Bitcoin Forum

I know that the topic I made is very common and I just want to revive it here with new discussions since time flies so fast and we should adapt the new trend especially with the crypto market. Now, it seems that investors had gone for a while for not playing trading with bitcoin and it made at some point where bitcoin stabilizes in terms of its market price. We know that many are expecting it that somehow bitcoin market may gone good. Yet, only few are using bitcoin and promoting its purpose to eradicate high transaction fee through Peer to peer transactions. Probably only few are using bitcoin for this purpose because instead it can lower transaction fees done by the banks it made even more gone expensive because after bitcoin exchange it will undergo fiat exchange to which it will cost another transaction fee. Is there anything that this will be minimized and promote the use of bitcoin? Lowering transaction fee may do I suggest.

Transaction fees are already low enough and that didn't attract potential users and services to use bitcoin still, so perhaps the problem doesn't lie on transaction fees alone and there may be an even greater cause that we don't know of. One thing I see is probably the volatility of bitcoin that makes it an uninteresting asset to hold and payment to accept knowing that it could always go down or up at any given time. Another is the lack of services/platforms to use bitcoin on, and the first reason I see is connected to this one so idk how would we be moving from there.

Scalability and fees are not a problem in bitcoin
This whole idea became a market to fool people and make them buy vaporware such as bch and nano.

As mentioned above , fees already low. Just made a transaction with 1 Satoshi per byte yesterday,and it was confirmed in less than 20 minutes

Fees are low at the moment, currently 8 sats. You can check the best set fee here - https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

Hopefully we don’t have a return to what it was like during the peak of the last bull run.

I guess that you are badly misinformed (let's say so). Bitcoin fees are extremely low for about a year. Normally a few cents / transaction.
And as you can see, there are much less buyers for Bitcoin than in the "bad" days, when the fees were indeed very high.
So.. what are you talking about?

2/3 of the Bitcoin's transactions were related to trading activities and not for its real uses. People aren't really spending bitcoins because it has lower Tx fees because, as mentioned by the dudes above, the TXs fees are already low and it's difficult to make lower fees than banks since (for example SEPA) it costs zero.
"Investors" is a broad word, real investors aren't (much) into Bitcoin.

lowering the price of fees charged in bitcoin transactions will further increase and promote the use of bitcoin but the miners who validate the transactions that are being originated from different locations are to be rewarded for the mathematical algorithm that they compete to solve and hence deserves rewards for such.

It could be, but the fee for transaction is already low, so it doesn't need to be decrease again, to increase the bitcoin usage and adoption we need to make it more stable and need to have the permit from the government, the speed and the fee now is not an issue for the bitcoin anymore

The fees are very low, especially if you are dealing with the large numbers and I don’t think it can attract more investors. We need a real development and the fees is just a small part of it, we need to educate more people so they can know bitcoin better, and lastly we need to stop from spreading the fake news and be more subjective.

I think the transaction fees right now are too cheap if you use segwit address compared to a legacy wallet and we don't need to push the miners fee down because it might affect the reward incentivize miners that may cause to miners to stop mining bitcoin. And honestly, it won't help bitcoin to increase its value.

What we need right now is wider adoption of bitcoin which will help to maximize the number of users. If more user will use bitcoin as another payment method in many stores online or locally bitcoin could eventually increase in price.

Low fees aren't characteristic of secure blockchains that have strong transaction demand. Low fees indicate either weak security -- because of lacking miner incentives -- or weak transaction demand.

Rational miner incentives are required to prevent dishonest mining, which can result in insecure transactions. We can either incentivize miners with transaction fees, or we can do so with inflation -- paid by users as a periodic dilution on their holdings.

Bitcoin's block rewards are a combination of both fees and inflation right now. The inflation rate is dropping over time, so we should actually expect fees to rise to replace the lost miner incentives. If not, we should expect a decline in security.

I wanted to know one thing, since I don't have any BTC in my wallet. Is it true that the higher the amount of btc the lower the transaction fee and vice-versa?

it is true that lower transaction fees are more desirable but it is not like having transaction fees are something that is preventing people from adopting bitcoin. of course if they were ridiculously high (like the short period during 2017 which they went extremely high due to spam attack) then they can act against adoption and prevent people from using bitcoin but it is not as you said, lower fees aren't going to "promote the use of bitcoin".

well, what's the solution? despite the block size debate resolving in 2017, i feel like people are still neglecting to discuss expectations about future transaction fees.

i still see people complaining that fees in december 2017 were "high". people are also still promoting the idea that fees in bitcoin should be "cheap" vs other systems like banks and paypal. i don't know if i agree with either of those positions since fees are so integral to guaranteeing mining security in the future.

the block reward started at 50 BTC. what should we expect the block reward to be in 100 years? i sure hope it's higher than the inflation rate!

Transaction fees has not been a issue for more than a year now, so I do not see why this is such a burning issue now. You can transfer any amount of money on-chain for a few cents these days and if you want to pay even less for micro transactions, then you can use the Lightning Network. <Cheaper & faster than on-chain transactions>  ;)

I think a lot of people are still stuck in the past, when they heard about expensive transaction fees prior to 2017 and they have never re-visited the scene to determine if it was still the same or if something was introduced to solve those problems.  ::)

A lot have changed since then, with the introduction of SegWit and the Lightning Network.  ;D

many people above are just saying "not a problem" but yet they are not showing the stats or who the problem concerns.

firstly from 2015-2016 fee's per block were BELOW $26k
in 2018 fee's per block are 4x

i know many western countries will keep on being narrow vision to say its all good for western richguys, but again those saying its all good are ignoring BILLIONS of people that have issues with money and want alternative solutions to banks.

when a TX fee costs more than an hourly wage you cant just say "its fine"

wake up people, look outside your own personal circumstance and think about the whole purpose of bitcoin
and no,this aint a time to advertise other networks.

