0.0005 fees = $50 at 100k btc ... use limit

[jubalix]

What is the solution to this for on chain transaction, I mean sure if LN gets in, but LN still does not seem to be a secure and the same as being on chain. I may misunderstand this.

However at $50 a transaction you limiting your user base, even at $2 a transaction roughly what it is now.....

Is btc destined to become basically sovereign wealth? / store of value, which I admit is a massive killer app.......?

I can kinda see Jihans arguments for BCH, though the negs are perhaps miner centralization.

various views are justified if core does not at least adopt 2X.

I think BTC is going to 100K and beyond but a fee of x hundred per online transaction carves out most users....it sorta leaves BTC vulnerable to a crypto that can do both.

[1715660324]

1715660324

[1715660324]

1715660324

[1715660324]

1715660324

[1715660324]

1715660324

[Dude.Lebowski]

What is the solution to this for on chain transaction, I mean sure if LN gets in, but LN still does not seem to be a secure and the same as being on chain. I may misunderstand this.

However at $50 a transaction you limiting your user base, even at $2 a transaction roughly what it is now.....

Is btc destined to become basically sovereign wealth? / store of value, which I admit is a massive killer app.......?

I can kinda see Jihans arguments for BCH, though the negs are perhaps miner centralization.

various views are justified if core does not at least adopt 2X.

I think BTC is going to 100K and beyond but a fee of x hundred per online transaction carves out most users....it sorta leaves BTC vulnerable to a crypto that can do both.



I see your point. Using LN for small purchases makes sense but not being able to afford to fund LN means it might not be adopted.

[Herbert2020]

However at $50 a transaction you limiting your user base, even at $2 a transaction roughly what it is now.....

you first need to clarify what these numbers mean.
where do you get $50 from?
are you speculating that on-chain transaction fees will be $50 or is it the cost of using Lightning Network?
because neither of these sound real to me.

[Kakmakr]

This sounds a lot like the Roger Ver mentality, where you simply ignore the reasons for the problem and blame the technology. The miners are the real problem here and people ignore this as the root cause of the scaling problem at the moment. The miners automated the process to shift hash power to the most profitable chain to mine and this is causing problems on both BCash and BTC.

Now add some "selective" mining into this, where miners manipulate the process by mining empty blocks, then you have a recipe for disaster. Bitcoin <both BCash & BTC> will fail if miners continue to sabotage the network, by being greedy.

[jubalix]

However at $50 a transaction you limiting your user base, even at $2 a transaction roughly what it is now.....

you first need to clarify what these numbers mean.
where do you get $50 from?
are you speculating that on-chain transaction fees will be $50 or is it the cost of using Lightning Network?
because neither of these sound real to me.

100k would be at current levels around $50

[jubalix]

This sounds a lot like the Roger Ver mentality, where you simply ignore the reasons for the problem and blame the technology. The miners are the real problem here and people ignore this as the root cause of the scaling problem at the moment. The miners automated the process to shift hash power to the most profitable chain to mine and this is causing problems on both BCash and BTC.

Now add some "selective" mining into this, where miners manipulate the process by mining empty blocks, then you have a recipe for disaster. Bitcoin <both BCash & BTC> will fail if miners continue to sabotage the network, by being greedy.

look, I agree larger blocks may lead to centralization and too much power to the miners. However it seems BCH does have significant value, that should or could flow to btc.

I think access to "blockspace" is a critical need and on chain transactions. Otherwise you may create 2 tires of citizens.

The shifting hash power does not worry me so much if the algos to stop blocks being not mined are implemented.

The value/hash should work itself all out.

I thing pos, dpos ala nem, or something may come in. Eg iota makes use of spammers, and democratizes mining, but i'm not convinced you cant double spend it yet

I agree both may relatively fail, which is why I see some sense in some blocksize increase as required, tech has come along way since 2009....if core does not increase blksize somewhat, I feel they are no less narrow without reason then you could say about ver/jihan. What if...ver/jhihan activated segwit on their chain.....imagine that for a moment......



