Bitcoin Forum

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

Failure is on people who don't ride the wave where the price is still cheap, I guess they can not have easy access anymore whenever it is in the forum Earning, Trading, and Investing I guess it is too hard for them to really ride this kind of opportunity, Well I don't think that the technology of Blockchain is a failure because we can see that there are other uses for it instead of just using it on Online Ledger And these companies are highly positive with the technology of Blockchain.

of course not. it was realized very early on that bitcoin couldn't scale to every possible tiny transaction. hal finney once predicted the emergence of bitcoin banks. later, the idea of "upper layer" protocols was conceived as a decentralized alternative.

anyone who thinks we can just raise block size to keep transactions cheap doesn't understand the tragedy of the commons. their greed and unwillingness to pay the real cost of transactions would be the undoing of bitcoin---if we let them.

There lot more thing you can do with bitcoin, maybe just not for a daily basis and buy something at the coffee shop. So I don't think its a failure at all, there's a lot of services I usually pay with my card and now I pay it using bitcoin, the fee is always cheaper if I pay using bitcoin.
Anyway go using lightning if you want to use send a small amount of BTC with "zero fees"

I don't know about almost zero, but I feel like cheap fees should still be a priority going forward. Cheaper fees than ones charged by third party payment processors was one of the primary selling points of Bitcoin, and Satoshi even addressed it in the introduction part of the white paper:


I don't think it necessarily has to scale to be able to accommodate microtransactions (there are workarounds after all, like LN), but at the same time should have enough use cases to remain plausible for the middle class. It could be argued that there's a price to pay for decentralization, immutability, etc., but realistically speaking, the average joe wouldn't care about that. It's difficult enough to convince people to use Bitcoin, and pricing them out with fees they would be uncomfortable with wouldn't be the best idea.

If bitcoin was a failure then how did I pay for most of what I have? How come I made something of myself? I found something I am passionate about because everything else just bores me to death.
I found a career path and a way forward to a better life. It suites me too. I don't like to go to work so working from wherever I am is such a great gift. It has made using the internet easier for me and made transactions so simple. Being paid and paying others is wonderous now. We live in a world we can earn money doing all kinds of odd weird and wonderful things. Imagine trying to explain to people of the last two generations how we make money out of "thin air" HAHAHHA those of you here long enough know exactly what I am referring to. xP

So true, that's because when bitcoin was still cheap they didn't trust it and now when bitcoin's price is soaring high again they wanted to ride the wave but I guess they are having a hard time now, and also considering the fact that mining is so hard these days that's why they say its a failure, when in fact, its not. Bitcoin market trend right now is going upward and with a lot of people having interest in bitcoin means it will increase the demands, and once the demand will increase then so its price.

They should give us an example of any technology where they pay "almost-zero fee" transactions with other payment services out there, before they can say that about Bitcoin. Everything from Diners club to credit cards to PayPal has some kind of fee structure to pay for their expenses to run that system.

The Lightning Network is the closest we will ever come to a "almost-zero fee" transaction scenario, but it is still in it's development stage to sort out some teething problems. Crypto currencies will always need some remuneration or reward system that would need to be funded by someone else to fund the transaction volume on the network.  :P

Maybe we could afford for it to be a selling point years ago when transaction demand was very low and the block subsidy was very high. Cheap transactions didn't hurt miner incentives when block rewards were 50+ BTC. That's changing. In 5 years, the block subsidy will only be ~ 3 BTC. Shouldn't fee revenue be rising to compensate miners? How long can miners be expected to subsidize users with cheap fees?

I think Satoshi was naive with some of his economic assumptions.

I probably don't know enough about the subject, so please be patient with me.

I'm not defending Satoshi, but maybe he thought that BTC's rising value (it is deflationary by design after all) would offset the loss in mining revenue of the decreasing block rewards? I mean, I'd bet that 3 BTC 5 years from now would still be a lot more valuable than 50 BTC from a few years ago. I understand that mining costs are also increasing, but isn't that what the difficulty adjustment is for? It ensures that there will always be financial incentive for miners, regardless of transaction fee revenue.

I concede that transaction fees will have to rise, and that micro transactions won't be plausible at some point anymore (nor would it indicate failure). My concern is that it still has to be cheap enough as to not be detrimental to adoption. My views may be a little too naive though (like how Satoshi's may be lol), so I would appreciate any insight.

I don't think that Satoshi expects things to happen as it is.
Nobody expects this do you even imagine 10 years before that the price would be that high ?
The things that Bitcoin has been through?

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for $20 per transaction for only vaulting it up. But is it truly a failure?


the silly thing is those that want expensive fee's go to extremes of stifling bitcoin and then blaming bitcoin for it(pretending bitcoin is AI and it stifled itself). they then go to extremes of thinking those that want regular use of bitcoin want it to buy google adsense at 0.001cent a tx

the even stranger thing is that its not even the pools that want excessive fees right now.
the even stranger thing is that when pools do rely on fee's they can set their min fee without care about blocksize

the real reality is if a tx fee is more than an hourly wage in any country. its automatically pushed that country out from viewing bitcoin as viable
entertaining alternative networks as the solution is not a bitcoin solution. its an altcoin solution

Bitcoin is not a failure, you can transact big money for just $5 compare to a banking trasactions who requires you to pay for more fees and took almost a week before your transactions done, now tell me who’s a failure? Bitcoin usage is not that high right now, because not all coffee shops accepts bitcoin so we can wait if the adoption will beging in the next years, or in the coming months. Bitcoin will succeed, its ok to fail but we will still achieve our goal in the end.

If we'll be keen and observant in the movement of Bitcoin, we could notice how things have changed that fast so considering Bitcoin as failure is really being too narrow.
We can't eliminate fees that fast and we could rely success on lowest fees. We should focus on its development and just appreciate how bitcoin works for us these days.

almost all the times when people talk about bitcoin failure they are either blinded by some altcoin advertisement that kept lying to them about their "solutions" that magically has solved every problem that bitcoin may or may not have. or they are just advertising that altcoin themselves because they are bag holding it and want to make profit.

otherwise the rest of us know that bitcoin is not perfect and it has issues but it also has a lot of advantages and good features that nothing else has and so far no altcoin could even come close to bitcoin's usability.

