Total fees have almost crossed the block reward [combined summary]

• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Peter Todd 2018-02-13 19:03:17+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Christian Decker 2018-02-12 19:41:39+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Peter Todd 2018-02-12 18:12:32+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward rhavar at protonmail.com 2018-02-12 17:47:50+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Melvin Carvalho 2018-02-12 17:23:35+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Gregory Maxwell 2017-12-22 01:15:46+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Mark Friedenbach 2017-12-22 00:30:52+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Paul Iverson 2017-12-21 23:35:28+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Michel 'ic' Luczak 2017-12-21 23:15:18+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Gregory Maxwell 2017-12-21 22:44:32+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Jim Rogers 2017-12-21 22:18:32+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Jameson Lopp 2017-12-21 22:02:37+00:00
• Total fees have almost crossed the block reward Melvin Carvalho 2017-12-21 21:30:20+00:00

Published on: 2018-02-13T19:03:17+00:00

Summary:

In a recent discussion on the Bitcoin development mailing list, Christian Decker and Peter Todd discuss how shabang.io determines whether a transaction has funded a Lightning channel. Decker suggests that the website collects short_channel_ids which point to on-chain outputs that funded a channel, but this method only works for public channels. Todd recommends that shabang.io document their process on their website to provide more transparency.Melvin Carvalho, a member of the Bitcoin development team, discovers shabang.io, a website that shows the adoption of the Lightning Network on the mainnet. He notes that the Lightning Network is growing well and predicts that over 1% of bitcoin transactions will be lightning-based by the end of the year. However, Peter Todd questions how shabang.io determines whether a transaction has funded a Lightning channel.Carvalho also shares some data points on the current state of Bitcoin, including increasing fees, the potential for fees to become prohibitive for some use cases, segwit adoption at around 10%, mempool congestion, fee distribution, and Lightning Network adoption on the mainnet. He hopes these stats will provide useful information for the evolution of the project.In another discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Mark Friedenbach states that every transaction is already replace-by-fee capable, and opt-in replace by fee is a fiction that was only relevant when fees were smaller than subsidy. The debate revolves around whether or not to default opt-in replace by fee in Bitcoin Core. Electrum has been using opt-in replace by fee as default without issues. Some industrial users express concerns, but Friedenbach believes they can easily change their settings upon release.The rise in Bitcoin transaction fees is seen by some experts as a sign of success and the manifestation of a long-desired fee market. Gregory Maxwell believes that the increased activity level and fee-paying backlogs are necessary for consensus progress as the subsidy declines. However, users are frustrated when transactions get stuck. Paul Iverson suggests making replace-by-fee (RBF) ubiquitous to improve user experience, and Melvin Carvalho expresses concern that fees may be prohibitive for some use cases. Segwit adoption is around 10%, indicating room for education on efficient transaction styles.Gregory Maxwell expresses excitement about the fee market in action and proposes making every transaction RBF by default to address stuck transaction issues. He believes this would improve the user experience and secure the blockchain in the long term. Melvin Carvalho raises concerns about the security of the blockchain once the reward goes away and fees replace it. Segwit adoption stands at around 10%, and congestion is currently high. Maxwell suggests looking at difficult-to-forge market signals and other inefficient transaction styles for further analysis.In an email thread, Jameson Lopp thanks someone for an interview and discusses the high fees experienced in the blockchain. He believes that most hardware and software wallets miscalculate fees, causing the issue. He suggests that high volume senders should be more efficient in their use of block space by batching transactions and implementing SegWit. Melvin Carvalho asks about the long-term security of Bitcoin once the reward goes away, expressing concern about the fee per transaction being prohibitive for certain use cases. Observations show around 10% segwit adoption and peak congestion in the mempool.The long-term security of the blockchain is a concern as fees replace the block reward. Fees currently make up 45% of the block reward, with potential to reach 50%. However, there is concern that the fee per transaction may be too high for some use cases, especially as segwit adoption stands at around 10%. Efforts are being made to encourage efficient use of block space through batching transactions and implementing segwit. The mempool shows congestion, but it may decrease over time.Overall, the discussions and emails highlight concerns about the long-term security of the blockchain, the need for efficient use of block space, the rise in transaction fees, segwit adoption, and the increasing use of the Lightning Network.

Updated on: 2023-08-01T22:21:48.742306+00:00