It does clearly impact the promotion the use of bitcoin, many people still think a lot to use bitcoin or adapting bitcoin because the transaction fee was sometimes high. The first time I came here it was no problem but when you going quite longer in bitcoin you really need a low fees of transaction, obviously.

I don't think the transaction fees is creating any roadblock in the progress of bitcoin. Please visit the below website to know how much fees we need to pay per transaction,

https://bitcoinfees.info/

It shows that the average transaction fees for 3 blocks confirmation is around $0.15 which is pretty normal and don't really make the transactions expensive. It's pretty lower than what bank charges for each transaction. The argument is itself invalid because the transaction fees has not yet reached that peak to discourage its users from using bitcoin.

Not really. Transaction fees are more or less linear to your input size and how much you want to pay for each byte, or in other words the bigger your input (more Bitcoin) the bigger your fees would be. However, you can choose at what price per byte you'd pay for your transaction. Assume that your transaction is 1000 byte, and you choose to pay 1 sat/byte, the fees would be equal with if you send 500 bytes with 2 sat/byte fee. CMIIW.

But you concentrate the debate too much on "but Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash", and how the Core developers are preventing that from happening. There are trade-offs, and the solution isn't as easy as increasing the block size.

There network needs to scale out.

Right now fees are low but when the price increase, hashpower rate increase then transaction cost also increases. Have in mind the last all time high $BTC. It used to cost a lot to send Bitcoin. It is fine when the amount is larger but for small amount (example: $1/$2/$5), the tx is too large.

I am confident that Lightening Network is going to solve this.

Transaction at present is not high or low, what we have as fee is completely upon the funds transacted. Whenever there is an increase in the value of bitcoin, the transaction fee too increases. People always require a price increase, but never agree with the transaction fee increase along with the increasing price of bitcoin.

i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned. but seeing as you have, then yea it must be highlighted that its the devs that can actually do something about it after all bitcoin is not some self coding AI

EG instead of everyone paying standard rate average.. devs could RE-implement a fee priority (yep they removed one).
for instance implement a fee where those that spend funds more than once a day pay more per transaction than someone who pays less than once a day. thus being fairer on everyone. rather than effecting everyone due to a few bad actors

p.S its you and your buddies that think the only two options are stagnate bitcoin innovation to push other networks.
there are many ways to scale bitcoins network. but all your interested in is promoting other networks while suggesting bitcoin is not easy, and shouldnt be electronic cash

but my point of the last post is people thinking 10cents is acceptable are being very ignorant to a billion people that would see an advantage for bitcoin.. yet think 10cents is ok for less than a billion people who could easily do the same thing using fiat. in other words bitcoin is being promoted as only fit for those that dont NEED bitcoin, but want it just as a profiteer route. thus missing the whole point of bitcoins invention

This only accounts for current transaction demand, which is relatively low. What if on-chain throughput grows 100 times higher than today? Or maybe 10,000 times higher? Micro transactions on Lightning are great, but the LN model can't escape on-chain fees entirely.

I do wonder if we're setting ourselves up for another painful scaling debate. A lot of people are waving away the issue by saying "fees are already low." Fees are just low right now. How about when average fees approach $1 again, and higher?

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

wrong
1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents
    is the exact same as 4000 transactions staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fee's upto 40 cents. it makes more sense(excuse the pun) to increase transaction capacity. to both allow people to transact and not have to pay as much.. win win win

2. no one is screaming gigabytes by midnight. the growth of more transactions IS needed. but no one is saying it has to be
gigabytes by midnight. plus more importantly no one is saying that fee's are important for mining pools this next decade
so we can start progressing now. in preparation for a few decades time.. emphasis PROGRESS,
delaying and waiting a decade then suddenly jumping helps no on and certainly pee's off billions of people that are still wondering what the hell are developers waiting for

3. also needing everyone to pay an average of 20cents is bad aswell. its far better to have someone that only transacts once a wek pay only 1cent and someone that transact several times a day pay $1 each time. that way the punishment for abuseing the space fits the individual rather than spreading it across to make everyone liable no matter how efficient they are

4. as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot mor years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure

that's an oversimplified analysis. the two situations are not exactly the same in the context of block size. what matters is how many transactions can fit into a block. if all transactions can easily fit into blocks at all times, fees will approach zero because there is no competition to drive fees up. therefore, there is no incentive for miners to publish transactions or secure the chain after inflation ends.

the block size limit is the only thing that causes fees to rise above 0 at all. it doesn't matter if there is 2000 or 4000 transactions. what matters is whether there is income for miners.


that's just because miners are subsidizing the cost of transactions. they do this because they're trying to accumulate bitcoins while the inflation rate is still high.

this situation is unlikely to exist when the hard cap is reached and fees are miners' only source of income.

I think you are making reference to two things here. Firstly, transaction charges when trading crypto to fiat and also the transaction fee. For the transaction, I do not think the fee is too high especially when some network such as lightning network has been in existence. However, alot of phases is involved when exchanging crypto to fiat currency. The highest fee is not being charged by the bitcoin network but the third parties such as merchant that offer conversion of crypto to fiat. This is the reason why many projects are trying to bridge the gap in term of use between fiat and crypto.

Segwit v2 has already lowered the transaction fees which were getting ridiculously high. It is more about the transaction times that will drive adoption, this is where lightning network comes into play

and all of your rebuttals are empty
simply because you wish to avoid scaling the blockchain now. when fe's are not needed, to incentivise more adoption... purely to stifle adoption with debates that only concern things in many decades.

its far better to make things cheap and easy to use now. ONCHAIN to get people using bitcoin. and then let th miners concerns play out in a decouple decades. than it is to say bitcoin shouldnt scale now or ever, purely to promote other networks and harp on saying that blockchains cant work. (but they can)

segwit has not lowered fee's

pre segwit fee's were only a couple cents (under $26k a day)
post segwit fee's are more than 10cents (over $50k a day)

the whole segwit 2015 promise were cheaper fee's where people were expecting sub-penny prices again.. but instead fee's are higher

its like walmarts fake offers
all that happened was cheese rose by 2000% and then reduced by 5x to make it empty feel like a discount from temporary bubble.. yet still expensive compared to previous norms.

put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
if you have not yet done this then...
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
and then ask yourself about the utility of btc

but here we go ago, another dude trying to promote lightning without understanding that its a different network thats not encapsulating features purely for bitcoin.