Should we really expect a zero-fee transactions with bitcoin? I think that it is impossible for now because every transaction has to be confirmed and each confirmation carries a cost. However, I think there is already an experiment where transaction is done P2P or from one gadget to another and the wallet is within the gadget...but I am not so sure if this can get popular. As for me, bitcoin is not successful if it is not being used or traded by the people. There is still a long story for bitcoin and I am sure that its history can last a lifetime. Judging the way it is now is not doing it justice as we are only experiencing the tip of the iceberg.

I agree, I guess they just looking some lame reasons to say something bad about bitcoin. Well, whether we like it or not there's always someone who will not be happy with bitcoin's success, as for the exact reason, I don't know. Bitcoin has far more useful to most of us and those non-sense are harmless so long as bitcoin is doing good and the price is up then it'll be good for us, it's a shame to those who judge bitcoin badly.

No, no. This is not a failure, but it is more unique to Bitcoin, because it is a digital currency and different from others. I think bitcoin is more suitable for large-scale transactions or digital transactions, but if you pay coffee with bitcoin and want zero costs. Then you can use Nano because this platform hears hearing a zero fee service. Isn't crypto not just bitcoin, so nano is more suitable for that.

If we just think at the fact that bitcoin can be used to send transactions worldwide and almost instant then this fees wouldn't seem so high. Think about what fees do banks charge for a worldwide transfer. Most of them around $15-$25 but it could go up to $50. Besides that you also have to wait at least a few hours in best case because usually it takes a few days to be processed. Now compare that with bitcoin. It's enough to pay a maximum of $5 in fees and your transactions will surely receive 6+ confirmations in less than 2-3 hours. And this is just one advantage because there are others more.

It failed on some aspects but succeded in most parts. Bitcoin effectively disrupted the financial scene, helped the unbanked gained some footing on the uneven playing field of today's economy, redistribute wealth (kinda) and a transfer of value. We might not be having little to no fees in sending bitcoin here and there, but compared to banks, bitcoin is still faster and cheaper, especially when sending in large amounts from point A to point B.

I don't think it's a failure if Bitcoin is used for big transactions, but while at good times it seems like Bitcoin might be appropriate in everyday life, once the prices are getting up and more people actually use the network, you can see how it gets different very fast. When I sell BTC for fiat to actually use it in real life, I usually pay around 2% fees. Today I sold 0.02 BTC and paid 0.0008+ in transaction fees. Paying more than $7 to send $175 seems to be an overkill. And reminds of the banking fees, if not higher, actually. And this is a problem that will only get worse with time since the more people use blockchain, the more time it takes for transactions to be confirmed and the more it costs.

The success is not related to the size of the transactions (no matter if it's in $, in coins, or in inputs/outputs/bytes), instead, the number of transactions can be considered quite a good measurement.
Of course, many transactions are done by arbitrage bots. Still by the number of voices crying when the fees go up, I'd consider Bitcoin rather successful  ;D
If the coin is not mature, too many transactions can translate into unreasonably high tx fees. Well, success and maturity are not the same thing. Success could force maturity though.


There are plenty of coins with near zero fees, just because they are not used and worth nearly nothing. Is that success? No.
So I'd say we should not relate to the standards some trolls try to impose.

Not at all! Bitcoin is the most successful project that has existed without management, advertisement, auditors or cooperate bureaucracy yet it is standing in par with Big firms like paypal, skrill or amazon in terms of capitalization. What success again do we need to see from bitcoin usage. Sending and receiving money in a brink of an eye without financial intermediaries is more than success.

Any one with such thoughts on bitcoin future is paying less attention to the bigger picture of bitcoin. Bitcoin is uses for transaction process and also to purchase goods and services yes that's very correct. But bitcoin is also an investment opportunity, bitcoin is also a medium to save funds with out facing the daily challenges of banking service. I think the future of bitcoin begins when government starts accepting bitcoin globally

Fee revenue is essential if there is a hard cap on supply. That was the whole design -- subsidize mining early on to bootstrap the network, then eventually fees will replace the subsidy. Otherwise, network security is utterly dependent on an ever-increasing price, since speculation would be required to incentivize miners. We can't simply assume that price will keep rising forever and that that is a sustainable incentive for miners. We have to consider a future where the design is more self-sufficient.

Consider a context where price is crashing for years and years rather than rising. Difficulty will adjust downwards but if block rewards are also steadily dropping (due to lack of fee revenue), we could see downspiraling hash rates to the point where the network becomes insecure and loses its Byzantine fault tolerance.


This is all a big experiment. The whole idea of "cryptoeconomics" is brand new, and the whole field of economics isn't scientific. We all have different opinions about how things might work out in the future.

My primary emphasis is on the mining incentive, because it's the supreme building block of the entire system. From my perspective, we can't plan on never-ending price increases nor exponentially increasing adoption. But we can ensure that strong mining incentives remain -- at least relative to the system's native currency, if not fiat currency value -- by ensuring that increased transaction demand nets higher block rewards.

If we let mining incentives bleed away to nothing by increasing block sizes -- while still retaining a hard cap on supply -- I don't see a bright future for Bitcoin.

No, it isn’t. Which transaction has zero fee then and now by the way? You take money from ATM, is it free? You pay something with visa card, it is free of service? You wire money from one end to another, is it free? It isn’t a failure, people who know the real advantages of bitcoin will not be convinced it is a failure.

I thought.  that's a small problem.  Coffee does not determine BTC failure.  the reality is BTC can recover from bearish.  and from 2009 until now BTC still survives and has given large profits to many people.  and in my opinion, the development of BTC until today is part of the success of BTC.

pools DO NOT need to have blocksizes stiffled/cut short to play around with supply and demand. they can simply raise or lower the price of admission to a block. a block does not need to be full or empty to pass any test.


imagine a public transport bus of 30 seats. imagine to pay the driver, diesel, etc was $112.50 for a 10 minute journey whethr the bus was full or empty. without any government grants or separate reward. a full bus would need to charge $3.75 a journey per passenger.

now if there were more people getting onboard. do you think a bus company would rip out 15 seats and charge bus passengers $7.50...
OR just charge more because there was more demand
OR make the busbigger to allow 60 seats and only charge $1.88

now if there were less people getting onboard because they chose to use the LN public train. do you think a bus company would rip out 15 seats and charge bus passengers $7.50...  OR make the busbigger to allow 60 seats and only charge $1.88 to incentivise people back to using the bus at cheaper rate

poos dont need to keep blocks low or decrease blocksizes to force people to pay more. pools can just reject users that dont pay an amount a pool sets as minfee no matter the size or occupancy of a block is.

