[Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs

[cryptosize]

Then we should reduce the space to 10kb, allowing only $10k+ tx because buying coffee with bitcoin is pointless, right?

Note that mining pools can do so, without asking anyone for permission. And they didn't, for some reason. So, you can ask them, why they didn't put that kind of limit in the blocks they produce? Also, you can ask some node operators, why they collect and process transactions, which are below one satoshi per virtual byte? For example here, you can see some grey block of cheap transactions at the bottom of the chart: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,all,weight,0

To be honest I would love for the ones being against bigger blocks would make up their mind and form a group so they don't go against each other cause I keep hearing contrarian arguments

Note that keeping the limit as it is, is the easiest thing to achieve, because it is about preserving "status quo". Which means, no matter if you want to increase or decrease some default values, related to the size of the block, or to the default fees, or to some other default rules, you need to reach consensus. And guess what: reaching consensus is hard, even in some topics like Segwit or Taproot, it took years. And convincing miners to set their max block size limit into 32 MiB (the default from the first version, used by Satoshi) is as hard, as convincing them to go for 10 kB (there were times, when the practical limit was lower than 1 MB, because of BDB locks, and stuff like that).

Also, increasing the size of the block makes this attack worse, than it currently is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140078.msg1491085#msg1491085

Code:

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

There is one problem with that approach: verification. Sending the whole chain is not a problem. But verifying still is. And what is the bottleneck of verification? For example CPU speed, which depends on frequency:

2011-09-13: Maximum Speed | AMD FX Processor Takes Guinness World Record

On August 31, an AMD FX processor achieved a Guiness World Record with a frequency of 8.429GHz, a stunning result for a modern, multi-core processor. The record was achieved with several days of preparation and an amazing and inspired run in front of world renowned technology press in Austin, Texas.

2022-12-21: First 9 GHz CPU (overclocked Intel 13900K)

It's over 9000. ElmorLabs KTH-USB: https://elmorlabs.com/product/elmorla... Validation: https://valid.x86.fr/t14i1f

Thank you to Asus and Intel for supporting the record attempt!

Intel Core i9-13900K
Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Apex
G.Skill Trident Z5 2x16GB
ElmorLabs KTH-USB Thermometer
ElmorLabs Volcano CPU container

See? Humans are still struggling with reaching 8-9 GHz, and you need a liquid nitrogen to maintain that value. And more than a decade ago, the situation was pretty much the same. So, the CPU speed is not "doubled" every year. Instead, you have just more and more cores, and you have for example 64-core processor, instead of having 2-core or 4-core.

Which means that yes, you can download 100 GB, maybe even more. But is the whole system really trustless, if you have no chance of verifying that data, and you have to trust, that all of them are correct? Imagine that you can download the whole chain very quickly, but it is not verified. What then?

Also note, that if something can be done in parallel, then yes, you can use 64-core processor, and execute 64 different things at the same time. However, many steps during validation are sequential. The whole chain is a sequence of blocks. The whole block is a sequence of transactions (and their order does matter, if one output is an input in another transaction in the same block). The hashing of legacy transactions is sequential (also in cases like bare multisig, which has O(n^2) complexity for no reason).

So yes, you can have 64-core processor with 4 GHz each, but a single core with 256 GHz would allow much more scaling. And this is one of the reasons, why we don't have bigger blocks. The progress in validation time is just not sufficient to increase it much further.

Very insightful post... I guess we'll need a graphene TeraHertz CPU for proper verification scaling.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What happens during those 12 minutes? I'd expect the mining pools to continue mining for that block, and chances are they'll find a new block within 12 minutes. Once that happens, they can stop verifying the attacker's block, and the attacker risks having his block replaced.

It is true that the rest of the mining pools can trivially notice that the attacker is trying to make them run late, and ignore validating his block deliberately, because it's not worth the effort  / risk. Currently, no mining pool software does that, but it might be updated if there's need to.

One strategy is to mine a block with just the coinbase transaction, and nothing else. But: on top of which block it should be mined?

Sounds like a bad strategy regardless. If it's mined on top of the attacker's block, then it depends on the attacker's block validity (trusting instead of verifying). If it ignores attacker's block, and mines at the same height, then there's no reason not to include highest paying transactions, since it competes with the attacker.

Maybe all of those transactions were flying in mempools, and some mining pool just included all of them, without having any evil plan in mind? But then, how to quickly check all rules, without performing full block validation?

