Bitcoin Future Transaction Prices

[MeGold666]

I'm not sure that Bitcoin is going to be truly "globally accepted". And by "globally accepted" I mean Bitcoin becoming a truly mainstream global currency. This most likely would never happen. Bitcoin would be more like "digital gold", a financial asset that is mostly used by the big institutional investors to add in their portfolios. The problem is that those big institutional investors could afford to pay ridiculous transactions fees. This could scare away the small BTC investors. I don't know about any potential solutions of this problem, since I'm not a Bitcoin Core developer.

Let's stop pretending there is no solution, the solution has been there for years but "Bitcoin" refuses to update.

It's called dynamic block size (aka adaptive/variable block size) that changes according to network transaction traffic.

Calling it "Digital Gold" only reinforces that Bitcoin does not need any updates and normal people who are not big investors feel it the most.
Comparing Bitcoin to a dead stone is not good, it's a living thing that needs updates.

LN is not a solution, it failed on so many levels... and even one of the devs resigned because current exploitable behavior can't be fixed without updating Bitcoin protocol.
And on top of that LN is getting more and more centralized because that's it's nature.

If LN is solution to Bitcoin scalability, then so is PayPal.

The line of "defense" against updating is usually to keep the hardware requirements low.... so useless old junk can run it too and do nothing while being online.
Guess what... majority of people have kids and kids have gaming computers that need to be upgraded every few years in order to play games and fiber optics are becoming standard in every home.

I guess quantity over quality matters more when it comes to nodes, even if they contribute absolutely nothing to the network security.

So let me get this straight... we don't update Bitcoin protocol to keep the old hardware online so we are more decentralized (at least on paper) while at the same time we are sacrificing scalability and forcing people to use solutions that are becoming more and more centralized... Interesting. (Monty Python's Flying Circus intro song playing in the background)

[pooya87]

Let's stop pretending there is no solution, the solution has been there for years but "Bitcoin" refuses to update.

It's called dynamic block size (aka adaptive/variable block size) that changes according to network transaction traffic.

We can manage to find an actual solution but removing the block size cap (that is what dynamic block is) is not a solution, it is a disaster that would destroy bitcoin because it has no spam prevention mechanism in it and without a cap (that would create a fee market and make spam attacks financially infeasible) they would be able to attack bitcoin very easily and with very low cost.
And that's just one of the problems.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

We can manage to find an actual solution but removing the block size cap (that is what dynamic block is) is not a solution, it is a disaster that would destroy bitcoin because it has no spam prevention mechanism in it and without a cap (that would create a fee market and make spam attacks financially infeasible) they would be able to attack bitcoin very easily and with very low cost.
And that's just one of the problems.

The challenging math is finding a balance among three components in Blockchain Trilemma: Security, Scalability and Decentralization. It's very difficult math issue to solve as one component interacts with and impact on two other components as well.

The Blockchain Trilemma: Decentralized, Scalable, and Secure?

It is difficult to figure out solutions to satisfy everyone from Security, Scalability and Decentralization but if people are looking for a blockchain with best security, it's Bitcoin blockchain.

Otherwise, if they are looking for blockchains with faster transaction confirmation time, cheaper transaction fee, they can find it with altcoin blockchains but by such choices, they sacrifice security.

[MeGold666]

We can manage to find an actual solution but removing the block size cap (that is what dynamic block is) is not a solution, it is a disaster that would destroy bitcoin because it has no spam prevention mechanism in it and without a cap (that would create a fee market and make spam attacks financially infeasible) they would be able to attack bitcoin very easily and with very low cost.
And that's just one of the problems.

It's not just removing the cap, this method has it's own protection mechanisms.

Can we stop pretending that this solution do not already exist ? It's working perfectly fine against spam on a live project.

Otherwise, if they are looking for blockchains with faster transaction confirmation time, cheaper transaction fee, they can find it with altcoin blockchains but by such choices, they sacrifice security.

Yes that's true, but only if we close our eyes to the successful project that already uses dynamic block size and has greater security than Bitcoin.

We can put our heads in the sand but the problem will not disappear.

Page 62 describes the mechanism:
https://www.getmonero.org/library/Zero-to-Monero-2-0-0.pdf

BTW. The article you have linked to was just an advertisement for "CertiK Foundation" that's already gone (their main site is dead), seems they have switched to auditing on their new site.