That's why people would give their huge trust into Bitcoin rather than in altcoins even ETH. We know it potentiality to lead the market and still, it proven so many times. If you are a wise investors, better to give more in bitcoins cause it surely making more pumps especially when there is a huge increase of users and cause high demand in the market.

Nobody cares about the interests of pools. I surely don't. The reason I care about maintaining adequate miner incentives is not for the benefit of pools. It's so that confirmations remain reliable and Bitcoin is able to sustain Byzantine fault tolerance. In other words, it's to ensure "honest mining."

I have no interest in letting miners decide the block size. They can easily sacrifice the long term health of the system for their own short term gains. This is why we have consensus rules -- to ensure they have no ability to do that.

If block size limit is larger than transaction demand, fees will always tend towards zero. That's very simple economics. Since the block subsidy is already heading towards zero, that would mean block rewards will tend towards zero. That's completely unsustainable in a system that is designed to rely on rationally incentivized "honest mining." You can't remove the incentive and expect miners to stay honest.

Of course it's not a failure, but I like to keep in mind if the taxes were almost zero for coffee transactions it would be much more successful.
It's a mistake to fake everything is perfect just to avoid critics. It's necessary to listen what are people concerns about bitcoin to try to fix and improve these points, always aiming the excellence.

I see. I was always under the impression that block rewards were supposed to be the compensation, and transaction fees were cherry on top. I also read somewhere some time ago that the sheer number of transactions at mass adoption would continue to make mining viable even at low fees and no block rewards, but I guess prices trending down does complicate that. It's looking like a lot of the early ideas have been short-sighted.

I guess everything does make sense though, considering the fact that we're looking into off-chain solutions for scaling. I just thought that the game plan was always to keep on-chain transactions relatively cheap (i.e. still very viable for people who prefer on-chain transactions), though that does defeat the purpose of trying to move bulk of the transactions off-chain.

It is not a failure because even if it had the cheapest fee it would still not be possible to use bitcoin to pay for a worldwide coffee because of the lack of cryptos laws. We focus a lot on the issue of low rate, high adoption and high prices. but we ignore the probation of governments (laws for cryptos). We have to have influential politicians who like cryptos and who can pass good laws for cryptos.

both block rewards and fees are the compensation but now that each block is giving miners $100k+, fees aren't and should not be for compensation.

as for second layer, in order for it to work the underlying layer (meaning the on-chain transactions) need to be cheap otherwise nobody can open up a channel if it costs $50 to do so.

That's exactly what I thought too. I guess it just boils down to compromise of cheap-enough fees and good-enough miner support. It probably won't be cheap enough for a single cup of coffee, but should be viable enough for not-so-smallish transactions.

Then is Bitcoin truly a failure? Without meandering, and the social drama, tell us directly. Because your reply hints that it's a "failure", but the reality is going against the people, like you, that say it.

Going to the other side, without the social drama, would you say that the Bitcoin forks with bigger blocks, and almost-zero fees are truly "successful"?

What constitutes "cheap"?

Once we establish that, I guess we can talk about the economic implications and how it affects the design. I strongly believe that the sustainability of the system has to be the top priority, much more important than cheap fees.

All manner of economic and scaling designs should be tested. If cheap fees (with regard to "the masses") are truly important, there's an abundance of Bitcoin copycats with bigger blocks and cheaper fees. I suspect that Bitcoin's value stems from elsewhere than cheap fees though, and that there will be strong demand for Bitcoin's block space even at orders of magnitude higher fees than seen today.

Bitcoin main chain is not suitable for coffee and micro transactions. Several hundreds of thousands of such transactions perday could lead to serious congestion.
This is why we have Lightening Network , though not very usable at the moment. Hopefully when it becomes usable, it will handle the small transactions mostly while bitcoin Main chain handles mostly the large ones.

Bitcoin isn’t without its fair share of problems, no rational person would deny that. But it would be parochial to conclude that bitcoin as a project has failed in its entirety. Bitcoin fails on two accounts, as both a stable store of value, and as a convenient medium of exchange. This is a far cry from the intention of its creator, who had in mind a vision of a convenient peer-to-peer electronic cash system–a stable form of payment.

If in spite of the great popularity of bitcoin and the great price it has reached these days, it has not yet being used massively in real life, maybe there is some truth in those who claim that the original bitcoin project has failed, especially when we observe that the bitcoin market has fallen into the hands of speculators, who seem to be the only ones who decide the course that the cryptoeconomy will take in the medium term.

If its a failure then we wont see on how big the community is as of this moment.It might miss some expectations in terms of payment options but it do have some revolutionary benefits that
other things cant provide.

Then they need to learn more about bitcoin because bitcoin needs that fee to make the network running and with the fee, it will also give support for the network to stay for a long time.
Besides that, the fee is something that is included in the transaction whether we like or not, and the fees are the part of the transaction itself.
Besides that, it doesn't make sense that you can get more bitcoin in many ways, but you don't want to pay the fee.
And I think that is a failure if they think like that.

to address the second point.. your derailing into th social drama of altcoins.. (you keep trying to do this) stay on point please
but to quickly brush over it. if a coin has utility where people want to use it and are happy then its not a failure.
most forks are not popular because they dont have the merchant acceptance and so although theres more buffer(more technical potential) the potential does not reveal success or failure.


the bitcoin technology works fine.
a hashed block has enough strength to give people trust that it makes it hard/near impossible for another party to re-org a fresh chain quickly/easily. thus people will trust if something is confirmed, they can relax and treat it as such,

what people dont realise is there is nothing that commands, enforces that a certain transaction should get included under guarantee.
no fee, no format, no rule ensures a transaction is guaranteed to be confirmed.
mining pools make the decision of what they want to put into a block. they could leave a block empty, or fill it with zero fee's and ignore transactions with fee's.

for instance BTCC had an exchange and for the BTCC exchange withdrawals the BTCC pool would add those transactions in at zero fee and prioritise them. thus ignoring random transactions in the network even if fee's were high. that was their choice.

pools do not ned to fill blocks. they can simply have half filled blocks and set min fee at say 666sats a byte.. or fill a block with an average of 333sats a block to get the same end total value

trying to presume that blocks need to stay at 1mb legacy just to push fee's up is bad economics of HUMANS and nothing to do with bitcoin tech.
bitcoin tech can sort out fee issues without the need to stifle blocksizes.
bitcoin tech can sort out fee issues when pools decide they need income from fee's

right now at an average of 25c a tx 3000 tx=$75
pools wont waste time filling blocks with transactions of 25c if the delay of doing so risks gtting their $100,000 reward
pools would rather empty block if they could to gaina few second advantage to win the $100k rather than fill blocks.

pools only fill blocks for personal moral reasons of putting something into blocks will keep users happy to continue using bitcoin so they have users to buy their $100k reward.
they dont care about fee's as an income. and wont care for decades.
what they do care about is if users are forced into paying too much just to make a transaction that they no longer want to use bitcoin and thus no one wants to buy bitcoin from pools

Those who truly understand the nature of Bitcoin will not question about such fee.
We are already paying all sorts of fees in every single item that we purchased, and we are not complaining about it.
Bitcoin transaction is very transparent, the reason why we can immediately see the fees unlike our everyday expenses, fees are integrated with them already that we couldn't see the real value of the item.