Would this megabyte type of transaction be propagated normally? I think it is non-standard.

Also, vjudeu, I'd appreciate if you could spare your two cents on the previous block size debate. Bigger block size arguments doesn't sound like that bad (anymore). This kind of attack is what still discourages the arbitrary block size increase, in my mind (apart from political conflicts which will, without doubt, arise). I think you support small block size, because I'd read you in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, and you're all small blockers there, IIRC.

I highly respect the endless hours you've spent, discussing on that mailing list. I think you can enlighten us.  

[ABCbits]

--snip--

Also note, that if something can be done in parallel, then yes, you can use 64-core processor, and execute 64 different things at the same time. However, many steps during validation are sequential. The whole chain is a sequence of blocks. The whole block is a sequence of transactions (and their order does matter, if one output is an input in another transaction in the same block). The hashing of legacy transactions is sequential (also in cases like bare multisig, which has O(n^2) complexity for no reason).

So yes, you can have 64-core processor with 4 GHz each, but a single core with 256 GHz would allow much more scaling. And this is one of the reasons, why we don't have bigger blocks. The progress in validation time is just not sufficient to increase it much further.

But on other hand, a node already verify all transaction on it's mempool. So when the node receive new block, the node only need to verify few TX not in their block and other block data. And it's worth to mention usage of CPU instruction (such as SSE2) also somewhat allow more scaling.

[vjudeu]

Would this megabyte type of transaction be propagated normally? I think it is non-standard.

It is non-standard, only if you do that on legacy Scripts. But: there are ways to perform similar things on Segwit or Taproot, because of OP_CODESEPARATOR and some other tricks. In general, OP_CODESEPARATOR is one of those opcodes, which can enforce rehashing things over and over again, and I wonder, if it will ever be disabled.

I'd appreciate if you could spare your two cents on the previous block size debate.

I already did:

Scaling is directly related with compression. If you can use the same resources to achieve more goals, then that thing is "scalable". So, if the size of the block is 1 MB, and your "scaling" is just "let's increase it into 4 MB", then it is not a scaling anymore. It is just a pure, linear growth. You increase numbers four times, so you can now handle 4x more traffic. But it is not scaling. Not at all.

Scaling is about resources. If you can handle 16x more traffic with only 4x bigger blocks, then this is somewhat scalable. But we can go even further: if you can handle 100x more traffic, or even 1000x more traffic with only 4x bigger blocks, then this has even better scalability.

I think you support small block size, because I'd read you in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, and you're all small blockers there, IIRC.

Yes, for example here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019988.html

As you can see, I wrote about commitments long time ago, and today, I still think they are better than legacy OP_RETURNs, but instead of creating a separate output, they can be moved into R-value of the signature, then it is even better, because then it can be used on every address type.

I highly respect the endless hours you've spent, discussing on that mailing list. I think you can enlighten us.

Well, everyone can post on the mailing list. The main difference is that you have to wait some time for publication, so your post is not visible immediately, but is first read by some human, and then manually accepted. But besides that, it is similar to forums, and it doesn't matter that much, because many times I write some posts on disk, and they are sitting there, unpublished, and wait for future input. If after some days or weeks, they are still good enough to be published, then they are released.

By the way, in the current queue, I have some notes about RIPEMD-160 (and how it is related to SHA-1 or other hash functions), but I have to implement it from scratch, to write properly about it. And I guess Garlo Nicon is thinking about DLEQ, for example in the context of secp160k1. But all of that is work in progress.

And it's worth to mention usage of CPU instruction (such as SSE2) also somewhat allow more scaling.

In general, yes, but it depends, how things are internally wired. A lot of optimizations are based on parallelism, and if you have to do some sequential hashing, then it equally hurts all full nodes. Which means, that if some transaction is complex, then not only it is a bottleneck for mining pools, but it is also a bottleneck for non-mining nodes, used to propagate transactions in the network.

Some good video about x86 internal assembly, and why we are doomed to stick with some problems for years, even if we switch to another architecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCBrtopAG80 (by the way, I expect sooner or later, the Script will be also splitted into smaller parts, like micro-ops, and it will be possible to deal with them more directly than today, so maybe the cost would not be measured in "satoshis per bytes").