Of course. Lowering transaction fees of bitcoin can promote it to people especially those people who don’t know what is bitcoin. If someone is enjoying the use of something, of course he or she will share it to thier loved ones and if they always use bitcoin because of low transaction fees, that alone will be effortlessly promoting bitcoin. Just like my brother, he first start using bitcoin than me then he likes it so he shares it with me and i get interested because it has great features.

Haha. Me and my buddies? Stick to the debate.

Taking that aside, Bitcoin will not be compromised so that billions of people can use the network for their coffee transactions that will be recorded in the blockchain FOREVER. Do you believe that censorship-resistant value transfers should be used to buy coffee? There are trade-offs, and there will be costs to keep the network decentralized while scaling out.

you said to put your buddies aside...
yet then go into a speach that your buddies have used time and time again about coffee..
not original, not new, and not the point.

atleast try to sound original by doing some research.
the coffee debate is outdated and laughed at. try picking a rebuttal with substance that actually shows good technical reason to avoid blockchains.

but lets update you...
1. no where on the blockchain would it ever say "coffee". what developers dont want is value of less than $3 being used on a blockchain(equivalent of coffee)

2. in a CENSORSHIP RESISTANT VALUE TRANSFER system, should developers be choosing to CENSOR and RESIST VALUE TRANSFERS of under $3

remember $3 is a weeks wage in some countries..(think before you reply)

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?   ::)

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    ::)

http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/pissingintothewind.png

Lower transaction fees are to be closely coupled with the idea of a scalable solution. The faster the transactions, the more scalable > more blocks > less fees required to keep people incentivised.

oh here goes doomad meandering the topic way off topic... he pokes the bear so lets bite.
firstly i talk about alot of things. but i talk about the deeper stuff. and the cause/effect

 its not like there is much code diversity to oppose/object to/counter the roadmap.
and when there is, the roadmap advocates do everything they can to push non roadmap off the network

i do understand how bitcoin works. more so than you. i also know what events actually occured. where as you deny they even happen.
you have been pushing hard to deny that august 1st 2017 happened. you have been pushing hard to deny the REKT campaigns even happened.

yet the developers have been happy to admit their actions. it is only you and your buddies who deny such events.
so spend less time on your social drama. and spend more time researching, and maybe you will learn what bitcoin is really about and what actually occurred.

the reason developers are to blame more so than users is this.
1. developers develop the code.. users dont.
2. developers put code in to bypass peoples wishes (mandated bypasses, inflight upgrades)
3. users dont get as much of a decision if they are always treated as "compatible" and dont get a opt-in or opt-out. it just changes without choice.
4. when there is a choice lately its not a if opt-out it dont happen. but more so if opt-out your thrown off the network to fake a vote of acceptance

so like before its you that needs to decide ar you a flip or a flop.
because some days you pretend users get a vote/choice. and others your anti-vote mindset shouts that people dont get a vote.
its you that does not understand the issues and how bitcoin had/should function vs how it has been run lately

so spend less time replying and more time researching until you yourself can stick to a rhetoric that atleast matches data found on the blockchain

...
any way
sorry folks doomad does that alot.
hopefully he doesnt reply and spends the time to learn more about bitcoin. but i expect he prefers to keep replying and now derail this topic.. and then play the victim

The problem is not in the costs of bitcoin transactions but in people's awareness of bitcoin. There are still many who don't use bitcoin because of the volatility and price fluctuations that occur in bitcoin, so these two things should be overcome to be able to grow bitcoin in everyone's eyes.

it seems that every project even though offering a low fee transaction is just a pretext to make investors more hooked on their actual project. But sometimes those real stuff project is wouldn't reach the goal. So its like they want to extend and extend to make it real just to see how they grab investors money

volatility is not a problem
every week we see retailers changing the prices of bread, milk. people are actually used to seeing prices of things fluctuate
EG when the dollar-pound moved from $1.60 to $1.25 not many people were screaming bluemurder that forex is broke.

if bread moved from £0.80-£1 and then to £0.70 people have not been going out and doing strikes/protests. they just treat it as norm

volatility is not a problem
i have travelled to many countries and the biggest issue is using bitcoin where each transaction is an hours minimum wage is the thing that makes 'the unbanked' not want to use bitcoin.

too many people are stuck in their own basement mindset of 'its ok for americans'
and too many people are happy to censor out billions of people purely due to racial motives of only wanting the west to get rich.

(im a white brit with a large hoard, but i can atleast see beyond my personal circumstance)

anyway, right now we do not need to concern ourselves with excuses to stifle bitcoin innovation onchain under the fake narrative of doing it for the benefit of miners. because for DECADES the miners will be incentivised by non fee's

so we should be concentrating on scaling bitcoin getting the adoption. and then.. IN DECADES let the fee's interplay.

the real foolish thing is this
before fee's are even an issue. the roadmap is to push people off network already so that without scaling. user utility of bitcoin declines onchain and drops the fee's(total) thus making it become a situation that all individuals ned to pay more.

thats like taking trains off the tracks to convince people to use buses and then say train tickets are cheaper, even though there ar not enough train seats being allowed to cope with normal demand because they are pretending that all the efforts of reducing train usage is to give train operators a christmas bonus. yet its not even giving them a bonus. its just charging less people higher prices.
the complete opposite of charging more people less fee's

He said as he spends the rest of his inane reply talking about completely unrelated and off-topic nonsense.   ::)

Your so-called "cheap" transaction fees have costs which you refuse to acknowledge.  I am wholly on-topic pointing out that non-mining full nodes and miners are stating their intentions in that regard as we speak.  They are choosing to enforce rules which strongly suggest they don't want to bear the cost of your "cheap" transactions.  Why can't you include them in your little crackpot conspiracy theories?  Oh, that's right, they don't fit neatly into your little narrative.  So you sweep them under the carpet and tell everyone to look at the boogeymen developers.  It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly tragic and pathetic.  