I am not gonna say that Bitcoin has failed to be a micro transactions currency, but i say there is a large for improvements, maybe now it is not as noticeable since the market is still stable and there is not as much transactions in the blockchain, but back in 2017 when the the price skyrocketed people went crazy and so were the fees, and you had to pay like 10$ for 1$ transaction and if you don't your transaction would take for hours and hours to be confirmed, it did die out after the price started going down again in 2018 but who says that it won't happen again, if we really want bitcoin to thrive and be considered as a payment method like in the real world at local shops and restaurants, we need to find a solution to that.

Why can't you answer, and always accuse me of "meandering", or "derailing", or doing "social drama"? I want to know your opinion.


Of course there is, game-theoretically the fees do. If a miner or a pool ignores this fact, other miners and pools will take advantage of it, and kill the other miner or pool that ignores.


I believe Antpool used to do it, but why? 8)

wright!

Apart from being positive that Bitcoin will be used for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions at some point in the future, I want to focus on what BTC is good for right now. Think of the biggest trucks in the world, such as Caterpillar 797B, Hitachi EH5000, Liebherr T 282 B and others.

https://i.imgur.com/Soanp89.png

If you will try to deliver pizza on them, your business will fail obviously. But are those trucks a  failure? No.

My point is that today's Bitcoin can be compared to those powerful trucks in a sense that it is a very good tool for massive, over $1,000, transactions, especially when they are transnational ones.

You can't judge bitcoin's success because of this zero fee thing because that is not how cryptocurrencies work. They probably find failure because they can't make something out of bitcoin because they are probably buying at a high price and complains when it is low. And I don't understand this fee thing. I mean, is the fee too high? I don't think it is too high and we are already dealing with fees even without cryptocurrency.

You make a great point there. Right now Bitcoin is used by institutions storing or transfering huge amounts of value. Also it is used even more for speculation. Most people and institutions that own Bitcoin prefer not to spent it, but instead hold it in their hardware wallet and have it probably buried in their backyard.

We talk about pizza day and every single time we have to count the Bitcoin's spent in today's dollar value. Everyone is actually claiming that you should not use Bitcoin but store it instead. From my point of view Bitcoin is not store of value. It is not a piece of art that will be sold at an auction.

The purpose of any currency is transfer of value for exchange of goods. In the case of Bitcoin it is digital money. Bitcoin is obviously deflationary, meaning prices of goods become cheaper in time as they cost less and less Bitcoins. So people think they should store it instead of spenting it. This is not adoption though. This is just speculation. Without people using Bitcoin we cannot see a major shift in public view in favour of us. For real adoption to happen we need to be able to buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin, without paying double its price and waiting in que for the transaction to confirm.

I have high hopes that we have a few of the best developers working for this. Otherwise I would have just kept speculating about price and not even caring.

only problems that cannot be used for payments cause people to think that bitcoin has failed. I see this is not fair, right now bitcoin will still continue to be a good one and for that maybe in the future bitcoin will be more effective to use.

I think bitcoin has more uses than just for small transactions, bitcoin has other uses as assets, so I never thought bitcoin failed.

It's really hard to point to a number, but I'm thinking the highest we could go is just enough so that the average person can open a channel or two weekly without really affecting their savings. It could be thought of as a small utility bill or something that doesn't impact monthly budgeting in a significant way.


It currently seems to be heavily fueled by speculation -- people pay the fees because they'll be able to make that and more. I'm not sure if I believe that would be sustainable. It doesn't feel like many value Bitcoin's other intrinsic qualities at the moment.

It is not failure. It is the circumstances that we need to accept. There is no free in this world and we have to take the consequences. There are some people who hardly accept that their is a particular fee in every transactions. If we just consider it as a tax, then we can just go on. Buy a coffee with fee. Anyway, we can purchase other than coffee like things that is very useful for us. People have different views about bitcoin as a payment but my point of view is that bitcoin is developing and is now successful in many ways.

one interesting thing to consider is what bitcoin might be replacing. right now, people save money in fiat like USD which is quickly devalued through inflation, which per keynesian theory keeps the monetary system healthy and liquid. in fact, inflation is how bitcoin is currently secured. in the future though, we'll be paying the cost of bitcoin's deflation/fixed supply in the form of fees. besides inflation and fees, there are other possible incentive systems for decentralized security too like demurrage.

but no matter what system you choose, the cost will be significant. the USD inflation rate has been as high as 10-20% annual before. bitcoin's current inflation rate is ~3-4% annual. freicoin's demurrage fees amount to 5% annual. 


that's true to an extent, but we can't ignore that overall usage is growing. during the 2018 bear market, the number of crypto users nearly doubled. (https://cointelegraph.com/news/number-of-crypto-users-nearly-doubled-in-2018-study-says) that's impressive during a time when speculators are being flushed out of the market.

Then can the mining pools in Bitcoin Cash raise the fees to support themselves/miners after two halvings? If the answer is yes, and the no. of transaction volume on-chain doesn't improve, then why did they need to split away from the main chain, and increase the block size to 32mb?

No social drama. I am simply curious of their mindset.

It seems that Bitcoin is developing more slowly than many would like. It is much more conservative than other coins, and this seems to be its peculiarity. He is still waiting for new solutions, including its scalability, and it is very difficult to judge in which direction its further development will go. For the time being, we don’t need to hurry and make premature conclusions.

That's true, but I was alluding to the assumption that not many people other than speculators are indifferent to high fees. If fees must truly be expensive (to the degree that the average person would feel burdened by opening a channel), then I imagine that kills a lot of Bitcoin's use cases and flushes out a lot of legitimate users with it.