[stompix]

It still is surrounded by loads of controversy. First things first, what's the ideal block size increase? We're agreeing on the 16 MB limit, but stompix wants it to double on every halving. Another one might think 16 MB is still very small. I can already predict that the hardfork will end up just like Bitcoin Cash; uncertainty on the ideal adjustment will encourage people to stick with the tested, conservative 4 MB.

Just to make things clear!
Stompix himself, in his great wisdom wanted the block doubling since before the last having, and when I said doubling I meant that it would have been already doubled by now and we would be looking in the future for another one, so 4MB or a maximum theoretically size of 16.
So I never advocated for a sudden increase of xxx1000 times now, I said it's possible and all the technical mumbo jumbo about the capacity that would restrain it is bs , but I never was that radical in it!

Things like:

Also, increasing the size of the block makes this attack worse, than it currently is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140078.msg1491085#msg1491085

Code:

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

Just a tiny reminder this is no longer 2013, and a server 2Gbit/s guaranteed line is 99$ per month.
So how about we talk in 2024 prices and capacities, not a decade ago things, deal  

But again this is turning funny, first we had no need for bigger blocks as bigger blocks are empty over at bch and bsv, then we have 100GB blocks of full transactions because...majik..., I swear, and I mentioned a hundred times already why can't you guys be constant on your scenarios?

Oh, and back to the main topic...
Bad weekend for consolidations! 
 

[BlackHatCoiner]

I already did

That's my definition of scaling as well, but I was more concerned about the linear growth. What's your opinion about growing linearly?

Responding to your mail:

Since Taproot was activated, we no longer need separate OP_RETURN outputs to be pushed on-chain. If we want to attach any data to a transaction, we can create "OP_RETURN <anything>" as a branch in the TapScript. In this way, we can store that data off-chain and we can always prove that they are connected with some taproot address, that was pushed on-chain. Also, we can store more than 80 bytes for "free", because no such taproot branch will be ever pushed on-chain and used as an input. That means we can use "OP_RETURN <1.5 GB of data>", create some address having that taproot branch, and later prove to anyone that such "1.5 GB of data" is connected with our taproot address.

The problem with this is that OP_RETURN is often viewed as a way to store the message indefinitely. But, I agree that it can work, if your purpose is not to store arbitrary data on-chain.

Stompix himself, in his great wisdom wanted the block doubling since before the last having, and when I said doubling I meant that it would have been already doubled by now and we would be looking in the future for another one, so 4MB or a maximum theoretically size of 16.

Alright. In the present epoch, it's 16. In the subsequent epoch, it's 32, then 64, then 128, and so on. Do you understand that the on-chain volume doesn't escalate at the same pace, ensuring the system's sustainability? What's your plan for 25 years ahead, when the block size surpasses 1 GB, there's no competition in the fee market, and Bitcoin inevitably comes to an end?

[stompix]

Alright. In the present epoch, it's 16. In the subsequent epoch, it's 32, then 64, then 128, and so on. Do you understand that the on-chain volume doesn't escalate at the same pace, ensuring the system's sustainability? What's your plan for 25 years ahead, when the block size surpasses 1 GB, there's no competition in the fee market, and Bitcoin inevitably comes to an end?

As I said it before, make up your mind!
If the on chain volume doesn't escalate and grow by 2x every time you will NOT have 1GB blocks!
If the chain volume doesn't grow one bit from now you will not have even 2 MB blocks, since unless I have lived in a different reality having the maximum limit at 1MB didn't make all blocks at least 1MB, it made them at most 1MB!

So again, your fear is irrational, since if you say there will be no volume for that then there will be no big blocks either!

As for sustainability, the fee in reward right now is 9%, you only need 10x demand to completely override the block reward which will not be gone tomorrow. If you don't think on-chain demand will be x10 times more in 25 years then you don't have to worry about the fate of Bitcoin anymore since it's pretty obvious what that would be! But again it's a funny contradiction
- you don't expect 10x more people to pay 3$ for a tx
- you expect people to pay $30 for a tx
Yup! 

[BlackHatCoiner]

If the on chain volume doesn't escalate and grow by 2x every time you will NOT have 1GB blocks!

Except that you should always expect that the blocks will be filled. In the worst, spammers will fill it with garbage. May I remind you that spammers currently pay for highest priority? I'm pretty sure there will still be around if they can spam for free.

If the chain volume doesn't grow one bit from now you will not have even 2 MB blocks, since unless I have lived in a different reality having the maximum limit at 1MB didn't make all blocks at least 1MB, it made them at most 1MB!