Also, if low fees really were the driving force behind adoption, surely we should all be using Dogecoin for our daily spending habits?  No?  Any further "arguments" you'd like to present, or is this just the part where you scream "research" over and over like some brain-damaged kook?  Or how about one of your other catchphrases?  Please keep telling us how you think you're some sort of bear.  All I see is a sad and misguided little creature.

bitcoin is not peer to peer electronic cash anymore its nowadays a "store of value" and a quite bad one

he pokes again(but never learns). so lets keep biting until he learns to research before poking

1. increasing fee's does not make the system better. it make bitcoin look less appealing.
2. not everyone needs to run a full node with 120 peers
3. price of data storage is NOT $$millions.
4. scaling bitcoin network does NOT mean "gigabytes by midnight"

users with low bandwidth and low storage can do many things right now to reduce the impact on their personal circumstance without trying to stifle bitcoin adoption as a whole.

its the same argument about videostream uploaders/ online gamers/ etc.
doomads mindset is to push hard that video upstreaming and online gaming should not be allowed because it costs so much to run.
doomad is the kind of guy that will want to go back to playing 2player pacman

if they want to stifle bitcoin adoption because they cannot afford to be a full node then maybe being a full node is not that important to them.
its like why want to be a train driver if you want the passenger carriage to be empty, just so 2 millionaires can have a carriage to themselves

being a full node IS important to businesses that actually need to monitor many transactions an hour. not the basement dweller that uses their mums phone bill to monitor two transaction a week and then complain the phone bill is high in comparison to the lack of personal utility they gain from being a full node

when speaking to real people thats the ultimate rejection/objection they come to once you get to the root problem.. they dont want to spend $100 every 4 years on a new hard drive or pay XX a month on a phone bill if they personally are only watching for their own 2 transactions a week. they dont see the cost/utility benefit.
yep. get to the root of the problem and thats its, people see the phonebill and hardware upgrade every 4-8 year and say 'but i only handle xx tx a year personally"


and as such those only monitoring 2 transactions a week are not the important usecase category of people that should be full nodes
its far better to have 100,000 BUSINESSES as fullnodes that can afford fibre/5g and hardware upgrades, where those businesses NEED to monitor hundreds of transactions a day. compared to 100,000 basement dwelling kids who have to explain to their mum that the phone bill is high because they need to monitor 2 transactions a week

that said. increasing the transaction capacity is not a "gigabytes by midnight" debate which doomad continues to try to imply. since 2010 we could have scaled onchain in small increments which even today would have allowed more transactions per block, kept fee's at sub-penny levels and still be well under home computing costs

simply because home computing is not expensive, home computing does allow for more transaction capacity than so far seen.

ultimately after month of reading doomads flip flop arguments, all i see doomad wanting to do is push people into LN in the (miss)informed belief that he will make money out of users routing through him. his mindset is not on the ethos/ethics/morals of bitcoin. but on his personal greed.

now here is the funny...
doomad is happy in scenarios of 100,000 users to be non factory nodes of LN where they are just phone app litewallet users where the funds are not 100% in the users control... but then flips the flop to pretend them same users are crying about needing to be full node bitcoin network users. whereby bitcoin needs to be stifled purely for empty cries

ok its been months and i still see a big lack of research done by doomad. so lets change the narrative
doomad how about attend some bitcoin meetups regularly to atleast get you out of your cabin fever/echo chamber, maybe that will be the stepping stone you need to look outside your personal rhetoric.

and yes in the UK there are many meetups happening regularly. so no excuses not to attend

back to the topic.

we dont need to stifle onchain scaling to push a fee war. fee's are not important for decades.
blocks dont need to be pushed to gigabytes by midnight.

what can actually occur to satisfy everyone is this
incremental block growth
fee priority mechanism that hurts spammers and incentivises efficient use of the blockspace

thus instead of everyone paying 'average' fee (which in itself is flawed)
people pay an amount depending on personal circumstance of that particular transaction
EG someone that only transacts once a day pay 144 times less per transaction than someone that transacts every block. so a spammer for instance would pay $1.44 PER TRANSACTION to have their funds respent every 10 minutes and someone that spends only once a day pays $0.01 PER TRANSACTION

and its a win win win. because the foolish crew that think they will get rich via LN can then have their niche users(spammers) they can push into LN and leave normal people alone to use bitcoins network as it should be used(cheap and borderless)

What's your basis for saying that? If fees are supposed to replace the inflation subsidy, when is it going to happen? Nearly 85% of the entire supply has been mined already! If a fee market is inappropriate now, then when?

What speech? It is the truth that you can't accept.


Is that what you try so hard to do? Because you are laughed at.


I told you, there are trade-offs. It's not what the Core developers want. It is what's best for the Bitcoin network.


How is that "censorship"? Are you trying hard to be "original"?


Is that your best statement to make me think twice? Hahaha.

If your weekly wage is $3.00, then use fiat. It would be more convenient for you and your employer.

You are not a bear.  You have no bite.  You have vivid fairytales and fantasies.  You're about as threatening as a cotton bud.


