Btc fees \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

508 sats \ 20 comments \ @AyCaramba 23h bitcoin

Since inscriptions (and similar projects) the mempool has grown a lot.

Now a lot of it is low sats (330 sats, 294 sats, etc), op_return transactions and also the consolidations of those low sats transactions.

Considering that the hype of those things has waned, fees have gone down, but mempool size has remained big nevertheless.

Question is this: Is it possible that miners are strugling with bills, to the point they want to keep a big mempool (creating/bumping txs themselves and sharing the correspondent fees) so actual real transactions have to pay a bit more fees (more than 1 sat/vbyte). I mean, in order to keep hashrate?

I may be wrong, but that extra sat/vbyte from that user who is in a hurry to move BTC (so he decides to add more fee or RBF the txs) can mean an extra income for them.

I consider hashrate a powerful strength indicator, and I believe a sharp drop in hashrate after halving may produce panic in some people/institutions

Pd: I just want to see your point of view

view all related items

104 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 23h

USE LIGHTNING NETWORK

Onchain is only for opening/closing Ln channels. LN is THE payment network of Bitcoin.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Skipper 21h

79 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 17h

How it started...

How is going...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14h

lol, quite funny though how they talked about how important self-custody is and then showed WoS

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 20h

Lol they say it 'doesn't work'. Or it's 'trash' or 'no good'.

Lol OK... as I sit and stack Lightning sats (and zap for good posts) here on Stacker News.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 3h

Maybe I'm incompetent, but I've once used LN to withdraw some sats from Stacker News, and doing so wasn't cheaper than transacting on-chain: I constantly didn't have enough inbound(?) liquidity, pushing me to either buy liquidity or pay higher fees.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 3h

You are in that situation because you didn't read ALL my guides...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 3h

Very probable.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 20h

LN is not Bitcoin. It is an abstraction, removed one degree from the Bitcoin blockchain. LN may be fine for small - medium size payments and transactions, but only a fool would hodl large sums on LN. LN for spending. Bitcoin for savings.

143 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 23h

Is it possible that miners are strugling with bills, to the point they want to keep a big mempool (creating/bumping txs themselves and sharing the correspondent fees)

Miners can't control whether they mine the next block, so they aren't guaranteed to capture the fees of any fake txs they send, which makes this pretty unlikely.

18 sats \ 2 replies \ @AyCaramba OP 23h

Yes, 100% agree, and yes it is unlikely and it would be difficult for miners to coordinate all of them.

But still, if it would mean more revenue for all of them in total (as long as extra fees from real transactions that go to miners within the scheme >= fees from fake transactions those miners pay for)

It might be worth the endevour right? For example an entity to charge miners a fee (for broadcasting/bumping these fake txs that raise the sat/vbyte for the next block) and in return all miners get extra revenue from real transactions that were bumped or broadcasted with higher fee by users.

103 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 23h

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it makes economic sense with how many miners there are.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @AyCaramba OP 20h

You are probably right. Mining is supposed to be an adversarial competition, and I hope it really is.

154 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual 20h

The question is why would you want an unprofitable miner to exist? If you can't compete, you must die and those ASICs will move to operations where they can be run efficiently

If large miners do die out, miners with smaller operations or a lower cost basis have a better chance netting a block and when they do that block reward offers them a greater extension in runaway.

The large miners were always taking a calculated risk with the amount of capex they deployed and now with this latest halving miners are entering a new phase now, where they're even buying Bitcoin off the market because its a more efficient use of their capital and they can sell the volitilty to the market via debt and stock issuance.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @cascdr 14h

I said this to a mining bro at tabconf 2023 and he looked at me like I just strangulated his baby.

Then kept saying HASHRATE DOESN'T MATTER AND DOESN'T AFFECT PROFITS.

Need a good name for this mental illness. Miner Derangement Syndrome?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 7h

Lol my deepest sympathies for having to deal with this, when i hear the miner doom loop argument I can feel physical pain in my brain, I like the term Miner Derangement Syndrome will be using it from now on,

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Jon_Hodl 21h

Question is this: Is it possible that miners are strugling with bills, to the point they want to keep a big mempool (creating/bumping txs themselves and sharing the correspondent fees) so actual real transactions have to pay a bit more fees (more than 1 sat/vbyte). I mean, in order to keep hashrate?

If miners are mining at a loss, then they are doing a disservice to bitcoin. If a miner is only mining $8 of bitcoin for every $10 worth of electricity they consume, they should throttle down or even shut off their mining hardware and divert that $10 toward buying until the price recovers to a level where they can mine profitably again.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @AyCaramba OP 20h

You are right. Miners should turn off if they are unprofitable. My concern is about the effect of an eventual hashrate drop, marketwise.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @realBitcoinDog 22h

I don’t cry for the miners. Game theory plays out!

What I DONT want is ETH style MEV “miner extracted value” which we saw at the halving as if the sats in block 840,000 were any more valuable than those in 840,001. Pathetic.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @AyCaramba OP 20h

Yeah MEV is like a vice of the game to me. This is precisely what I fear.

Today minimum fee for next block was raised almost instantly at around 3:00 pm UTC. I was checking the mempool back then and it was somewhat evident the amount of txs (thousands) that were RBF'd (or broadcasted) at the same time.