Doesn't work that way. If a spammer sees they can fill blocks with movies, expect movies on-chain. We've already seen this on BSV, and we all know what is its demand.

As for sustainability, the fee in reward right now is 9%, you only need 10x demand to completely override the block reward which will not be gone tomorrow. If you don't think on-chain demand will be x10 times more in 25 years then you don't have to worry about the fate of Bitcoin anymore since it's pretty obvious what that would be!

You've misunderstood the assignment. There's a supply too in demand and supply, not only demand. If you're doubling the block size every four years, transaction fees will drop a lot. When mempool weighs less than the block size, miners are incentivized to even confirm 0.01 sat/vb. For your math to apply, demand (for on-chain volume) needs to double every four years.

[philipma1957]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

[cryptosize]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

DOGE is highly inflationary (maybe not as much as USD, but they still issue over 14m coins per day).

LTC could play second fiddle to BTC (like gold vs silver).

[philipma1957]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

DOGE is highly inflationary (maybe not as much as USD, but they still issue over 14m coins per day).

LTC could play second fiddle to BTC (like gold vs silver).

that is a common mis conception doge is superior to both ltc and btc. it has solved the reward/fee ratio issue.

year 1 = x                           2013
year 2 = 2x 100% inflation
year 3 = 3x  50% inflation
year 4 = 4x  33% inflation
year 5 = 5x  25% inflation
x
x
x
x
year 10 = 10x
year 11 = 11x 10% inflation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
year 20 = 20x
year 21 = 21x 5% inflation  2034
year 22 = 22x 4.5% inflation 2035
year 23 = 23x 4.34% inflation 2036


btc by 2024  3.125
2028            1.5625
2032            0.78125
2036            0.390625             serious issues for the reward/ fee ratio

not solved as of today just 12 years from now


As time goes on Doge looks better and BTC looks worse

Doge a perfectly steady decreasing rate of inflation
BTC as of today the reward/fee ratio is neat to be fixed.

BY 2036 looks like it is an issue


Its why people argue over how to fix fees in the future.

Doge has obviously fixed inflation issue.

4.34% in 2036
2.00% in 2064 the 51st year of it.

1.00% in 2114 the 101st year of it.Never running out of reward money for fees. and 10x the blocks which allows a clone of any fix btc does. but 10x the volume.

[cryptosize]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

DOGE is highly inflationary (maybe not as much as USD, but they still issue over 14m coins per day).

LTC could play second fiddle to BTC (like gold vs silver).

that is a common mis conception doge is superior to both ltc and btc. it has solved the reward/fee ratio issue.

year 1 = x                           2013
year 2 = 2x 100% inflation
year 3 = 3x  50% inflation
year 4 = 4x  33% inflation
year 5 = 5x  25% inflation
x
x
x
x
year 10 = 10x
year 11 = 11x 10% inflation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
year 20 = 20x
year 21 = 21x 5% inflation  2034
year 22 = 22x 4.5% inflation 2035
year 23 = 23x 4.34% inflation 2036


btc by 2024  3.125
2028            1.5625
2032            0.78125
2036            0.390625             serious issues for the reward/ fee ratio

not solved as of today just 12 years from now


As time goes on Doge looks better and BTC looks worse

Doge a perfectly steady decreasing rate of inflation
BTC as of today the reward/fee ratio is neat to be fixed.

BY 2036 looks like it is an issue


Its why people argue over how to fix fees in the future.

Doge has obviously fixed inflation issue.

4.34% in 2036
2.00% in 2064 the 51st year of it.

1.00% in 2114 the 101st year of it.Never running out of reward money for fees. and 10x the blocks which allows a clone of any fix btc does. but 10x the volume.

DOGE's inflation is even higher than FED's 2% target.

If you ask me, I don't consider deflation a bad thing, especially if the human population is going to decrease accordingly (Japan is a good example).

By 2036 BTC should be the global reserve currency and extremely valuable.

0.39 BTC could be a small fortune by then, even if you measure it in today's dollars. Imagine if 1 BTC is worth 10 million (as Hal Finney envisioned back in 2009)... you think mining will stop being profitable? Let alone the ever increasing fees!

Also, AI & robots will be everywhere, which is going to cause huge deflationary pressure everywhere. Cost of labor will be basically zero by then.

I know this sounds nuts, but the humanity of 2036 will be very different compared to today.