1.  Other coins have lower fees, but people continue to use Bitcoin more than any other cryptocurrency.  Again, if low fees were all people cared about, we'd all be using Dogecoin or something similar.  Clearly Bitcoin maintains sufficient "appeal".

2.  It's not up to you to decide what people do or don't need.  They will continue to make that decision for themselves and express their preference with the software they choose to run.

3.  Just a few posts ago, you were talking about people in countries with low hourly wages.  Why does that argument suddenly go out the window now?  The price of storage and DATA USAGE/BANDWIDTH (the more important factor, as you've been told on dozens of occasions) does not have to be high for you in order for it to be prohibitive in someone else's budget.  Stop being a hypocrite and "put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour" as you phrased it.  

4.  No one is saying it is.  Doesn't mean anyone cares where you think the line should be drawn, though.  Not your call to make.  Run whatever rules you want, but don't expect others to agree with you.


One of these days I hope someone does code a client giving you everything you've ever asked for.  Then, I can watch with glee while you give yourself an aneurysm trying to justify why it has about the same number of users as the client you're running right now.  

and in all your waffle you still are ignoring the problem that many people talk about. and instead you just want to social rant at me.. very un persuasive... but very boring

have a nice day though.
quick response to your points
1. other coins are not popular due to many reasons. do research
2.i am not deciding what people need or dont need. i am no the one coding the needs. i am just highlighting that the ones coding stuff are ignoring peoples needs. go research
3.lowwages does not go out the window. funnily enough i speak to many people around the world on low wages and i am the one not afraid to speak out for the issues they have. countries on low budget can get low budget PC. funny part is in western countries westerner pay a premium. developing countries dont have $50 a month phone bills. they have phonebills at what equates to the same % of general income.
EG if in america average low income is $300 a week where internet is $50 a month. developing countries at a third the income have third the internet cost. might be worth you understanding that most bills are based on % of basic income to be 'competitive' and its not like the whole world pays the same price. go research
(hint: why do you think people prefer imports and buying stuff from alibaba/aliexpress rather than ebay/amazon)
(double hint: things are cheaper when obtained from countries with cheaper labour)

4. you keep thinking that i am mandating stuff.. yet you cover up the ones that actually do mandate stuff..  i think you are so backward thinking you forget who is saying what. remember the devs are happy to admit their schemes so why endlessly pretend they do nothing and some how make out its me that is changing things..
in short if you dont like an opinion. click the ignore button

Fees really aren't a problem right now, they were about a year ago when Bitcoin reached the all time high, but since the price has gone lower, the fees are really low right now, you wont even feel them when paying for something. I'm guessing many people left Bitcoin because of the very low price right now.

1.  "Do research" is not a response.  It's just something you mindlessly blurt out when you have no compelling arguments to present.  If you aren't able to provide us with any evidence that Bitcoin sees greater levels of adoption when fees are low, then just admit it and move on with your dismal existence.  All I'm hearing are baseless opinions about how you think it might turn out if we did things your way.  That's not sufficient.  Never has been, never will be.  Lower fees are not going to convince the average person to suddenly take an active interest in Bitcoin.  It's going to take a combination of factors and it's not something that is going to happen overnight.  Patience.

2.  Yes, you are trying to tell people what they do or don't need.  You just said again in one of your recent moronic rants that it's mostly just businesses who need to run a full node and that it's somehow not important for other users.  That's total BS and not your call to make.  You do it without even realising you're doing it.  You can't help yourself.  You have your own predetermined goal in mind and you will trample over literally anyone to get what you want.  People can and will decide this stuff for themselves.  You have absolutely no say in it whatsoever.  

3.  I find it hard to believe anyone could stand to be in a room with you for more than 30 seconds, let alone people all over the world having lengthy conversations with you about what they supposedly do or don't want out of Bitcoin.  Call me skeptical, but since you are horrifically untrustworthy, I'd rather hear this directly from them, rather than take your word for it.  Plus, I'll still be telling them exactly what I'm telling you.  There are costs to bear beyond the fee itself and you will recognise that fact.  Security, decentralisation and censorship resistance come at a price.  And, off-topic, but if you have all this wealth to support your lifestyle of jetting around the globe to speak to random people, why aren't you funding development of a wallet with all those "great" features you keep yammering on about?  Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a little about the scale of your advocacy work abroad?  How many "real people" are you claiming to have spoken to, exactly?  

4.  Your definition of the word "mandate" is this context is fundamentally wrong.  No one is making you run anything.  But let's say, hypothetically, we did do things your way (never happening, by the way, purely hypothetically), what makes you believe users would be running this new code that would cause them to accept more throughput.  Considering, after all, they've been given that choice in the past and have refused it.  If users aren't interested in running such code, why would devs waste their time making it?  Why are you completely unable to respect the choices that other users on this network make?  It literally doesn't matter who codes it.  If users are united in their choice to not run code that supports more transactions and lower fees because they don't want to bear the cost of that, then you won't get what you want.  That's just how it is.  Blame the users.  It's completely immaterial who is or isn't coding whatever bullshit you mistakenly think is best.  It's down to the users.  It's their choice.  And no, I'm never going to put you on ignore.  I will continue to draw attention to your manipulative behaviour and challenge your unsubstantiated nonsense wherever I might find it.  Try posting less drivel and you'll give me less cause to call you out on it.  How about that?

poor doomad, missing the point

1. bitcoin adoption has not grown over the last few years... LESS businesses have been accepting bitcoin. yes bitcoin is in a stronger position than other coins. but with 2000 coins out there its for you to research why bitcoin has advantages over the other crap coins because there are many reasons.. also its not the topic for me to deep dive into all the reasons. so if you want answers to why specific crap coins are not popular. go research them

