Bitcoin Fees Are Skyrocketing (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The cost to complete a Bitcoin transaction has skyrocketed in recent days. A week ago, it cost around $6 on average to get a transaction accepted by the Bitcoin network. The average fee soared to $26 on Friday and was still almost $20 on Sunday. The reason is simple: until recently, the Bitcoin network had a hard-coded 1 megabyte limit on the size of blocks on the blockchain, Bitcoin's shared transaction ledger. With a typical transaction size of around 500 bytes, the average block had fewer than 2,000 transactions. And with a block being generated once every 10 minutes, that works out to around 3.3 transactions per second. A September upgrade called segregated witness allowed the cryptographic signatures associated with each transaction to be stored separately from the rest of the transaction. Under this scheme, the signatures no longer counted against the 1 megabyte blocksize limit, which should have roughly doubled the network's capacity. But only a small minority of transactions have taken advantage of this option so far, so the network's average throughput has stayed below 2,500 transactions per block -- around four transactions per second.

Comments

Re:Unclear Story

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

It doesn't seem accurate, I mean, how can an exchage demand real currency when dealing with the fake currency they are promoting.

Bitcoin fees are expressed as an average amount in BTC per kilobyte. A given transaction takes a particular amount of space in the block (owing to how many previous transactions are needed to express the exact amount to send plus the address to send the "change" to), and that transaction has a fee attached. The fee is a "bid" to place the transaction on the network.

Likely the rate is really high because the exchanges are expecting a major crash in bitcoin but don't want to admit it and instead charging for bitcoin exchanges at a rate that reflects a much lower bitcoin for real money exchange.

A given node will take the transactions it knows about, and pack the ones with the highest fees into the current block until that block is full. Then the block is mined. If that node wins the mining operation, those transactions become part of the chain. If some other node wins, the transactions it knows about become part of the chain (which will likely have a lot of commonality with the transactions in the first node's block). A higher fee attached to the transaction increases the chances that it'll be processed quickly. Below the average amount, you've got queueing working against you, and your transaction will likely expire before it becomes part of the chain.

If a transaction is totally within one exchange, the fee may be nominal or zero because it's done entirely off the blockchain, but that's not the rising fees the article discusses. This is purely a congestion effect.

Scaling to the real world?

[ColaMan]

I don't understand how Bitcoin and it's blockchain arrangement is ever going to be scaleable.

Currently we're running at a global rate of four transactions a second. Four. Just the everyday transactions at my local shopping centre would run above that rate.

How is this whole "ubiquitous Bitcoin economy" thing supposed to work again?

Re:Scaling to the real world?

[christophercole]

Agreed -- Bitcoin won't scale. It's already proving to be a very poor way to transfer small amounts of money. For example, last week, I sent $15 worth of BTC from one of my wallets to another. The default transaction fee was $7.50! Before sending, I overrode the suggested transaction fee and set it to the minimum amount, which was about about $1.50 -- that's effectively a 10% fee to move a small amount of money. I knew that opting for a lower transaction fee would result in a longer wait for my transfer to occur, but I was not in a hurry. I wanted to see what happened. Well, here I am 5 days later, and although the $15 is deducted from by source wallet, it has yet to show up in my destination wallet. And as long as there are thousands of other transactions around the globe paying higher fees, my money will forever be stuck in the ether. Bitcoin has proven to be: non-scalable, expensive, and unreliable.

Well, it's a matter of context.

[Tjp($)pjT]

In terms of Bitcoin, transaction fees aren't skyrocketing. Only in the fiat currency you can exchange for bitcoin.

Re:Well, it's a matter of context.

[omnichad]

Not at all true.

Bitcoin is undergoing massive deflation. Which means you're spending fewer Bitcoin because it has a larger buying power. Transaction fees are actually going up (not just in absolute BTC terms, but relative to BTC spending power), because it's computationally expensive to process those transactions.

Re:What will the effects be?

[ShanghaiBill]

What happens when Bitcoin crashes?

If you look at the history of crashes, nearly all have one thing in common: Many people investing with borrowed money. This happened with tulips, the South Sea Bubble, the 1929 crash, and the sub-prime mortgage crash. I am unaware of any bubble that did not involve a lot of people borrowing or buying on margin.

So far that is not happening with bitcoin.

What effects will it have on companies that accept, use, or hold it, market-makers on exchanges and futures, etc. ?

I may be going way out on a limb here, but I think they will lose money.

My theory is that it was created by a national actor with the intent of crashing national economies.

All the bitcoins in the world total to $300B. For comparison, the recent financial crisis wiped out $20 trillion.

Also, the financial crisis hit people at the bottom the hardest, people that were struggling to pay their mortgages, and were then evicted from their homes when they lost their jobs.

Bitcoin is different. The people buying can mostly afford the loss, and much of the value is just paper profits. I bought my stash on a lark when the value crossed $1/BTC, mostly just out of curiosity of how the whole thing worked. They have turned out to be worth way more than I ever expected, but if the crash came tomorrow, it would not make one iota of difference to how I live my life.

But when stocks or currencies crash there are often lots of innocent victims who never made the choice to invest in them.

Stock crashes have way less effect on "normal" people than currency, bond, or real estate crashes, because no one expects equities to be stable. We shrugged off stock crashes in 1987, 1991, 2001. The financial crisis was far worse because no one expected housing prices to crash, and a huge part of our economy relied on their stability. Nobody is relying on bitcoin to be stable, or even as stable as equities.

Re:What will the effects be?

[LynnwoodRooster]

An awful lot of people are buying BTC with credit cards, and I would wager a large number of them are doing it with funds they don't have. Put $10,000 on your Visa, way 3 months, sell for 10X the amount and party! Right?

No, it can scale!

[bussdriver]

Gold can not scale. Limited amount, it has to be verified and processed; that takes time and money to do. Ever look into gold? You pay overhead costs in actually trading in gold plus you have to pay to securely store and transport any sizable amount of it.

How did gold become the foundation of everything until the banksters finally took over?

Abstract trading; not actual gold exchanges done on top of the real thing. Also, money was created ON TOP of gold and that is where all the action happened.

When you see other kinds of money float on top of bitcoin then you will see it scale. I see no reason why it can not become a kind of digital gold as long as the encryption holds up.

Gold is and hasn't been worth as much as we've made it for centuries. We based a system around it and that made it valuable. It has a silly jewelry value but that isn't what made it so expensive.

With futures trading and bigger banks involved... interesting times are coming. (not exactly a good thing; it's more of a curse but it is not dull)