I agree that cheap fees will have to take a back seat to network security, but shouldn't be neglected at the same time. The network could be the most secure on the planet, but if only a handful can comfortably use it, I'd say it has failed.

That is also how I used to see the blockchain rewards, as a reward for finding the next block and solving the puzzle and helping to verify transactions,,, and the fee was what people would pay to say to the miners, here here's my tip.

I do wonder about mass adoption transactions, because that needs lightning network since blocks will be too full anyway or do you mean fee price wars?

Then would you truly believe that the best path forward would be to risk the whole network to do the hard fork to bigger blocks to lower fees? How big?

Fees will be the main source of income for the miners. Bitcoin Cash will soon see that Bitcoin's model is the correct path forward. Wait for the next halvings next year. 8)

No clue yet, and I already did say that network security should be prioritized. If we had any idea what the appropriate size should be, then people would already be talking about it. I might be misreading you, but if you think a hard fork for bigger blocks isn't in the pipeline already, you're incorrect. Even the Lightning Network white paper calls it necessary:


I believe in side chain solutions, but I also believe those side chain solutions should be within reach of the general public. As pooya87 said earlier in the thread, if it costs $50 to open a LN channel, then it probably won't work as intended. It's all well and dandy that miners are getting their share, but I am of the opinion that we need to find a sweet spot where everyone's happy enough with what they're paying/getting.

Hopefully we'll find some middle ground between here and there.

Do you remember that post from Hal Finney, where he predicted the emergence of Bitcoin banks because Bitcoin couldn't scale to all the world's transactions? I think he was onto something there. I think we're going to see a multitude of off-chain solutions -- some of which are custodial and trust-based, as antithetical as that is to "being your own bank." Some of these options will make interfacing with Bitcoin affordable for those who can't afford on-chain transactions.

Absolutely no. There is no perfect in this world we all know that and also in the crypto world for sure.  Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will always have flaws but we still manage to provide a solution into it.
Those people who still don't believe in bitcoin, they will regret not buying any crypto.

In my opinion bitcoin for many is still very new, and many people who still don't believe in bitcoin don't even know what bitcoin is, programs need to be made to make everyone aware of the true value. The economics of bitcoin. Then bitcoin is really valuable and easy to use.

No one has a clue, that's the point. Hard forks are dangerous because they are not inclusive. Plus Bitcoin Cash developers thought they had a clue, then why are their blocks almost empty? Why did some people in that community thought a split to Bitcoin Cash SV was a good idea? It set a bad precedent.

With Bitcoin, there are misaligned expectation and misaligned usage as well which led to the scam, therefore, to understand BTC usage in an appropriate manner is important.

If the commission is so insignificant that the buyer can not even think about the purchases made, then of course the use of Bitcoin will increase significantly. But did you ask yourself whether miners will be satisfied with such commissions for mining blocks? I think not. Mining will become unprofitable and then the existence of bitcoins will be under threat. Of course, if they come up with a solution that can reduce the cost of transactions and miners do not suffer, then this will resolve the issue and everyone will be satisfied

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still can't understand why do people pay so much attention to transaction fees in regards to miners' reward, forgetting about the block reward?

The block reward is 12.5 BTC currently and right now it is the equivalent of 98,500 USD. Now, since recently, the Average Number Of Transactions Per Block is around 2,400, and you can pay $1.34 for a fast transaction, but not everyone pays that amount, and I think we can safely assume that it's $1 per transaction, on average, and that means that miners are getting around $2,400 per block in transaction fees. Now, compare $98,500 and $2,400, and tell me isn't the latter amount kind of insignificant? $2,400 is still a big amount, no doubt about that, but, theoretically, miners would accept even txs with zero fee in order to just get the block reward, right?

If you can make huge profit, store up assets, transact money online and been your own boss. What other success do you want to get with bitcoin? No more expectations from bitcoin because it has been providing and giving me all I ever needed.

the bitcoin usage projection is widening which was originally intended for electronic transactions now goes beyond the expectations of its creators to become an investment tool. I am sure the creators did not think so far if the transaction fee burden became large when the market capitalization was high. as the end user a large fee always a complaint at this time, this is not a bitcoin failure design if fees are expensive when the market demands are large. because the miners' do a transactions are also quite high, and we cannot continue to reduce costs to zero they also need a life ecosystem.

A misconception may hinder the desire to use and find that bitcoin is really special. The regulations are increasingly expanding, amplifying models of payment since there is bitcoin. Many places accept bitcoin and it confirms the superior advantages of bitcoin / crypto for the future. And it's amazing, you'll realize when there's bitcoin, life becomes more sparkling and attractive.

i will agree that bitcoin has failed if everyone now reject it especially for another successful coin. but by now i believe it is the users that has failed in their appropriate use of it.if you say bitcoin has fail,OK which coin has succeeded? ???

At first you have to make that huge profit. The problem with this generation is that they spend too much time thinking on what they will do when they become rich and in doing so waste time which they could have used to become successful. We talk about bitcoin governance forgetting the basics of how crypto works. Dreaming of huge volumes of money being made in your name is possible but its not something that will happen with just buying some bitcoin.

Whales made money because they had money already at hand, fiat indeed. They used it to manipulate markets and then make money from them.

They probably didn't do the right thing in cryptocurrency world that is why they kept on saying that it is a failure and having some expectations. I don't see a bitcoin as a failure because there is a great technology behind it and you can profit a lot from it if you just do the right thing to earn profit. By not having enough research, you can also lose a lot of money.

It's hard to talk about the economics of the system when everybody is focusing on cheap fees or looking at the price.

I agree with you, sustainability is the top matter on Bitcoin, just look what happened with this bear market it lasted only 522 days and a lot of retailers stopped mining bitcoin.

That could lead to losing our byzantine fault tolerance, thank god that didn't happen, but what could happen in a different scenario with less reward per block?

A piece of code that is currently trading at 10,000 USD is surely not a failure. I agree with members saying here that we have to wait for a while for BTC adoption rate to go up and with that surely its fee will also go down.