2. im not demanding/mandating/tyranting things. you know this. i told you, show me my code where im forcing anything.. what you need to realise is that i am venting/voicing an opinion that counter you and your buddies. if you dont like it hit the ignore button. but if you really think i have the power to push my OPINION to cause action. then you really do not understand bitcoin..
here is a tip: this is a FORUM. for DISCUSSION. and that is it. if you dont like discussion that opposes your view then hit the ignore button. but never presume what happens on a FORUM can cause bitcoin changes.
seriously realise this is a discussion forum and realise if you dont like whats discusssed. either
dont get involved.
hit the ignore button
reply addressing the issue rather than crying about how you think a open discussion is some big powerful one man attack..
(get a grip in short)

3. you again are the exaggerator. i have my opinions and on a DISCUSSION forum i discuss my opinions based on information i gleamed over time from research and from speaking to many diverse people.
the stuff i do in the real world goes beyond discussing things and i speak to many people around the world. i went/go to many countries and majority of them are developing countries and yes i get alot of real opinions that oppose your echo chambers.
maybe it really is worth you taking some time to talk to people directly. like i said GO research. so please to, get out of your echo chamber and actually go speak to a variety of people. go to meetups. go travel the world. widen your prospective abit

as for your other exaggerations. you and your echo chamber of buddies that just repeat the same social drama crap to meander topics are the ones trying to shout that im an advocate, an authority, and its you that keeps shouting that im demanding crap.
ITS A DISCUSSION FORUM.. end of.
if you dont like discussions. ignore the discussion.

4. shut up about your hypotheticals.
because. no hypotheticals needed. mandated to throw out opposers was a real event
rekt campaigns were real events.
i have no code so trying to say im forcing anything is a non event because i am not demanding anything. im discussing things on a discussion forum.
plus your just meandering off topic.
 this topic just like many other topics you meander into should NEVER be about me. but be about THE TOPIC. if you dont like the person making a point. ignore them and stick to the topic
realise the reality of things. if you are not sure about anything go research it. and if you dont like someones opinion. then talk about the topic and ignore the person.

have a nice day

there are many many many ways to scale bitcoin network and keep fee's low for the majority of people. MANY ways. go research them.

I do not think that this is a problem that prevents the scalability of bitcoin. In fact, there are more serious problems. It seems to me that it is that people do not fully understand what bitcoin is. This is what prevents it from scaling. After all, the widespread use of bitcoin depends on people who spread the word about it.

I don't want reasons why crap coins are not popular.  How is that possibly the conclusion you arrived at?  My point was that lower fees are not some magical fix which will make Bitcoin more popular.  That's not how it works.  Try to keep up here.  I'm asking you for evidence to support your claims that lower fees would make Bitcoin more appealing.  You are again failing to provide any evidence and deflecting with your moronic "research" catchphrase.  If you want to present the argument that fees need to be lower, it's up to you to justify that argument with something more than conjecture and some vague stories about people who you claim to have spoken to in unnamed parts of the world.  Since I'm not inclined to believe a single word you say, please provide something more concrete.



I seem to be getting some conflicting signals here.  How can we discuss if you keep telling me to ignore you?  I'm happy to continue discussing why there are consequences to increasing throughput.  I'd love to talk about the adverse effects on Bitcoin users who desire the privacy, security and independence only a full node can provide them.  If you want to talk about how to use the ignore button, I'd suggest that's probably a topic for Meta.  Can we now get back to the real cost of lower fees and why you seem to think full nodes should have to pay that cost?  



If you don't like the way I post, kindly "meander" your way off a cliff.  The topic is lower fees and that's what I'm talking about.  If I happen to throw in a few comments about you being a deceitful sack of excrement while I'm discussing lower fees, it's most likely due to the fact that you've earned it.  It not just about what you discuss, it's how you discuss it.  If you discuss things in an underhand way (and just in case you can't comprehend what I'm talking about, it's the "mandatory", "bypass", "stagnate bitcoin", etc you keep spouting at every available opportunity, even when it's not pertinent to the topic, and then you have the audacity to bitch about "meandering" when someone tells you you're talking a load of shit), I will call your integrity into question.  You don't get to call it meandering when you are deliberately excreting that crap into unrelated threads all over the board.

go do some research and speak to people around the world

again for the multiple time. when a fee is more than an hours labour for billion people. you wont find a billion people seeing bitcoin as interesting as other payment options that dont charge an hours labour just to move funds
tip: go to africa and ask people bitcoin or mpesa and ask why
tip: go to slavic countries that have payment(debit cards) that can be topped up at grocery stores and ask them about costs

you also brought up about dogecoin. and my reply was simply there are 2000 coins if you wanna know the pros and cons of them go research them

stop being lazy and go do some research
its obvious you dont like what i have to say, so there has come to a point i am not going to bother spoonfeed you with stuff because your attitude is not about learning its just about causing social drama

so stop wasting your own time and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

..
lowering the fee's does not cause an increase cost to full nodes.
full node users get no income. so lowering the fee does not cost full nodes any different.

secondly and separetly scaling bitcoin network does not cause significant change in cost.
again the only way to significantly change the cost of full nodes is if a significant change of throughput.
again your mindset is stuck in the myth of gigabytes by midnight for you to come to the assumption that a significant change has to happen rapidly to then cost users alot more

there are many many many many many many many many many ways to increase transaction count WITHOUT a "gigabyte by midnight" method.

go research that
you have made it clear your close minded about learning things. so thats why i have ended up just telling you to go DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

Now the Bitcoin fee transaction is very cheap. Whatever Bitcoin you send, the transaction fee you pay will be very cheap. Even sometimes not up to 1 cent.

bitcoin is supposed to be money. that doesn't mean everybody on earth must be able to afford to use it. most people can't afford to buy gold. who cares?


you're only talking about transaction fees, not resource costs. a few years before i had fiber optic internet, i had super low bandwidth limits and stopped running a node for that reason. regular users also don't buy dedicated machines just to run nodes, so we should be mindful of storage costs.


this is a strawman. the "gigabyte by midnight" method is just the extreme. any system of increasing blocksize ahead of transaction demand will drive fees towards zero. if you give people free block space (free permanent, globally distributed storage space) they will keep filling up blocks, regardless of anything else. without fee pressure, this is a tragedy of the commons situation.

