Join 98,815 users already on read.cash

$5,700,000 in pending fees

10 846
Avatar for emergent_reasons
Written by   366
2 years ago

One of the many benefits of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is low fees: less than 1 US cent for common transactions (example: moving $2,000,000 for less than $0.01). I would like to share a perspective from the recent past that shows what happens when we do not guarantee low fees. [Update 2019-12 Two years after writing this article, it is still valid and a good illustration.]

First, what makes Bitcoin Cash (BCH) fees low?

BCH aims to be a very high volume, low cost, permissionless network that supports the whole world. To do that, one design target is to include all pending (mempool) transactions in the next block at all times. In other words, there should be about zero competition to get your transaction into the next block. Instead, miners require a minimum cost per transaction.

What happens when blocks fill up on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) chain?

As above, the short answer is that they should not fill up because BCH miners and devs keep the size large enough to handle all activity.

Here is the worst case I could find of blocks filling up in the post-fork history of BCH. The graph shows the total fees for pending transactions. This is an important measure that shows how much money is on the table right now for miners to take user transactions.

Most importantly, you can see that pending fees continuously drop back down to zero, indicating that all pending transactions are being included in blocks quickly. The spike around Jan 15, 2018 was maybe the worst that has happened. 1.4 BCH @ $1,300 → about $1,800 in pending fees. [Update 2019-12 This kind of thing has become an issue of the past for BCH as max block size increased after the fork and node behavior has continued to improve].

What happens when blocks fill up on Bitcoin (BTC) chain?

Let's focus on the total pending fees like we did with BCH. Here is the same time period as the BCH graph, but you might notice that the amounts of money involved here are completely different:

Just look at the big picture of that graph: the peak of 360 BTC @ $15,900 means about $5,700,000 in pending fees. That is $5,700,000 in pending fees, not transaction value.

How did that happen? BTC blocks are intentionally, and likely forever limited to 1 Megabyte (arguably slightly more with Segwit). Due to the limit, users were competing for months for space on the BTC blockchain. Fees for the limited space available went through the roof. Users who were unwilling to pay $5, $10, $20, $50 for a single transaction were locked out for an unpredictable amount of time. Their money was frozen. The result was complete failure as money. The normal user cannot compete for space and even the wealthy lose to the ultra wealthy as there is no limit on this blind auction. Due to the availability of superior substitute goods in other blockchains, some permissionless like Bitcoin Cash (BCH), some not, the vast majority of legitimate use cases will eventually seek less expensive alternatives.

Bitcoin (BTC) is no longer "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

The world cannot use that to transact, and if it tried, the fees would eventually be larger than the balances of most users.

Layer 2 systems are a different discussion, but even in the best case they are also strictly bound by unpredictable and high base layer fees. As above, when there is a superior substitute, who will spend $50 to get onto a second layer with different properties from the first layer, and spend $50 again to get off?

We must remember to keep this fundamental design at the heart of Bitcoin. "Low Fees" is a very good feature and easy to lose with mismanagement of the protocol.

But are high fees actually common on BTC and rare on BCH?

If you didn't know about blockchair, it's wonderful. Here are two queries of high-cost transactions. I defined "high-cost" as anything paying more than the equivalent of $10 for a common transaction. That's a $10 fee on top of the price of your coffee. For a p2p cash system, there should not be many of these, right? [updated 2019-12: got new data for BCH but the query seems broken for BTC so I'm leaving the old data].

Why "Pending Fees" instead of "Pending transaction count" or "Pending transaction size"?

One of the reasons I wrote this is that I often see people talking about the number or size of pending transactions. Those are also important but:

  • Pending transaction count can be skewed by many small transactions.

  • Pending transaction size can be skewed by a few large transactions.

  • Pending transaction fees indicate how much value users were actually willing to pay to make transactions of any type. It is harder to "fake" than making many transactions or heavy transactions.

Please support the sites that provide the data and visualizations

Sponsors of emergent_reasons
empty
empty
empty

19
$ 3.16
$ 1.00 from @Read.Cash
$ 1.00 from @btcfork
$ 0.50 from @JonathanSilverblood
+ 8
Avatar for emergent_reasons
Written by   366
2 years ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

I am happy to get a clear overview of how BCH outperforms BTC on the cost of transaction fees.

$ 0.00
8 months ago

Great post! I like to see content like this!

$ 0.10
2 years ago

🙏

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Indeed very good article you have written

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Very informative article, I support you hopefully you support me.......♥️♥️♥️

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Indeed a very good and informative article you have written. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and giving information to us.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Great information , Bitcoin can solve alot of money related problems in Africa , and also can minimize corruption rate.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

very nice article bitcoin cash is best and low fees for all transaction it was awesome

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Acho que deveria si falar mais do bch.....😊😊😊😊

$ 0.00
2 years ago