Bitcoin is getting destroyed

[ImHash]

So is it better if we use the same address or should we use a new one every time? will miners include re-used addresses more than new ones?
I don't know where did you guys paid $30 or $50 for transactions but last time I paid $1.8 for a transaction with 196 bytes I think.
Miners want to have a larger block limit so they can get more fees mining each block and if only miners were the ones running nodes then they could change anything at any time and they activate that change easily with their own nodes voting "yes".
Individuals around the world running full nodes allows a true decentralized network to function because all of their interests are not aligned in a way miners are.
So if the majority of nodes are in the hands of many stranger to each other worldwide it will make it hard for miners to take the control of the code, after all it's the code that matters.

[Humanxlemming]

Bitcoin is constantly growing in price and in the future only good news. I do not understand who can say that it is being destroyed.

Just asked do you have some powers? Like magic balls? Hahaha you're wishing that definitely would make true. Go and get back in being a baby and cried if your saying that BITCOIN would getting destroyed hehehe. Bitcoin have now strong walls that can't break even your magic balls

[shone08]

really? i dont think so, because many peoples use bitcoin and we all still need BTC.

These are all false rumors of competitors or those who do not know how to use bitcoin. Bitcoin is constantly growing and there is no reason to worry.

Yup! And I think op was wrong Bitcoin was continue to growing and growing yeah transaction fee was so high but its not the reason that why bitcoin will destroy or dead. I also read some news way back in February that the Chinese government would penalize any bank transacting with bitcoin exchanges after 15th April started to break around mid-morning China time on Thursday 27th March. This time, it was reported as fact by a number of news services.
And in fact today bitcoin price was so high.  So just keep calm no need to worries relax and continue to collect bitcoin.

[franky1]

I don't know where did you guys paid $30 or $50 for transactions but last time I paid $1.8 for a transaction with 196 bytes I think.

thats a 1 in 1 out tx. using a compressed address.

now try it where you have lots of inputs (getting paid from different sources) and a couple outputs.(putting it all into one destination and getting some change back)

it soon adds up.

just needs 20 inputs 2 outputs and already that makes $30~ in fee.

so stop taking the most leanest best case scenario. and think realistically at the average case scenario of faucet users or even faucets/merchants themselves that get lots of payments then having to move them

[Franz_Huber]

It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!

This again.
It's about the bandwidth, not the storage.

[iqlimasyadiqa]

Bitcoin is constantly growing in price and in the future only good news. I do not understand who can say that it is being destroyed.

I think that people who say bitcoin will be destroyed are those who can not accept technological progress. Most of them still use conventional currency. And they are very frightened of the increased bitcoin power.

[Lauda]

just needs 20 inputs 2 outputs and already that makes $30~ in fee.

Correct. However, saying that "fees" are $30 is nonsensical and a sign of deep misunderstanding of Bitcoin. Fees are to be expressed in satoshi/byte (or per kByte) and should be represented with:
1) Median transaction fee.
2) Average transaction fee.

This again.
It's about the bandwidth, not the storage.

Actually it is a lot of things. A few pointers (they interact with each other at different levels; some are less important/constrictive than others):
1) Quadratic validation time.
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates.
5) Propagation delay.

[Symphony_fr]

Bitcoin is constantly growing in price and in the future only good news. I do not understand who can say that it is being destroyed.

I think that people who say bitcoin will be destroyed are those who can not accept technological progress. Most of them still use conventional currency. And they are very frightened of the increased bitcoin power.

Yes, they just do not understand how it works and lose the opportunity to earn money. Perhaps eventually they will start studying bitcoin and change their mind.

[n2004al]

In 4 years life with bitcoin it is not the first time that I read such fatalism about bitcoin. I don't agree with this point of view and I am sure that will be found a light at the end of the tunnel as is made always when is talked about such pearl like bitcoin.

[rockerashxxiv]

People are just using bitcoins for earning money and as an investment which defiles the original purpose it was made for to be a safe peer to peer transaction cryptocurrency.
And yes it is stupid to tell that the transaction amount is 30$-40$ which 'Could' not will harm bitcoin as a whole.
 

[Caelanpelley]

Lol bro bitcoin died about 100 or 200 times I am not sure for that but it is still alive and everything wil be fixed just to save bitcoin because we need him because it is really much better than fiat and so much popular.

That is a shitty meme.

I know about this website: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/

And it's a shitty meme, just because a few dumb journalists have called Bitcoin dead and were wrong, that doesn't mean that we don't have a serious problem in Bitcoin that needs to be fixed.


