We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
10

No, mining will not come to an end at that point. The article is incorrect. Mining will continue once the block rewards are no longer available, as transaction fees will continue to be offered. As the block rewards tend towards zero, the total value of transaction fees in each block will start to exceed the block reward. This will happen long before the ...


7

Your client will have this marked as spent and will prevent you from sending any unspent coins included in the transaction while continuing to try to broadcast the original transaction. There is an easy solution, though. You simply need to dumpprivkey and add it to another client, where you can send the coins from this address to another, effectively ...


6

Is there a way to transfer/import bitcoin from one address to another in order to avoid transaction fees? No. It is not possible to move btc between addresses without publishing a transaction to the blockchain. However, there are some ways to accomplish a similar result (transferring/altering the ability to spend some coins), but I think every one of those ...


5

See https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ for mempool size and tx fee. This will suggest fee in satoshi/byte depending on current network conditions. If you are looking to exact fee in BTC for spending from wallet, you can try https://github.com/shivaenigma/btxfees.


5

If a transaction goes unconfirmed for too long, it will eventually disappear from the network. Most clients will remove it from their pool of unconfirmed transactions at some point. When most clients have removed it, you can go ahead and send the transaction again, this time with a higher fee. There's not a precise time when the transaction will disappear ...


5

NameCoin merged mining adds no more than 49 bytes to the size of the block. Namecoin messages aren't stored in the bitcoin block chain, instead the hash of the most recent namecoin block is stored in the Bitcoin block providing continuity between a potential hash and the Namecoin block chain. So yes it technically does "bloat" the Bitcoin blockchain but ...


4

The blockchain is public, and every block has (amongst other things) the following information for each transaction (or it can be calculated): The size of the transaction, in bytes The fee paid by the initiator of the transaction Miners in future are likely to calculate the earnings per byte for each transaction when selecting which ones to include in a ...


4

Miners have huge investments in hardware that can only be used to mine Bitcoins. They have no incentive to do things that reduce the value and usability of Bitcoins. Any "mining cartel" with the power to get 95% of the hashing power to take collective action in non-emergency circumstances would create enough fears about 51% attacks and the like that it would ...


4

First a clarification: Anyone giving a flat fee in response to this question is not giving sufficient information. Transactions are (generally) selected by fee rate. This means that besides the flat transaction fee that was included, the weight of your transaction plays a critical role: fee rate [sats/vB] = transaction fee [satoshis] / weight of transaction ...


4

As far as I understand this is not needed. Let us assume we have an congested mempool and someone publishes an old channel state. This transaction will not be mined directly as the mempool is congested. The timelock during which this transaction can be revoked via the penalty mechanism is a relative one and starts as soon as the transaction is mined. So, ...


3

DannyHamilton from bitcointalk says At a minimum. 0.0001 BTC per kilobyte. That would put you ahead of all transactions that are considered "low priority" which don't include a fee by all miners (and pools) that choose to use the reference implementation. Given how low the exchange rate has been lately, you might even consider a fee of 0.0005 BTC ...


3

Your analysis seems to assume unconfirmed transactions will sit in the queue forever. That's not the case. When someone realizes that their transaction will never confirm, they can create a double spend with a higher fee. When the double spend is confirmed, the earlier transaction becomes invalid (barring a chain reorganization). I think it's an open ...


3

Cartels are unstable due to members defecting for the economic benefit that comes from doing so. See the Prisoner's dilemma. Because miners are anonymous, the cartel would likely see defection immediately.


3

As far as the stopping of mining, no. Even when all 21 million bitcoins have been created there will still be transaction fees which will be given as rewards to miners. It has yet to be seen if this will lead to a reduction in miners or an increase in transaction fees, or both.


3

What is appropriate varies depending on network conditions, transaction load and, what fees other people are sending. Bitcoin Core includes a fee estimation when sending transactions in bitcoin-qt, so that you can select a target confirmation time (n blocks) and it will suggest an appropriate fee for that target. Note that this still does not guarantee that ...