 

[bitcoinmaniac52]

This sounds a lot like the Roger Ver mentality, where you simply ignore the reasons for the problem and blame the technology. The miners are the real problem here and people ignore this as the root cause of the scaling problem at the moment. The miners automated the process to shift hash power to the most profitable chain to mine and this is causing problems on both BCash and BTC.

Now add some "selective" mining into this, where miners manipulate the process by mining empty blocks, then you have a recipe for disaster. Bitcoin <both BCash & BTC> will fail if miners continue to sabotage the network, by being greedy.

look, I agree larger blocks may lead to centralization and too much power to the miners. However it seems BCH does have significant value, that should or could flow to btc.

I think access to "blockspace" is a critical need and on chain transactions. Otherwise you may create 2 tires of citizens.

The shifting hash power does not worry me so much if the algos to stop blocks being not mined are implemented.

The value/hash should work itself all out.

I thing pos, dpos ala nem, or something may come in. Eg iota makes use of spammers, and democratizes mining, but i'm not convinced you cant double spend it yet

I agree both may relatively fail, which is why I see some sense in some blocksize increase as required, tech has come along way since 2009....if core does not increase blksize somewhat, I feel they are no less narrow without reason then you could say about ver/jihan. What if...ver/jhihan activated segwit on their chain.....imagine that for a moment......



 

Blockspace isn't that important, actually. Many people believe that a smaller blocksize would actually be a lot better. What really matters is the Lightning Network which will allow for thousands of small purchases per second, even moreso than VISA, Mastercard, etc. This is what we truly need.

[hatshepsut93]

What's so special about 0.0005 BTC? The current minimum fee is 1000 satoshi, at $100,000 that would be $1. By that time transactions fees will be very important for sustaining Bitcoins decentralization, because block rewards will be lower and lower. Right now each block rewards around 14 BTC, which in return gets us a huge amount of hashpower to secure 77 billion network. As the price will continue to grow, so will out need for more hashpower to protect the network from double-spending attacks. The only way to get this protection is by having bigger fees. If Bitcoin will succeed in building new economy, it will be mostly a settlement layer for offchain payment systems, as mainchain would be used only for big transactions.

[Sithara007]

BTC0.0005 is still too high. As per the current exchange rates, it amounts to close to $2.50. Imagine buying a burger for $1.25 and paying a total of $3.75 (including the $2.50 fee). If Bitcoin want to survive, then the average fee must be lower than $0.10.

[Soutogu]

I want Bitcoin to be a global currency. It got to where it is today based on this vision and idea - thats why its greatly adopted around the round right now. Now suddenly its "digital gold" "storage of value"? Pfff... I want people everyoen to be able to buy and sell on their day to day lives, with fast and cheap transactions!

[Niya]

Is btc destined to become basically sovereign wealth? / store of value, which I admit is a massive killer app.......?

Yes, it is already becoming something like that. Mainly a store of value/digital asset which keeps growing in price. As a payment system it is becoming good only for large transactions, but definitely not for micro-payments. If you wanna buy expensive stuff, you'll be quite glad to use Bitcoin, because fees, confirmation time and other things seem quite better than banks or other online payments like paypal, but if you wanna buy small items, worth for example 10$ or less it is not a good idea to use Bitcoin because it's slower and more expensive than paypal, credit cards, etc.

[Variogam]

Blockspace isn't that important, actually. Many people believe that a smaller blocksize would actually be a lot better. What really matters is the Lightning Network which will allow for thousands of small purchases per second, even moreso than VISA, Mastercard, etc. This is what we truly need.

Actually your wrong. Blocksize determine how many users can use Bitcoin. To be able to use Lightning Network, exchanges or other  offline systems where you can do potentially unlimited transactions, you have to move Bitcoin first there - and this is very limited resource, thats why no much more people can use Bitcoin anymore.

Is btc destined to become basically sovereign wealth? / store of value, which I admit is a massive killer app.......?

Yes, it is already becoming something like that. Mainly a store of value/digital asset which keeps growing in price.

You mean just speculation based asset, which is pretty bad at keeping value over long time periods.