Can someone explain the enormous fees please?

I was about to take an offer. I checked the small blue info icon and Wow, I almost felt from my chair as I saw the mining fee. I mean, we know BTC tx are high, but what I see there is ten(!) times higher than needed.


Right before this offer, I transfered BTC to bisq within 20 minutes with only a tx fee of 6.12 USD:

  • Transaction fee: -0.00040906 BTC using 0.00181000 BTC/kB with 266 Bytes

In Bisq I read for the mining fee:

  • Total mining fee: -0.00412800 BTC using 0.00181000 BTC/kB with ??? Bytes

I mean, 0.00412800 BTC = 61.74 USD is a bit too much, don’t you think? Where is my error? I can’t imagine this is right. Especially as this is even higher than the Security deposit. And btw. is this per kB?


Current miner fee is 470 sat/bytes ( The taker pays 3 times the tx fee (taker fee tx, deposit tx and payout tx). 470 * 300 (av. tx size) * 3 = 0.00423000 BTC.
That is because the fee estimation would not work if the maker would pay the deposit or payout tx as when creating the offer he does not know when the offer gets taken and what will be the required fee then.
We will adjust soon the fee estimation service to lower the fees but atm it is risky to go too low as that might lead to not confirming transactions if the blockchain is congested.

I am not sure I understand. Looking at a nice working fee is 181sat/b. Which will most likely be process within the next 3 blocks. That is the reason why I set the

  • Withdrawal transaction fee = 181sat/b

in Bisq. Assuming an estimated

  • tx size = 300 bytes

and I get:

  • 181sat/b * 300b = 54300sat = 0.00054300 BTC = 7.93 USD

all of this three times for 1 input 2 output:

  • 181sat/b * 300b * 3 = 162900sat= 0.00162900 BTC = 23.79 USD

Assuming Bisq is ignoring my custom set Withdrawal transaction fee = 181sat/b setting and using the Bisq’s fixed 470sat I surely get your tx fee:

  • 470sat/b * 300b * 3 = 423000sat= 0.00423000 BTC = 61.80 USD

Which is almost 3 times more than I set in Bisq and as I need to use.

Is Bisq not respecting my Withdrawal transaction fee setting?

If not, then what can I do to lower the fee? Can I use my external wallet instead? Or do I miss something here?

Withdrawal transaction fee is exactly what it sounds like, it only applies to fees you are paying when withdrawing your funds from Bisq.
You can set this to custom value because only you are affected by this.

When it comes to trades, it could be really risky not to deliver what the offer promises in reasonable amount of time. Here the fee is a bit higher just to make sure that everything goes smoothly. As you can see the mining fee on the Bitcoin network is high recently and that is primary cause of this, it was never intended for these transaction fees to be significant in Bisq. This is why some users right now are using other supported base currencies, such as Litecoin and Dash, so they don’t experience this.

As for the fee estimation using those services, that has always been tricky, as no one really knows how fast it will get confirmed. This is why shows a range for delay which means there is 90% chance (based on past transactions only) that transaction with that fee will be confirmed in the amount of blocks within that range (that as you can see can be quite big range).

Right now the website is showing that a fee between 121-130 has 90% to be confirmed in 4-137 blocks. It is the upper limit that is worrying in trading as price can move by that time quite a lot.
Currently a fee between 481-490 is the lowest fee that has 90% chance of being confirmed in less then an hour, based on past transactions.

You can see that the whole thing can get quite complicated and devs are always trying their best to adjust this.

@alexej996 Not sure but did you answer to my first or second post? As what you are saying is fine, just not what I was asking for in my second post and yours was quite long.

Second one :slight_smile:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. You can’t lower these fees. You can only lower withdrawal transaction fee and that setting does not affect these fees.

And why can’t I set the fee in Bisq then? Is it just because the devs want to lower the risk users complain if transactions fail? I hope this is not the case, as it should be not Bisq’s business what users set wrong.

Comparatively, it is the same for eg. Bitcoin Core wallet users. If they set the wrong value, they should know what it is all about. Not allowing to customize this value is not ideal for a wallet like Bisq is, too.

And If I can use my external wallet instead, why is the estimated (high) tx fee still listed within the blue offer info icon? I mean, I’m getting very nervous accepting a preset high tx fee if the fee is shown with external wallet selection.

Shouldn’t it be wiped in case I use an external wallet? - Wouldn’t it be better to switch the steps order then? Letting the user choose the transaction type With Bisq or External Wallet and calculate the Bisq fees only?