We won't really need inflation in the future.

[philipma1957]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

DOGE is highly inflationary (maybe not as much as USD, but they still issue over 14m coins per day).

LTC could play second fiddle to BTC (like gold vs silver).

that is a common mis conception doge is superior to both ltc and btc. it has solved the reward/fee ratio issue.

year 1 = x                           2013
year 2 = 2x 100% inflation
year 3 = 3x  50% inflation
year 4 = 4x  33% inflation
year 5 = 5x  25% inflation
x
x
x
x
year 10 = 10x
year 11 = 11x 10% inflation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
year 20 = 20x
year 21 = 21x 5% inflation  2034
year 22 = 22x 4.5% inflation 2035
year 23 = 23x 4.34% inflation 2036


btc by 2024  3.125
2028            1.5625
2032            0.78125
2036            0.390625             serious issues for the reward/ fee ratio

not solved as of today just 12 years from now


As time goes on Doge looks better and BTC looks worse

Doge a perfectly steady decreasing rate of inflation
BTC as of today the reward/fee ratio is neat to be fixed.

BY 2036 looks like it is an issue


Its why people argue over how to fix fees in the future.

Doge has obviously fixed inflation issue.

4.34% in 2036
2.00% in 2064 the 51st year of it.

1.00% in 2114 the 101st year of it.Never running out of reward money for fees. and 10x the blocks which allows a clone of any fix btc does. but 10x the volume.

DOGE's inflation is even higher than FED's 2% target.

If you ask me, I don't consider deflation a bad thing, especially if the human population is going to decrease accordingly (Japan is a good example).

By 2036 BTC should be the global reserve currency and extremely valuable.

0.39 BTC could be a small fortune by then, even if you measure it in today's dollars. Imagine if 1 BTC is worth 10 million (as Hal Finney envisioned back in 2009)... you think mining will stop being profitable? Let alone the ever increasing fees!

Also, AI & robots will be everywhere, which is going to cause huge deflationary pressure everywhere. Cost of labor will be basically zero by then.

I know this sounds nuts, but the humanity of 2036 will be very different compared to today.

We won't really need inflation in the future.

and fees could be minimum of 110 sats or $110. if we don’t fix the reward to fee ratios.

I am old so I will be gone by 2057 I will be 100. But doge has fixed the reward to fee issue as I type and doge has ever shrinking inflation rates. At my age of 67 btc is a decent bet but if you are 20 doge is likely to be really good by the time you are 67.

I see btc in trouble by 2050 unless they figure a fix for reward fee issues.

[LoyceV]

if you are 20 doge is likely to be really good by the time you are 67.

I'm not betting on a memecoin without active development. Chances are it's completely gone in (much less than) 50 years.

I see btc in trouble by 2050 unless they figure a fix for reward fee issues.

Miner fees in dollars have only gone up so far (if I ignore short-term fluctuations). Lower block rewards are a feature, not a bug.

[NotATether]

why double so often?

btw as i read the two of you argue it looks like scrypt with doge and ltc merged mined is the better solution.


than frozen btc blocks or endless btc block doubling .

I'm a bit surprised to see that this solution has not been considered by btc devs yet. It seems like the best one as a compromise, to avoid getting into more block size debates.

I think it would also decrease the incentive for miners to support these garbage projects like Runes, since at least DOGE and LTC have some actual utility attached to them.

[JayJuanGee]

and fees could be minimum of 110 sats or $110. if we don’t fix the reward to fee ratios.

I am old so I will be gone by 2057 I will be 100. But doge has fixed the reward to fee issue as I type and doge has ever shrinking inflation rates. At my age of 67 btc is a decent bet but if you are 20 doge is likely to be really good by the time you are 67.

I see btc in trouble by 2050 unless they figure a fix for reward fee issues.

Fuck doggie coin and any suggesting to invest into that shitcoin more than just on some kind of a pump and dump basis, and having a plan to invest for 33-ish years into that shitcoin seems really retarded... You still have not figured out the value of bitcoin, Philip?  Horey sheit.