I believe that your debate about the block size being the reason is not true. The Bitcoin Cash forks have big blocks, why isn't everyone scuttering to use it?


Relax and be patient. Either you change or we change. Haha.


But you should understand that you are also an "exaggerator", and you also spread the wrong information.

Who are these "buddies", what echo chamber? Echo chamber of the facts that there are no IOUs in Lightning? That Bitcoins in a Lightning channel are real Bitcoins?


He has the right to express his ideas, and opinions too, doesn't he? 8)

there are multiple reasons why altcoins dont have big adoption. doomad ranted about dogecoin but then didnt want a explanation about dogecoin. your ranting about bitcoincash, but im guessing you dont want an explanation about bitcoin cash. so ill just leave you both to do your own research if you want to know altcoins, as thats just your groups typical distraction from the topic, to get people to talk about other coins and then you both social drama some stuff about it

sticking to the topic my debate is about the fee's because i do speak to people outside this forum and they openly admit why they dont see the advantages you try to over promote/over promise about alternative networks you want people to use..


people been waiting YEARS for change. its why topics about adoption still keep being brought up daily. you can deny that people ask about it but this topics very existance proves people are asking about it. by you saying be patient, by your group saying the dvs ar 'conservative' is the one of many reasons adoption is not growing with bitcoin
show me a day where transaction counts exceeded 600k a day which is a number that has existed since 2010


a unconfirmed transaction is not a settled confirmed and fully paid payment until its confirmed. go research that.
i can send millions of unconfirmed tx's to people. and they will not treat it as payment received/settled until its confirmed.
understand the point of confirmations and immutibility. understand th point of bitcoin. understand that LN does not guarantee confirmation after closing channel. go actually speak to LN dev's about the flaws of LN. then you will see even they will say how LN is more akin to IOU than actual settled payments

as for your "buddies" you know who you are you all use the same lame excuses, same buzzwords, you all love to defend each other and you are all only intersted in not letting bitcoin network gain utility because all you care about is LN. sorry to tell you this but you and your buddies wont get to be the factories earning funds from LN. the sooner you put your personal greed aside and realise that your not helping bitcoin the sooner you will wake up to the echo's you recite

awwwwwww after months of you both trying to shut me up. as soon as i say shut up, you run to the defense and act like im attacking doomad.

in england saying 'shut up about.. ' is not a sentance demanding he should actually shut up. its a saying that there is no point in me getting involved with the meander as its so off topic/uninteresting/not the point that its just wasting peoples time.
its not demanding he should shut up. its more a reply people say when they wont respond to such

eg 'your mumma soo....".. 'shut up about my mumma' = i dont wanna talk about my mumma

but yea go play with your social drama's and distractions and meanders about un important things. ill stick to discussing real issues and who are the causes.. you can continue to play altnetwork hypotheticals and desires to push people out of bitcoin

anyway this topic yet again has meandered away from the topic and just turned into another wave finger at people.
so getting back to the topic

lowering fee's will increase bitcoin adoption. and thats not about blocksizes. its about merchant acceptance and popularity
lowering fee's will increase bitcoin adoption. and thats not about blocksizes. its about non western cultures affordability to make payments

separetly people dont need dedicated machines for bitcoin, they dont even need fibre. there are many many many many ways to increase transaction counts without the exaggerations of 'gigabytes by midnight' myth and server farms

if you lot want to continue with the whole server farm and gigabyte block exaggerations to avoid discussing bitcoin adoption/growth. then thats your decision to stay stuck in your echo chamber. but if you actually care about BITCOIN network growth/adoption/utility. then atleast try to do some research and not just repeat the same echos of years ago.

and if you really do want to promote alternative networks such as lightning. atleast research them.
and dont waste your time replying to me. just do some research

Sounds like you're feeling left out because no one is using your inane buzzwords.  Despite how often you repeat them, they just don't seem to be catching on.  Also, anyone who understands Bitcoin might argue that decentralisation and security are not "lame excuses" and are actually fundamental to the Bitcoin's success and dominance of the market.  If you would happily sacrifice those important things for the sake of saving a couple of pennies on a tx fee, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree using Bitcoin. 

Arguably, the problem stems from the way Bitcoin was promoted in the past.  It's not that lower fees would promote usage of Bitcoin, it's that Bitcoin was promoted by people on the basis that it had lower fees than sending international bank transfers with fiat.  Somehow that promotion has been warped to the point where some people think Bitcoin should have cheaper tx fees than the various altcoins out there, but that was never part of the deal. 



Say whatever you want.  We're abundantly clear about the part where you don't know how to stop, even when it's obvious you're wrong.  So by all means keep spouting crap and we'll keep telling you why it is you're wrong.  You serve as a fine example to newer forum users on how to destroy your reputation and convince everyone that you can't be trusted or taken seriously.  Hopefully they'll all learn from your many mistakes.  Keep up the sterling work! 



Are you sure it's not about blocksizes?  Because I kinda get the impression that, for you, that's all it's ultimately ever going to be about.  It's the one thing you keep coming back to.  Time and time again.  If you're now considering finally changing the record and talking about something else, I would welcome that.  It should be beyond clear by now, as numerous people have now raised the same point, that throughput has a resource cost.  Until nodes and miners are willing to bear more of that cost, throughput on the base layer is unlikely to increase by any tremendous volume.  We just have to wait for users to welcome that burden willingly.  It's not a choice anyone can make for them.  There is no stagnation in development, as work is visibly being done on many fronts to reduce the size of transactions and find new ways to use the space we have more efficiently (and this isn't "meandering" because you definitely said "stagnate bitcoin innovation" earlier in the thread.  If you bring it up, then others are free to challenge it.  That's how discussions work). 

