I created a thread called "high transaction fees" and it was deleted, disappeared, censored or what ever you prefer to call it. I mentioned that earlier in this thread as well. Go back and look.

I don't appreciate a cad like you implying I am lying. I am telling the truth, so go stuff it! JERK!

I created a thread about transaction fees and bitcoin cash and to my surprise and disappointment it was censored. That angered me very much and that is what led to me posting on here about it instead. It was a last resort. Blame the jerks who complained about my thread and got it deleted. It didn't have to come to this.

Thank you for the information. That might give me the info I was seeking. BTW, remind others on here from time to time that censoring threads without just cause is not a solution. It spilled over to your thread and it was completely avoidable.

I wish you all well.

There must be a downside or everybody would use the lightning network.

What is the catch?

When there is no coin to mine from bitcoin you will have the same problem. All incentive will be transaction fees.
What then?

All I am asking for is your sources of information. If you cannot provide any why should I believe you? Would you take my word for it if I made assertions?

Black hat said at least $5 transaction fee for $100. If there is an exception he omitted he should own up to it and provide that source of information instead of pretending he gave me a different figure.

No source of information then.

To the last poster: You could find a source of information written by a reputable computer scientist. Your unwilling to do so is suspect. Perhaps people are just making up crap to obfuscate.

If anybody here had the desire to buy cannabis seeds from a foreign country for $100 dollars and you had the choice between spending bitcoin or using a Mastercard which would you choose? And don't give me an irrelevant lecture about how Mastercard is not decentralized, it is a stupid point. You cannot buy Mastercard coin. DUH!

All that matters here is how much it is going to cost you above that $100 to make the transaction to a foreign country. I think I paid about a 3% fee to Mastercard because it was a foreign country.

 This is about buying stuff, not speculating. Which would you all choose? Be honest.
Is it starting to sink in yet? Leave your "group think" behind for a minute and think about saving money.

What is your source of information?

Excuse my skepticism, but assertions are not evidence that what you are saying is true. You could have been misinformed for all I know.

Bitcoin has the same problem once there is no more coin to mine. Transaction fees have to increase with both bitcoin and bitcoin cash in the long term. The other posters are continuing to be dishonest in calling bitcoin cash centralized. It is not completely centralized. Why are other posters on here so eager to lie about bitcoin cash? Can't they defend bitcoin without lying?

If people continue to lie they have already lost the debate. If they want to compare how decentralized bitcoin is relative to bitcoin cash that is fine, but falsely claiming bitcoin cash is centralized amounts to propaganda. Lying is an admission of failure and desperation.

Small transactions with bitcoin are impractical. It is a problem that will not go away. More decentralization also makes changes to correct that problem less likely to happen. The notion that consensus will solve everything in the future is a guess at best. Can enough people agree? Bitcoin hard forking into bitcoin cash is an example of the difficulty of bitcoin consensus to be reached.

Bitcoin was the first created cryptocurrency based on crude guesswork. Bitcoin cash was an improvement on the flaws of Bitcoin, although not perfection as tradeoffs are necessary. The assertion that bitcoin is more stable in the long term than bitcoin cash is ridiculous nonsense. The success of both in the long term is dependent on adjustment of transaction fees. Too many people here seem to be in deep denial of that.

It all comes down to which can evolve with the necessary changes better. A less centralized coin is probably the best bet. Decentralized sounds good until we find out consensus fails to be reached in the future. That is NOT a trivial issue, no matter how much bitcoin loyalists downplay it.

Bitcoin Cash overtook Litecoin in market cap for 10th place.
As it moves up to 9th and then 8th maybe the people here engaging in "group think" will see I am right.
Hypothetical vulnerabilities are far from convincing. That is true of all cryptocurrencies.

I'll let Bitcoin Cash's performance speak for itself. While most people on here will let themselves be fooled by their confirmation bias support group the smart people will buy Bitcoin Cash before it moves up to the top 5 in market cap and eventually #2

Are you all waiting for it to be too late? Every transaction leads to an increase in market cap. Low transaction fees lead to more transactions. Hello! Ignore flawless logic at your own risk of losing out on a great deal.

Bitcoin Cash is NOT centralized. It is merely less decentralized than Bitcoin. The lying and the condoning of that lie says a lot about the lack of honesty from Bitcoin loyalists on here. You can resume your groupthink or you can buy Bitcoin Cash and get a great price. You all like money, right?