I don't think that Bitcoin should be considered a failure just because fees are high, but what is worrying me is that userbase grows so slowly, that speculation/hodling is still the biggest use-case. We like to talk how Bitcoin is going to be a store of value, but people don't even use it as store of value in any significant volume, everyone wants to just get rich quick, but to maintain growth we need strong fundamentals, and while we have good theoretical fundamentals, they for some reason don't translate well into userbase growth.

how fast would you expect the userbase to grow? by some metrics, it doubled in the first 3 quarters of 2018. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/ranks-of-crypto-users-swelled-in-2018-even-as-bitcoin-tumbled) and that's during a bear market.

speculation/hodling is inevitable given bitcoin's scarcity and potential utility. people are gonna hoard bitcoin the same way they hoard gold. there's no way around it.

Pokemon Go reached 1 billion downloads in two years, Facebook, which is only 4 years older than Bitcoin, has 2.4 billion active users, Twitter, which is the same age as Bitcoin has 330 million active users.
Bitcoin needs to have exponential user growth to get on par with those mass products, which it actually might do at some point.



I don't have anything against speculation and hoarding, but the "money" use-case, which is the goal of Bitcoin, is in minority compared to speculation, which is not a good thing.

Paid $3 for a transaction recently and confirmed within <10 minutes although the fee varies depending on how crowded the blockchain but it's quite affordable if we take into an account the fact that the fee will stays that much if the transaction size is not too big regardless the amount of money we send. With bank, well be ready to be charged so much.

What Bank are you using that are charging $3 per transaction?  ::)  Just remember that $3 per transaction might not sound like a lot of money to people living in 3rd world countries, but $3 per transaction for people in 3rd world countries are VERY expensive.  ::)

A lot of Banks give you X amount of transactions for FREE and once those are completed you start paying for individual fees. In my opinion most Bitcoin transactions must cost between $0.25 to $0.50 to be affordable for most people and below $0.10 for micro transactions.  ;)

Bitcoin can only misalign expectations because it is not stable yet. And this is also why the price keeps fluctuating, but that doesnt mean that Bitcoin usage is not good. It is something that exists now for a long time, it is restoring power of price slowly, while people keep talking and being afraid of going to cryptos. The transaction fees are something that should come down, but it is not that linear becaus this is money, everyone is greedy  and wants to earn something. But if BTC get stable, that would also reduce.

That's right, I think at a cost of no more than $ 5 with the number of transactions being already cheap enough. I also don't think that bitcoin will replace fiat, so you can still buy coffee with fiat. Bitcoin was not created to replace any currency, bitcoin was created as a p2p transaction innovation.

bitcoin as a store of value is great, like art and stocks , but i would not use it for transactions since its not very fast compare to the compitition,

This reason alone cannot be enough to say btc has failed. Sometimes we wish btc is more scalable but that does not mean we should despise all the other functions and say byc is a failure.
Moreover, failure to me is individually defined and so such individuals can keep on riding on the fact that btc is a failure and refuse to jump in

Negative reviews will always be. And they will certainly find something to argue their opinion. Those nuances that are not considered critical for many, for the haters of crypto will be very significant. Everyone chooses for himself what he likes crypto for or not to love. Just stick to your opinion and do not pay attention to those who want to impose their own.

I don't think there's a big problem with bitcoin. Perhaps when that is in the future it will become a stable currency and its transaction fees will not be so large. We don't know what he's capable of or what the future holds.

Those platforms are free. Bitcoin has financial barriers to entry -- that should be expected to hamper its adoption by orders of magnitude vs. free platforms. Those platforms also didn't exactly need to bootstrap a network from scratch like Bitcoin. They were built on exponentially growing technology trends (smartphone and social media adoption) that tapped into already existing gamers and social media users.


The adoption rate of any given technology only goes vertical one time. It hasn't happened yet for Bitcoin, but looking at the ongoing trend and changing popular attitudes over the past ten years, I'd say we're approaching that point.

This article's take on Libra, the Facebook coin is kinda bleak. This is just the first step in the war against, open protocol electronic currency.

The catch is with Libra, the fast transactions and that speed advantage and the user base of Facebook will make for interesting times indeed!

I myself, am wondering, IF, BTC will continue to be a 'store of value' under such a shadow. I mean how hard can it be for Facebook to say, keep so much Libra

and you will get a % interest paid out on Libra and/or staking? The $10 million dollar node setup for Libra (see article link below) means ALL transaction fees, etc goes to the operator of the

$10 million dollar nodes. Like Visa and Mastercard.

So, we knew this was coming, but I wonder if anyone in the crypto world and/or the bitcoin devs or altcoin devs (of any flavor) really can compete and/or compensate

promoting BTC or whatever against this juggernaut?

https://hackernoon.com/libra-a-cyberpunk-nightmare-in-the-midst-of-crypto-spring-5543b6f6e34b (https://hackernoon.com/libra-a-cyberpunk-nightmare-in-the-midst-of-crypto-spring-5543b6f6e34b)

well that was the point. facebook isn't creating libra in the interests of users and libra isn't decentralized. it's a centralized ploy so a few huge financial service companies can tap the global remittance market and reap profits.


i see no competition. libra is just a centralized stablecoin. it's tether 2.0. it doesn't compete with bitcoin's store-of-value, censorship resistance, speculative investment, etc use cases.

Adoption is coming.
After Facebook entering these grounds, before that Samsung & Huawei implementing crypto wallets on their phones, everything started to change and Bitcoin started to receive the attention which he deserves, other cryptocurrencies also.

Whole Australia makes a move to add bitcoin ATM's, payment systems and it is suiting them well for now.
People are starting to understand the decentralization and moving toward it.

I'd say it goes beyond the financial barrier.  It seems like many people aren't ready to overcome the mental barriers they've spent a lifetime building up.  Even when some do take an interest in Bitcoin, they don't use it in the way it was intended.  Many of them go straight for a webwallet or exchange to store their funds because they can't begin to comprehend a world where they are responsible for the security of their wealth.  And the vast majority of the world's population haven't even made it that far yet.  It's like as a species, generally speaking, we don't know how to function without a middleman holding our hand. 

True adoption on a large scale is going to take time.  People have a lot to learn, or unlearn, as it were.  Bad habits aren't broken easily.

In any case, in order to fully use cryptocurrency in everyday life, you need not only knowledge and access to resources for all of humanity, but also you need to think about the appropriate infrastructure.  I understand that it is very difficult to break bad habits, but I think that everyone noticed the fact that humanity is very quickly learn everything that makes life easier for him.  All High Technologies that became available over the last fifty years were perceived very quickly.  I hope that the same situation will be with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

I dont get it why you think that transaction fees are going to become smaller. If more people start using bitcoin there will also be more people mining bitcoin. This will increase the competition among miners and they will fight for hashpower. This will not decrease the miner fees but increase in my opinion because people will try to squeeze in money as small as possible to get their transaction done.