1. i have no buzzwords. infact i have used your buddies buzzwords which you then foolishly social drama debate dont exist.
maybe its faster for you to talk to developers and get your echo chamber refreshed rather then just repeat your empty defenses. because what you are defending is comedy. the devs are happy to admit their actions so you trying to deny things happening is you defending an empty defense
2. putting funds into contracts with factories/hubs/counterparts is not decentralised. having to open channels and tie yourself to such where you can only operate when those ties are online and funded are not signs of decentralised. so your adoration of LN is not in a aim of decentralisation.
funny part is your more than happy to have millions of users having just phon apps connected to LN. knowing that LN factories would be masternodes.. yet you then flip flop argue that millions of users need to be full nodes of just one network
and how you believe that its impossible.
please take some time to do some research

3. your adoration of only wanting core to be the main team is also not a aim of wanting decentralisation. you have remained very confused for a couple years now thinking distributed nodes of the same brand=decentralisation. you need to learn what decentralisation really means
4. lowering fee's does not affect the security of the network. infact it raises the security. because if adoption grows then more people will want to use bitcoin and will actually have more diverse people not just using the distributed nodes of core. but also there would be different teams of developers making full nodes for bitcoin instead of altcoins. because they see the benefits of concentrating their talent on bitcoin rather than altcoins. thus adding brand diversity which increases decentralisation and reduces the chances of bugs that only affect one brand from impacting the entire network

the reason developers make altcoins is because of how hard it is to be a independent dev team on bitcoin.  
imagine how many teams and diverse full node brands there would be if the REKT campaigns and mandated rule changes never occured to push diversity off the network


its not warped into cheaper fee's than altcoins. its warped into more expensive fee's than the unbanked billions of people can afford. thus the RESULT of such... is that people have decided to make altcoins that are cheaper and are able to actually innovate without the core command dictating over them
the real funny part is even the core devs that want to stifle bitcoin network growth are now themselves making alternative networks. .. that there is called shooting self in the foot. or atleast a planned roadmap to push people away from using bitcoin.
even you yourself would prefer less people using the bitcoin network. you want people to use lightning or liquid or other non-bitcoin networks

you cant continue to say you want a secure network and then go advertise insecure networks and state how bitcoin cant/wont scale and how other networks are the solution.. that there is your flip floppy hypocrisy/greed of only caring about your empty and dreaming mindset that oneday you will get rich from these other networks. sorry you wont get rich from them. so put your greed aside and research the reality beyond your echo chamber, as i feel the only time you will take a step back and do some real research is when you put your greedy dreams of LN riches aside

just admit it. your echo chamber has told you that the solution to 'full node costs' is to make a separate network where full node users can make money.. and that is the the only thought that runs through your head


your defense is simply "wrong because [insult]"
you have no clue, all i have ever told you was to do your own research outside your echo chamber. if you dont like indepndant research. thats your problem
but you carry on with your insults. waste your time. many othrs would prefer to spend their time researching. and good for them. but yea you keep up with your insults. it suits you, your echoing insults ar the same as your echoing rpeats of the myths and fud you try to say when promoting Ln as great and bitcoin as broke.
th echo's of saying the same rhetoric as ben heard 3 years ago by the same group who dont care about bitcoin but are only interested in greed.


1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts without "tremendous volume".. again your stuck in the 'gigabyte by midnight mindset' ..
2. that part of your rant alone shows how you think stifle/be patient and then jump to tremendous levels is the only route.
3. miners do not bear the costof extra transactions.. go research that.. tip: buy a ASIC and a screwdriver and try to find a hard drive inside one
4.nodes bearing the cost. again get out of the gigabytes by midnight mindset. its really making you narrow minded. there are many many ways to sort it
5. in the last couple years the transaction count per HARD DRIVE byte has NOT become more efficient. go research that
6. BITCOIN NETWORK development has stagnated. the code for the last couple years has not been about bitcoins network advances, but advances to make LN a thing. LN is not a bitcoin network
7. if you think that bitcoins network has advanced and transaction counts per byte are better. show me a single day where transactions counts surpassed 600k, a number known about back as far as 2010

The subject seems to be getting heated up now.

I personally believe that we first need to improve the system behind it, Blockchain and then that idea which is in fact pretty good can be a reality.

Bigger transaction costs or bigger costs on any way will keep costumers away, since costumers constantly search for the cheapest stuffs or for something different. Bitcoin can in fact have both but it still needs to mature.

yep.
as i said before the social drama queens meandered in
instead of everyone paying a 'average' fee
if someone wanted to respend funds every 10 minutes then each of their transactions should be 144 more than someones transaction who only spends once a day. (yes its possible)
the advantage being.. even for the social drama meander group. is that it incentivises the spammers to then use LN. (thus the social drama group can then celebrate they have actual customers to feed fee's from). meanwhile letting others remain using bitcoins network without being impacted by huge fee's

it also can b done by not having bloated features onchain. but going back to simple practical lean transactions. thus the byte per tx goes back down, which then allows more transaction count in.

it also can be done by removing the washy washy code of scale witness which has always been a stupid thing. thus allowing real utility of space instead of trying to hide/fudge the numbers

oh look. no mention of me saying block sizes need to grow by "tremendous volume". and yet these things will help adoption. and also transaction throughput beyond the 600k number thats been apparent since 2010

A low transaction fee can be one of the factors which can accelerate the global adoption of Bitcoin as a mode of payment. But that said, there are several factors and the transaction fee is only one of them. Along with the high transaction fee, another concern for the users is the volatility in the transaction fees. For example, in 2019 I have paid an average of $1 for Bitcoin transactions. But this amount is not constant. I still remember paying transaction fee of $40 during the 4th quarter of 2017.