 600 wallets. So that analogy i agree with you doesn't stand at all.

The fee is definitely ridiculous and completely destroys the advantage bitcoin has over money transfer companies like WU.

[Decoded]

These ~600 inputs were all received into one single wallet, and then sent from that wallet.
I don't think the analogy of 600 separate bank accounts is a fair one.

Yeah, if you had just one bitcoin wallet but you received with a few hundred addresses i think that still means that you are using one wallet, not 600 wallets. So that analogy i agree with you doesn't stand at all.

The fee is definitely ridiculous and completely destroys the advantage bitcoin has over money transfer companies like WU.

Either I'm horribly mistaken or none of you guys are getting my point. Maybe my analogy was not the best, in relation to the value being transferred.

The Bitcoin network doesn't care about your wallet. It only cares about the addresses. To the network, they're all different accounts.

I guess I'm going to have to explain this. Each input in one transaction makes your transaction bigger. So does each output. With Bitcoin, the amount transferred is of no matter.

A way a transaction works is not actually transferring any money, it's just broadcasting a change in the blockchain. An input is debiting an address, and an output is crediting an address. Its simply marking a change. The more inputs or outputs you have, the more values of you have to change.

The fee is not "ridiculous". Maybe a year ago, you would only have to pay 0.03-0.05, but due to the blocksize problem, the fee per byte may have increased.

And if you compare it to current methods of transferring 30k USD securely, it's a good deal. On top of that, there isn't a middleman to go through. We would all pay for that, wouldn't we?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

These ~600 inputs were all received into one single wallet, and then sent from that wallet.
I don't think the analogy of 600 separate bank accounts is a fair one.

Nope, we're being ripped off.