[ad_1]
For past ~36 hours, the fees returned from bitcoind are very high compared to the fees from mempool.space, as well as the feerate of the recently mined blocks.
Fee from bitcoind:
The fees are checked against 4 different nodes, from different node providers
0.00209675 – 0.00164150 btc/kb
example return:
{"result":{"feerate":0.00164150,"blocks":2},"error":null,"id":"curltest"}
Fee from mempool.space:
~50 sat/vbyte (or 0.0005 btc/kb) (have seen in 30 – 80 range), but significantly below what bitcoind returns
Historical block fee rate:
Past 100 block fees:
Height | Fee/KB |
---|---|
825186 | 0.000468755 |
825185 | 0.000311821 |
825184 | 0.000228085 |
825183 | 0.000381469 |
825182 | 0.000212003 |
825181 | 0.000434182 |
825180 | 0.000272958 |
825179 | 0.000433157 |
825178 | 0.000373007 |
825177 | 0.000472575 |
825176 | 0.00052024 |
825175 | 0.000740973 |
825174 | 0.000883352 |
825173 | 0.000490274 |
825172 | 0.000367397 |
825171 | 0.000225218 |
825170 | 0.000227405 |
825169 | 0.000316847 |
825168 | 0.000368502 |
825167 | 0.000598938 |
825166 | 0.000262016 |
825165 | 0.000408663 |
825164 | 0.000233616 |
825163 | 0.000322403 |
825162 | 0.000347431 |
825161 | 0.000289216 |
825160 | 0.000351415 |
825159 | 0.000667118 |
825158 | 0.000468473 |
825157 | 0.000531804 |
825156 | 0.000217225 |
825155 | 0.000439765 |
825154 | 0.000391427 |
825153 | 0.000523507 |
825152 | 0.000219304 |
825151 | 0.000514222 |
825150 | 0.00033685 |
825149 | 0.000247336 |
825148 | 0.000506301 |
825147 | 0.000267214 |
825146 | 0.000238113 |
825145 | 0.000381388 |
825144 | 0.000676792 |
825143 | 0.000609804 |
825142 | 0.000477263 |
825141 | 0.000301402 |
825140 | 0.000610215 |
825139 | 0.000282156 |
825138 | 0.000159469 |
825137 | 0.000347237 |
825136 | 0.000301954 |
825135 | 0.000294472 |
825134 | 0.000310469 |
825133 | 0.000270071 |
825132 | 0.000154897 |
825131 | 0.000364187 |
825130 | 0.000260972 |
825129 | 0.000245024 |
825128 | 0.000320502 |
825127 | 0.000342048 |
825126 | 0.000309971 |
825125 | 0.000300009 |
825124 | 0.000494687 |
825123 | 0.000232089 |
825122 | 0.0003723 |
825121 | 0.000462369 |
825120 | 0.000601087 |
825119 | 0.000269978 |
825118 | 0.000331054 |
825117 | 0.000249099 |
825116 | 0.000368114 |
825115 | 0.000301799 |
825114 | 0.000384011 |
825113 | 0.000275079 |
825112 | 0.000321699 |
825111 | 0.000328157 |
825110 | 0.000245787 |
825109 | 0.000226692 |
825108 | 0.000471684 |
825107 | 0.000210129 |
825106 | 0.000303099 |
825105 | 0.000641694 |
825104 | 0.000231493 |
825103 | 0.000456114 |
825102 | 0.000217558 |
825101 | 0.00013882 |
825100 | 0.000141397 |
825099 | 0.000111671 |
825098 | 0.000186897 |
825097 | 0.000127469 |
825096 | 0.000259606 |
825095 | 0.000267514 |
825094 | 0.000501941 |
825093 | 0.000256896 |
825092 | 0.000318047 |
825091 | 0.000399168 |
825090 | 0.000394177 |
825089 | 0.000529127 |
825088 | 0.000258682 |
825087 | 0.000289274 |
As evident from above, the fee/kb in blocks has been significantly less than what what bitcoind has been reporting.
Since bitcoind calculates its fees from historical confirmations, why is it not reducing the fees when the fees in past 100 blocks have been significantly lower?
[ad_2]
Source link
Leave a Reply