Truely speaking bitcoin is not a failure. It has done something that traditional monetary system could not do and thus it stands out. We should try to contribute to its constructive criticism more than making FUD on it.

Exactly.  The only thing Bitcoin fails at is fitting neatly into people's preconceived notions about how it should work.  And rightly so.  It challenges their existing views, so they attempt to judge it by metrics it will never conform to and they willfully declare it a failure because it doesn't match up with their limited understanding.

Bitcoin isn't a failure. If it really is, bitcoin wouldn't survive this long.

      Everyone has have different perspective about bitcoin and some people are already criticise bitcoin because they think this is not successful since this have not been use for payment like coffee with free transaction fee , and I think this is not the  only way of determining factor of the success of bitcoin.

Because the "white paper", the Roger Ver, and the big blocker propaganda. They fraudulently make newbies believe that the solution is simply to increase the block size, but without pointing out that it centralizes the network. It also requires a hard fork, which is another problem.

A problem for them, anyway.   :D

What I don't get is that it should be the easiest concept in the world to grasp.  If those securing the chain agree, it happens.  If those securing the chain don't agree, it doesn't happen.  But somehow they can't comprehend it.  There apparently has to be someone to blame for the simple fact they want something those securing the chain don't.  Why are some people incapable of understanding that their view isn't necessarily of interest to all the other people on this chain?  And why can't they be content with their own chain that the rest of us aren't a part of?  Then they could entertain whatever insanity they like.

If their ideas were really as good as they claimed, it would have happened by now.  But no, it's definitely a conspiracy of devs controlling the network.   ::)

They'll never learn.

Based upon your description in bitcoin`s failure. My premises are:

If bitcoin is not successful because it is not a "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions;
Ethreum and other altcoins are also a failure,
Exchanges are not also success.
Cryptocurrency is nothing.

Well, that is a kind of misaligned expectations. Many people think that the primary concern of bitcoin is to have zero fee transaction. We never meet that because bitcoin was created in order to be mined. Eventually, miners make some fees in order for them to be compensated. Bitcoin is successful because it created an industry wherein there is a equilibrium.

I do not know who there may be considered an unsuccessful Bitcoin ;D It seems that the numbers speak for themselves as well as the popularity of Bitcoin.
Speaking about the Blockchain technology, we can say that it is already used in some well-known world companies and is only gaining its popularity every day.

It isn't a failure but there needs to be some advancement to make flexibility with the fee on some services or on any business. When we're buying a coffee worth $1 and $2 worth transaction fee then it is a failure. There are some occasions, that have caused people to experience such transactions. Further such kind of transaction should not take place relative to the service we get in exchange of bitcoin.

That's a really good point. Nothing in this world would be a failure unless it ceases to exist. (even you)

Bitcoin is not perfect. We did indeed expect that Bitcoin would replace fiat as a currency to buy things we need, give a paycheck, etc. But what some people don't realize now is that Bitcoin won't be the same as fiat. Bitcoin is its own currency. It has its own system. If they want something similar like fiat, why bother having an alternative? Bitcoin may not be as what we expected it to, but at least it has successfully fulfilled its main purposes.

That's the point about "misaligned expectations." Whether it's economical to buy coffee with was never the proper metric to gauge its success. The only reason on-chain transactions were viable years ago for micropayments was because adoption was so nascent; not many people were using Bitcoin yet. Now that adoption has grown so significantly, demand for block space is understandably much higher.

Ideally in the future, there will be many different protocols or applications with varying security models -- some offchain, some with varying degrees of trust or centralization -- and the cost to use these platforms will reflect their security model. With a fully centralized model like Flexa, customers pay zero fees for POS transactions. They just need to pay for one on-chain transaction fee to fund their Flexa/Spedn wallet. Would you want to keep all your bitcoins in Spedn? Of course not. But you could load it with a couple hundred bucks worth of bitcoins like a prepaid card or a checking account and the risk isn't a big deal.

Lightning is obviously a superior model, though it'll be a while before its usability is adequate for mainstream consumers.

To a certain extent, that is considered a failure because the goal of Satoshi Nakamoto in creating Bitcoin was to provide a form of payment first and foremost. The payment has to be in the form of digital cash and is to be done on a peer-to-peer basis. But if we cannot buy a cup of coffee, which could represent the entire idea of payment, with Bitcoin then there must be something wrong. Something must have gone out of the right path so to speak. If the transaction fee is almost equal to that of a cup of coffee, it simply isn't right.

That's basically it. There are some groups of people in the Bitcoin community who want the Core developers, the developers who are the most competent and has the best interest of Bitcoin in mind, out.

They tried it twice with Roger Ver's BitcoinCash hard fork, and then the New York Agreement. The community didn't follow them, they lost.

Its not bad because people think it to be bad. We humans have a bad habit of thinking everything new to be the next magic pill while the concept of magic pill itself is a fantasy and not reality. So people think bitcoin to be the source of everything good and that it will correct every problem in the economy. This is a wrong expectation as the OP has tried to express.

Paying for coffee? Use fiat for that, if you are not comfortable with bitcoin transaction fee. The two of them are not supposed to be opposite but to complement each other.

Hey

First it was the Segwit integrated wallet which gave us varied number of options to decrease our fee and then again after a year or so we saw the lightning network which for a very minimal fee transfers and receives the money most often instantly.
I think this fee is purely justified , since even the wallets needs some initial investments to rely their security settings continuously.

Other than that maybe we could just in the future have some card or something which can do the transactions without any payment and almost instantly.

Maybe, but i still consider from my point of view that it will be a problem in the future. It might not be at all, but we could consider asking more questions about it and considering some options to implement in the mid-term if necessary. At the end, the team makes the decisions but the inspiration can come from the least expected places.

For now sure not the huge problem but eventually those little everyday transactions will need to be made possible without paying twice only because of the fees.

not if it stays a store of value

the catch is with facebook libra my view is will it stay a few years from now, a store of value?

my own thoughts are that if LIBRa as an example works and is stable, that Facebook will make another coin, specifically for a store of value to displace bitcoin

every cartoon I've ever seen with evil villains has me sure of this point, that is how this always works!

but Libra and Facebook claim to have the speed and pockets to make libra the internet centralized currency of choice..even if they are not directly hurting bitcoin now

as so success of Bitcoin in the future to your point, yeah, the status of only being a 'store of value' like gold is somewhat limiting indeed to being a currency

what do I know?