Bitcoin will not die because some journalist tells it to die, but it will definitely die, if transaction fees will stay 40-50$.

Who the fuck can afford 50$ for 1 transaction? Can the Africans, Philipines, or Indians afford it (who make up most of BTC users) ? I doubt it, when the daily wage in those places is like 5$.

Can you believe this bullshit? A bank transfer that goes through 1 million regulatory loops, and it's inefficiently processed in 4 days costs less than a decentralized P2P payment system? It's utterly disgusting.

agreed overall but a bank transfer is no more than a few entries on a ledger they swap around. a bitcoin transaction spreads through thousands of computers across the globe. decentralization costs, but right now it costs too much.

It should not have to. DASH and others are doing fine.

I want Bitcoin to be fixed too.

According to my point of view, the bitcoin can continue to exist or not depends on the person.bitcoin can soon be destroyed by those who couldn't acquire these scientific advances, engineering. I think bitcoin will still exist long in the future because of the value it attracts so many investors.

[franky1]

just needs 20 inputs 2 outputs and already that makes $30~ in fee.

Correct. However, saying that "fees" are $30 is nonsensical and a sign of deep misunderstanding of Bitcoin. Fees are to be expressed in satoshi/byte (or per kByte) and should be represented with:
1) Median transaction fee.
2) Average transaction fee.

if you use the word nonsensical one more time, then someone better buy you a dictionary for next christmas

if you read the context. you will see the OP said
"but paying up to $30 for a $100 transaction would make some BTC users jump to alternatives."

the context was not that fee's are on average $30 now.. nor median now. it was that IF fees continue to rise people will jump ship
i added context (using the byte per tx formulae) to show it doesnt take much to formulate a tx that cost ~$30 in fee.

lauda i understand you cant read more than a paragraph. but things only become nonsense to you. if you fail to read then content of posts to make sense of the overal picture

This again.
It's about the bandwidth, not the storage.

Actually it is a lot of things. A few pointers (they interact with each other at different levels; some are less important/constrictive than others):
1) Quadratic validation time.
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates.
5) Propagation delay.

if you cared to check out things..
we are no longer in 2009
we are not stuck with the min specs of Raspberry pi1
we are not stuck with the average internet of 512kbit/s - 3g mobile
we are not stuck with the v0.1 inefficient code.

we are in 2017
we are at the min specs of Raspberry pi3
we are at the average internet of 5mb/s  - 4g, .. approaching the fibre/5g era
we are at the v0.12+ efficient code. - EG libsecp256k1 5x efficient

plus other efficiencies all add up that 8mb is deemed min spec safe.. yep even Core admit and accept as such that 8mb is deemed as 'safe' but they still double cautiously prefer 4mb.

as for quadratics.
keep a tx below 4k txsigops and quadratics is not an issue lauda should ever have to cry about ever again.. nor should anyone else.

[hv_]

just needs 20 inputs 2 outputs and already that makes $30~ in fee.

Correct. However, saying that "fees" are $30 is nonsensical and a sign of deep misunderstanding of Bitcoin. Fees are to be expressed in satoshi/byte (or per kByte) and should be represented with:
1) Median transaction fee.
2) Average transaction fee.

if you use the word nonsensical one more time, then someone better buy you a dictionary for next christmas

This again.
It's about the bandwidth, not the storage.

Actually it is a lot of things. A few pointers (they interact with each other at different levels; some are less important/constrictive than others):
1) Quadratic validation time.
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates.
5) Propagation delay.

if you cared to check out things..
we are no longer in 2009
we are not stuck with the min specs of Raspberry pi1
we are not stuck with the averag internet of 512kbit/s - 3g mobile
we are not stuck with the v0.1 inefficient code.

we are in 2017
we are at the min specs of Raspberry pi3
we are not stuck with the average internet of 5mb/s  - 4g, .. approaching the fibre/5g era
we are not stuck with the v0.12+ efficient code. - EG libsecp256k1 5x efficient

plus other efficiencies all add up that 8mb.. yep even Core admit and accept as such that 8mb is deemed as 'safe' but they still double cautiously prefer 4mb.

as for quadratics.
keep a tx below 4k txsigops and quadratics is not an issue lauda should ever have to cry about ever again

Its somehow funny, how blockstream supporters can be catched since their logic is so twisted.

On the one hand the wanna let the the system run on the cheapest hardware to save the dezentralization

On the other hand they accept high fees, now soon higher than the needed hardware to run things..

Awkward brains if existent at all...