As I said in my first reply, this is probably because confirmation time doesn’t only affect you, they affect the other trader as well. You would need some kind of negotiation mechanism for this, which seems like unnecessary complexity as these fee problems should be solved eventually on the Bitcoin blockchain.

You can’t use external wallet for all of this as these are not common transactions. These are specific multisig transactions, so it would be quite hard for you to do this (but everything can be done in open source software like Bisq). The problem is that other trader’s client will not accept this, as I understand.

Forget the math, but thanks anyway.
The problem is that the miners and the big money interests backing bitcoin have lost their way. I tried to do something similar a while back a $60 transaction would have incurred a $40 fee. I stopped that too.

The solution is for bisq, and everyone else doing something like this, is to accept Ethereum, Litecoin, Dash, Monero, Pivx, anything, anything other than bitcoin.

I don’t know any other way to send the miners a message. They have no self interest in reducing their fees as long as the transactions coming in as stuffing their blocks full.

Bisq guys, please add other coins.

Sorry but miners aren’t the problem here.
There was the possibility to increse the blocksize to 2MB, but part of the community, @ManfredKarrer included, was absolutely against this thing, and so now there isn’t any more space on blocks, and fees are high.

This is also the reason for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. (which has the same miners that did want to increase the block size to have lower fees)

So you are right, if you want to have lower fees, you have to use other coins.

The other possibility is that you wait and hope that somehow lightning network will fix everything, and that Bisq will add support for it.

Bisq already supports Litecoin and Dash as a base currency and you will not need to spend those fees if you use them. You can change this in Settings.

I think having a fixed Bisq tx fee is a good idea for people new to the BTC wallet wold. While those who know how transactions and fees play together, they are held back from using Bisq, as the high fee is not necessary.

Bisq is not a real time exchange, therefore, everyone using Bisq already expects that transfers can take longer. Enabling a custom fee setting and marking those offers in the list, possibly showing a yellow note with the selected fee before accepting the offer could help a lot. Everyone knows what is going on, gets a clear warning and people who know can still accept.

It is not that difficult to set a well working fee which is processed within the next 30-60 minutes. I read of people waiting hours with the current set fixed fee. I know devs have a good intention, but in the current mempool situation, giving users a bit more control can’t be that bad IMHO.

There is also still no segwit support. There are lots of complaints about big exchanges not supporting segwit, and I can understand those. But I don’t really understand why open source trading tools don’t have support yet. I saw the other threads about it being due to BitcoinJ, but maybe it was not a good choice to use BitcoinJ, or more focus should be made on pushing that forward.

I guess we would still have problem on deciding which user will choose the fees, as you can see there are some complications here and I don’t think that it would be possible to fix this very soon. And in the long run, mining fees should not be this high. It is something to think about, of course.

bitcoinj was used long before fees were a problem and I don’t think it is easy to switch from it now, not that there are good alternatives anyway, I assume. Manfred did make it clear multiple times that he wanted to switch from bitcoinj for different reasons, but he was not able to do that for now. Eventually he will, but I am not so sure that we will still have the same issue with high fees in Bitcoin, by then.

I think we are on the same side. I’m just exploring the playground and possibilities which could maybe lead to another idea solving this for both parties.

Actually, Bisq is still in a good position to experiment a bit with such settings. The userbase is comparatively relative small. Experimenting with custom fees as an opt-in option with some clear warnings might be a way to determine how such an option is adopted by the community.

I guess, it is less of a problem than we might think. As users get a clear red warning and need to accept a sentence similar to: “I’m aware of the fact that choosing a too low value can lead to … x y z.” I doubt may users will even think of enabling such an opt-in feature if they don’t know what to do.

Additionally, as long as this option is not touched, Bisq behave exactly the same as is does now. Only by accepting the opt-in option those offers are shown in the offers list at all + clear warning sign, too.

And on top if it, an algorithm checking API denys users entering lower satioshi classes than 5 blocks eg. Giving users something which makes it impossible to enter an infinite transaction. Those conditions have to be explored, sure. That’s why I’m bringing this up.

Takers who accept such custom marked offers (from the list) know what they are doing. I even doubt many of those offers will be listed or taken. But it might help to explore the playground. Moreover, I’m pretty sure, there is an algorithm which can optimize fees in a similar manner automatically later on. If we don’t try we might never know.

Just my thought of mind. Who knows, this might lead to a brilliant new idea solving the fee issue for all mempool situations to come.

The problem is the if you decide to use a lower fee and the deposit tx gets stuck the trading peer will suffers as well. Stuck transactions have been a bigger problem than fees being 20% higher or lower. Really low fees comes with high risk and can take a few days to get confirmed (or never).