Brad

Only uneducated people would think that. Bitcoin is not a simple tool. Not everyone is able to understand how it works and not everyone can appreciate the true purpose and benefit of bitcoin in the future.

It depends on what basis one considers. As far as I am concerned, I don't think Bitcoin is not successful. But I also admit that its success is rather limited. If the real goal of Bitcoin is to be used as a currency then there is some failure in it because people, I mean the really huge majority, prefer to HODL it and not even spend a Satoshi. I am not sure but that might prod Satoshi Nakamoto himself to think whether there is something wrong with how Bitcoin evolved over time.

The economy is changing with new roles once in political portfolios every time so new amendments with the legal acts and rules in banking history is making many bitcoin users in a huge pause. At the end one is not willing to keep themselves in a sorrow situation.

i am hodler myself but i still do love to use bitcoin as a currency though the problem is that the fees were a bit expensive even on a small service/item that ill be buying online  . im sure that that is also the problem of other bitcoin users but when it comes to hodling i have no problem with that  . at the end of the day i can still say that bitcoin is succesful because its now popular  . if there is a miss aligned expectations , that is its price because people expect that its price can grow really high  .

Even though it had soared, the value of Bitcoin and other digital currencies increased. Although many parties are skeptical of the future of Bitcoin, few people are still awaiting great hopes in the digital currency. We will not be able to predict whether Bitcoin will last until when. What is certain is the price of Bitcoin is in harmony with the demand. The more people who use Bitcoin, the greater the value. bitcoin will continue to last with the development of technology, and many countries have used bitcoin for buying and selling transactions such as Japan, Korea and China. And it has also been widely used by many large companies in the world.

Its not about being uneducated. Its human nature to deny logic at times when it is being bitter to them. It gradually becomes acceptance as time progresses and they see a bigger picture. No human in this world would want to put their money in something that does not have a use case - its a simple fact. They know for sure that bitcoin being FUDed by the government makes its all the more reason to stay away from it.

So they tend to invest into other things. However it is true that they fail to appreciate the expectations and thus make blind expectations for the future.

Success comes with time, btc is on the process of being seen as successful, and judging from where btc is coming till date it will be very bias to call it a failure either, rome was not built in a day, it is a long road ahead but surely btc will get.

Nothing in life is free. The bank you invest on collect charges for storing up your money and atm maintenance fee. Government do collect money for tax also. Running transaction in bitcoin there are people who are managing and maintaining it,won't the get payed at the end. Free stuffs are not valued. We all have to pay in something in return for job well-done.

Sometimes it depends on who gets to the newbies first. There's a constant misinformation campaign against Bitcoin, and they're very good in gaslighting.

Bitcoin has taken its time to grow and become something that people are scared to talk against. So this fear makes them talk bad about it and spread false propaganda for their own gains. Those who want to analyze this should do their own research and not listen to what people commonly say. But that is lacking in 99% of the people in any area.

So our work is to make sure the newbies get the proper information. I think that is what a forum is for and even though you wont able to make everyone happy those who want to know more about it will seek out the correct information.

The point is that people are often exposed to campaigns that show Bitcoin as a tool for easy money over night. Even here on forum. There are lot of misleading and false information and when people who don't know anything about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies come to that the result could be very wrong.
There is no such thing as free lunch and the same is with Bitcoin. Sometimes I.think that many still don't have clear and precise picture about Bitcoin.

But no one is doing that job except for a few users, like Doomad, because of fear of going into a long debate against "smart" and intimidating people in the forum like franky1. ::)

Free lunch is a false concept introduced by governments of few countries for improving the below poverty line class and idiots extrapolated that for the working class who have a decent earning. Blame that on human imagination and also that they dont have a clear picture of what bitcoin is and how it works. Those who want to pump and dump their coins will be there to do that even after bitcoin (so to speak) and were there even before bitcoin.  ::)

Instead of calling out names, I feel that what one person can achieve with their own efforts is more important than seeing what the rest of the opposing team is doing. Truely, false propaganda cannot be curbed, because they do it for their own benefit and stopping it means taking away freedom of speech. Focus on what you can do and not what others say about you or your work. ;)

Bitcoin would soon exceed those expectations and there is alot more hidden potentials in its block chain yet to be discovered

It's OK for Roger Ver, and his sockpuppets, to misinform, gaslight, and continue their fraudulent behavior because "freedom of speech"? What about OUR freedom of speech.

I'd say we do enough with our freedom of speech.  We call them out on their shenanigans and it seems to work for the most part.  Hopefully only a very small number of people still go away with the wrong impression after we've intervened to combat any FUD.  It's not the easiest job sometimes, but it keeps us in good practice for when the next troll inevitably appears.

I always thought of Bitcoin being free in someway because of its versatile ways on how we can get our hands on it. There are a lot of ways where we can gain Satoshis. People saying that Bitcoin is not successful are those people who have at least lost a lot while they are earning for more Cryptos. They might have created many mistake and might not want to take the blame for it. We can already say that Bitcoin is one of the beat Digital Asset there can be and Blockchain Technology is a revolutionary technology which created even more opportunities to the e-commece.

Truely that is what I have been trying to tell. Both sides have full authority to say anything that want. Without looking at what others say about you make some enlightening discussions about bitcoin and its good and bad properties. How people have tried to make it look bad and what others think about it. Make a discssion which is both constructive, promotes constructive thinking and is objective enough and not too subjective.

We have only the power to telling people to become aware of frauds and we cannot make people not invest in them. So if we do our part, I think thats enough for one human to do their part than waste time on trolling trolls.

When you look at what the banking fees are and not just for transactions I mean the monthly fees. The costs are the same or cheaper. If you make few transactions bitcoin will be cheaper. Especially bigger purchases.
If you make many transactions a bank may be cheaper with a special monthly deal for traders and business owners. However, if you use eth or another crypto for cheaper purchases then it will certainly be cheaper then any bank.

I'm content to do both, heh.  The arguments in support of Bitcoin are nearly self-evident at this stage, so it can get a bit stale repeating the same things time and again.  It's refreshing to open fire on an unsuspecting troll every once in a while.  Like how people appreciate a floorshow with their meal sometimes.  Adds a bit of extra flavour, heh.