mining fees prohibitively high

After a few months’ absence from the markets, I recently tried to do some trades on BISQ, but found that mining fees have gone up dramatically – maybe ten times!

Am I reading this graph correctly? Previously there were times you could trade at under 10 sat/vB. Now it is usually over 100 sat/vB.

What are people doing to mitigate this issue? Is it still worthwhile making trades under US$1000 on BISQ or other platforms? How long before the Lightning/SegWit changes make BISQ viable again for small trades?

There was a 30% hashpower reduction so blocks aren’t found at the usual pace, that’s whay mining fees skyrocketed.
Personally I don’t make any Bisq offers right now and I don’t expect noone to take any of my created offers unless I make them very attractive for takers, who have to pay 3 times more mining fees than makers.
This issue will improve for sure in about 12 days, when difficulty is adjusted. It could be very cheap to trade at Bisq then, indeed.

Segwit was already implemented. Still, Bisq needs to implement trading out of BTC main layer (LN, liquid, RSK…) but there are no solid plans to work on it for mid term.

Thanks for your reply MnM. That cleared things up a lot.

I’m still wondering how to operate in the short-term. Since Segwit is implemented as you say, is there a way to send funds from a Bisq wallet to a Lightning Wallet without incurring the very high mining fees that currently apply to mainnet?

Currently all Bisq trade protocol is on mainnet.

There are investigations on-going for alternatives that would work. But for the short term everything will be on mainnet.

Here is a link to the proposed alternatives for discussion: Investigations for a new trade protocol · Discussion #5430 · bisq-network/bisq · GitHub

1 Like

Some thoughts on that topic.

One of the three transaction of a trade does not need the same security or speed requirement: Bisq taker/maker fee transaction.

Could this fee paid with lightning or be batched?

If the fee is going to the same place in the end all the fee payment transactions could be collected for instance during an hour window and then joined together and cleared once. Each fee payer is signing its input and a Bisq seednode will collect and publish them later all together.

1 Like

Ideas to use a single transaction for the whole trade, or batching the trading fees by burning BSQ (a subscription model) have been considered. Reduce trade protocol to 1 single transaction · Issue #279 · bisq-network/proposals · GitHub

1 Like

The difficulty was adjusted yesterday, but Bisq is still showing high fees. For example, right at this moment it is showing 62 sat/vB. Why is that?

It goes down to 10 sat/vB at times (current minimum)

If you join the Mempool Keybase and add the fees channel it shows current fees every min.

Here is an example (fees to trade currently are 21 sat/vB): → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 21 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 21 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 21 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 21 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 22 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 11 s/vB, 15 s/vB, 23 s/vB (min 3 s/vB) → 10 s/vB, 14 s/vB, 22 s/vB (min 3 s/vB)
wizpriceje6q5tdrxkyiazsgu7irquiqjy2dptezqhrtu7l2qelqktid.onion → 21 s/vB (min 10 s/vB)
emzypricpidesmyqg2hc6dkwitqzaxrqnpkdg3ae2wef5znncu2ambqd.onion → 14 s/vB (min 10 s/vB)
aprcndeiwdrkbf4fq7iozxbd27dl72oeo76n7zmjwdi4z34agdrnheyd.onion → 21 s/vB (min 10 s/vB)
devinpndvdwll4wiqcyq5e7itezmarg7rzicrvf6brzkwxdm374kmmyd.onion → 14 s/vB (min 10 s/vB)
ro7nv73awqs3ga2qtqeqawrjpbxwarsazznszvr6whv7tes5ehffopid.onion → 21 s/vB (min 10 s/vB)

I find that the estimations are too volatile. In a matter of minutes the Bisq recommended fee went from 10 sats to 137.
This is how looks right now. In my opinion, the recommended fee should have gone from 15 to 50sats.

Edit: 15 minutes later I was able to post my offer at 11 sats/vbyte. I think that Bisq should offer a min and max range of sats/vb and let traders decide.

1 Like