I am not too likely to be alive in 2057 either.. and maybe if I get another 25-ish years, that might be about as much as I might expect... .... but whatever, so far I am not planning to buy any doggie coin or litecoin either... Oh?  woops. I forgot that I already own some light coin since about 2016. or maybe it was earlier than that, so yeah it is maybe .0002 the size of my BTC holdings, so yeah, maybe I might buy some doggie coin that might be around that same size of my BTC holdings, but I doubt that investing any more than a percent or two would be a good idea for anyone.. but yeah, surely people do all kinds of things. so yeah, my LTC holdings are about 0.02% the size of my BTC holdings and I am not opposed to some similar token level investments into any of the shitcoins, so maybe if I had 100 shitcoins they might add up to 2% of my bitcoin holdings... and yeah, I do have some other shitcoins that coincidentally are larger percentages than LTC.. and so for example my ETH  is nearly 0.1% of my bitcoin size.. I am a bit surprised about that.. but it is also one of those things that I have not really touched for a while, and I sold some of them in 2017-ish.

[Dump3er]

if you are 20 doge is likely to be really good by the time you are 67.

I'm not betting on a memecoin without active development. Chances are it's completely gone in (much less than) 50 years.

Even if it had some active development, I think it still lacks robustness due to its relatively low market cap. A guy like Elon Musk can still move that coin by double digit percentages just by making a comment about it. Last time he pumped to something like $0.60 and then it dropped like a rock straight to the bottom. I wouldn't want to hold such a billionaire's toy as an investment. That's gambling and the only thing that counts is whether Musk tweets about it again or not. I think that is quite problematic and development could be announced, but nobody knows whether it is sustainable.

Bitcoin still shows organic growth, but look at the DOGE spikes. That's not a coin that's organically growing.

What's indeed concerning is that LN solutions don't seem to be advancing. When I talk to someone holding BTC, the very vast majority still has no idea about how the LN could take effect. Would it be possible to build an app that's so easy to use that it would connect my grandma to LN channels with just two clicks? I think that is how it should be for all micro or daily consumption transactions, whatever that maybe in different countries. Channel setup and connections should somehow be fully automated.

But DOGE really doesn't seem like the answer to bitcoin problems

[Upgrade00]

What's indeed concerning is that LN solutions don't seem to be advancing. When I talk to someone holding BTC, the very vast majority still has no idea about how the LN could take effect.

When you look at the stats and compare that to 3 or so years ago you'll notice how much advancement LN has made. Sure there's still lots of room for more advancements and adoptions, but it has come a long way.

There are dedicated LN wallets and it is now an option on SPV wallets like electrum, this has made it easier to set up and use. Some exchange also now accept it too.

[Dump3er]

What's indeed concerning is that LN solutions don't seem to be advancing. When I talk to someone holding BTC, the very vast majority still has no idea about how the LN could take effect.

When you look at the stats and compare that to 3 or so years ago you'll notice how much advancement LN has made. Sure there's still lots of room for more advancements and adoptions, but it has come a long way.

There are dedicated LN wallets and it is now an option on SPV wallets like electrum, this has made it easier to set up and use. Some exchange also now accept it too.

I see, but I am sure you know what I mean right? I imagine a LN app that works similar to the setup of a VPN where - with the simplest version - you just install the app, choose the country and click connect. I know more measures can be taken to increase security and privacy etc., but for the average Joe to get going with LN in order to be able to transact at reasonable transactions costs, an app for LN should probably work like that.

If there are apps like that, then it is a problem of visibility that people don't know where to find them or which developers to trust. As soon as people have to read into documentation, I think that slows down growth far too much. Some guys from this forum here take the time to understand the details behind it and how to set up nodes etc., but to get a true microtransaction economy going that makes bitcoin feasible for everyday usage, an app with plug and play character would be needed.

For now bitcoin is dysfunctional for lots of transactions when the fees explode once again. I have just recently got a smaller one stuck for three weeks and RBF wasn't worth it. That's frustrating and someone who newly gets into bitcoin and wants to try it out might not use it again.

[LoyceV]

When you look at the stats and compare that to 3 or so years ago you'll notice how much advancement LN has made. Sure there's still lots of room for more advancements and adoptions, but it has come a long way.

The number of channels is dropping, while the network capacity is increasing. There's now on average about 0.1 Bitcoin per channel, and that's 3 times more than it was 3 years ago. If I'd have to guess, I'd say that's related to on-chain transaction fees. I wouldn't want to have $7k in a hot wallet, but small channels aren't worth the on-chain fees. So maybe LN is moving more and more to custodial networks, and I'm okay with that. I'd much rather send $100 to a well-connected custodial LN wallet than sending $7k in my own LN hot wallet.