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does. Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem. Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty. Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term. The long term future of all decentralized coin is in question in reality.
If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano? Cardano claims to be the most decentralized coin, contrary to what Black hat stated. Is it a false claim or is Bitcoin not really the most decentralized coin?

It would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and that is enough. If you are talking about a hard fork say so. No need to beat around the bush.

The rising transaction fees are a problem. It is an effective limit on growth in the long term. Small transactions are already impractical. People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually. A 51% attack on Bitcoin isn't really necessary. Bitcoin will become weighted down by it's own increasing transaction fees. Fine for buying a Tesla, but anything less than $200 is just plain stupid. Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

Bitcoin is over rated.

Are you claiming a 51% attack cannot result in double spending? There are other concerns as well.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/bitcoin-worst-case-scenarios-14467541

This forum seems to be plagued with "group think" and it is being enforced with censorship. I created a thread called "High transaction fees and how it could limit the growth of Bitcoin and it was deleted. Seems that one thread was a threat to peoples "confirmation bias".

This is just a confirmation bias support group and it is terrified of info about high transaction fees. That is the real fud.

Small purchases are impractical. This is a problem.

For that reason alone Bitcoin is over rated. I'm not surprised it is crashing and dragging the alt coins down with it. Now I realize why Bitcoin hard forked into Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin's transaction fees will limit it's growth in the future. I will not buy bitcoin unless transactions fees can be reduced. I don't have long term confidence in Bitcoin. It has a growth limit because transaction fees will increase with it's growth.

I have concluded Bitcoin is flawed unless you are rich and always make large purchases. I once considered buying bitcoin to purchase cannabis seeds overseas. Not anymore. It is not worth it because of the transaction fees. Add the volatility of the price to that. Why? Why would I bother? I think many others will conclude the same.

"This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision."

What is the advantage to choosing 10 minutes instead of a faster rate?

I don't think you understand what is beneficial to central bankers. It is beneficial to sabotage Bitcoin even if it costs them billions they will never recover. Destroying competition by wasting billions is not a waste if preserving the dominance of the US dollar will insure 100's of Trillions will keep rolling in from the inflation tax. You need to remember the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They are taxing 80% of the world with inflation!

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

A 51% attack is unlikely, but if there is less incentive to mine the that could change. Since the burden of incentivizing is going to be increased transfer fees, the already high bitcoin transaction fees will become too high. At some point in time (I'm not sure when since I don't know if doubling the transaction rate will double transaction fees) people will look for a cryptocurrency with lower transaction fees. I think that will be Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin does not limit as much inflation, but that would be my second choice. It can process transactions faster. If reaching consensus proves too difficult for bitcoin to evolve Litecoin could prevail over Bitcoin Cash.

That assessment is based on the transaction fee you told me though. You said it was about $15. Is that for all transactions or is that relative to the amount of the transaction? If it is the latter I might reassess that. If it is the former it is not practical for small transactions. Isn't that a problem?

If the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System (known for hating competition and waging war costing trillions  to protect the petrodollar) decided to invest billions or even trillions to do a 51% attack to sabotage bitcoin and were successful, what is the worst that could happen?

Are you talking about a 51% attack?
I'm not sure what you mean by no bitcoin. Do you mean it would morph into something else or cease to exist?

Do you know which cryptocurrency has the lowest transaction fees? Are they only low because of a low transaction rate and they could get as high as bitcoin if they reached that transaction level? Does all the money from transaction fees go to the miners? Is there no middle man?

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"But there's a catch to this figure. Namely, there's no hard cap on the number of tokens that are in circulation. Rather, it's computer code and community consensus that determine this cap. Although it's unlikely that consensus would be reached to increase the 21 million token cap, the possibility of this happening is not 0%."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/25/3-reasons-bitcoin-is-fundamentally-flawed-as-an-in.aspx

You said that was not possible. Are you sure that old article is wrong?


Will consensus determine how much the transaction fees will be in the future?
Are there transaction fees now? If so, who determined how much they would be?

Is reaching consensus a difficult thing to achieve? Is there good reason to believe bitcoin will evolve from consensus to adapt well to changes when they are needed?

How does this consensus thing work?

How would I become a part of this consensus?
How is the incentive for mining going to be preserved after the coin creation is not enough? Can consensus create more coin for mining incentive? Without mining bitcoin will collapse, right?