3

'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners. One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to ...


3

The two modes don't just unconditionally return the same thing. They do different calculations and can return different results under certain conditions, particularly when fees are very variable for low confirmation targets. The current fee situation just makes it so that the estimator ends up using the same values for both modes.


2

Yes, market-based transaction fees can scale. It has already been proven by Western Union, bank wires, etc. The market for transferring money is huge and people are already picking which service to use based on fees, among other things. So it has been proven to scale to the size of the current world economy. And I don't see any reason why it won't keep ...


2

zero fee txs get into blocks all the time. many pools accept zero fee txs that have sufficiently high priority. that is, the inputs are aged and of high value.


2

A transaction's state is binary in regard to the current chain tip. Either it's confirmed and thus the money has changed hands, or it's unconfirmed and the money is still in the sender's wallet. Thus if a transaction is never confirmed, the money is still the sender's. Since this question was asked, the block space demand has grown towards the block size ...


2

Your understanding is correct. If the required fee rate on the network remains the same (denominated in BTC) and the value of BTC rises against USD, then the transaction fees rise in USD terms. In reality, there are many factors which affect what the actual required transaction fee will be, such as time/day of transaction (there's generally less competition ...


2

Bitcoin for Point-of-Sale Bitcoin is inherently ill-suited as a form of instant payment. This is due to transactions needing confirmations before they become reliable which even at best times can take between several minutes and an hour. Before a transaction is confirmed, it is merely a declaration of intent open to replacement by another transaction ...


2

Looking at Litecoin coming from Bitcoin, most blocks have plenty of space: right now most are between 2 and 30 transactions only. It turns out, that most transactions appear to only pay the default minRelayTxFee, which is currently set to 100,000 litoshi per kilobyte in the master branch of Litecoin. Update: There are some changes in the Litecoin fee ...


2

1) Bitcoin is a gossip network in which each (full) participant checks all activity of all other (full) participants. Such systems scale notoriously badly as the cost for each network event scales quadratically. Simple example: Three participants creating three transactions leads to six transaction relays and verifications. Six participants creating six ...


2

Litecoin's blockspace supply is greater: Litecoin's block interval is a fourth of Bitcoin's at 2.5 minutes SegWit is activated, limiting blocks to 4MB weight instead of 1MB size. With leisurely adoption of the new segwit transaction format this would eventually allow a capacity equivalent of blocks with ~1.7-2.3 MB size. Litecoin's blockspace demand is ...


2

One reason behind a transactions fees is to make spam attacks expensive. Without fees, a malicious party could create a lot of no-fee transactions for a DoS attack on blockspace. And without fees a miner wouldn't be incentivised to include the highest fee transactions in a block. He could attack the network by mining empty blocks or including spam ...


2

The block subsidy in Bitcoin serves as a decentral initial distribution mechanism and incentivizes the bootstrapping of the Bitcoin network. As you may know, the block subsidy halves every 210,000 blocks (approx. 4 years). Due to this reward schedule, more than 80% of all bitcoins have already been discovered, and in a decade, it'll be more than 95%. As the ...


2

When the total capacity of the channel is less than it costs to close the channel, neither party has an incentive to close the channel. If broadcasting an outdated commitment transaction returns some funds to the cheating party, the cheated party can create a transaction to claim all funds from the cheater. In the worst case, the justice transaction can ...


2

The fee-market refers to the tension between 1) users who want to have their transactions confirmed as quickly as possible and ... 2) miners, who can only mined blocks with a fixed confirmation capacity (1mb, 4mWeight). Naturally, it is in the interest of a miner to construct a block to mine from the mempool which results in the maximum block reward for ...


1

As Nick answered quite adequately: After subsidy has diminished sufficiently as soon as a block is mined that clears out the mempool there will be no income for a miner that mines a successor block, but full income if they successfully remine the prior block. Even once more transactions show up, it will continue to be more profitable to remine the last ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible