Bitcoin usage and misaligned expectations

[Wind_FURY]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

[1714653486]

1714653486

[1714653486]

1714653486

[1714653486]

1714653486

[YuginKadoya]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

Failure is on people who don't ride the wave where the price is still cheap, I guess they can not have easy access anymore whenever it is in the forum Earning, Trading, and Investing I guess it is too hard for them to really ride this kind of opportunity, Well I don't think that the technology of Blockchain is a failure because we can see that there are other uses for it instead of just using it on Online Ledger And these companies are highly positive with the technology of Blockchain.

[figmentofmyass]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

of course not. it was realized very early on that bitcoin couldn't scale to every possible tiny transaction. hal finney once predicted the emergence of bitcoin banks. later, the idea of "upper layer" protocols was conceived as a decentralized alternative.

anyone who thinks we can just raise block size to keep transactions cheap doesn't understand the tragedy of the commons. their greed and unwillingness to pay the real cost of transactions would be the undoing of bitcoin---if we let them.

[asayoyaasa]

There lot more thing you can do with bitcoin, maybe just not for a daily basis and buy something at the coffee shop. So I don't think its a failure at all, there's a lot of services I usually pay with my card and now I pay it using bitcoin, the fee is always cheaper if I pay using bitcoin.
Anyway go using lightning if you want to use send a small amount of BTC with "zero fees"

[jseverson]

I don't know about almost zero, but I feel like cheap fees should still be a priority going forward. Cheaper fees than ones charged by third party payment processors was one of the primary selling points of Bitcoin, and Satoshi even addressed it in the introduction part of the white paper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.

I don't think it necessarily has to scale to be able to accommodate microtransactions (there are workarounds after all, like LN), but at the same time should have enough use cases to remain plausible for the middle class. It could be argued that there's a price to pay for decentralization, immutability, etc., but realistically speaking, the average joe wouldn't care about that. It's difficult enough to convince people to use Bitcoin, and pricing them out with fees they would be uncomfortable with wouldn't be the best idea.

[Mike Mayor]

If bitcoin was a failure then how did I pay for most of what I have? How come I made something of myself? I found something I am passionate about because everything else just bores me to death.
I found a career path and a way forward to a better life. It suites me too. I don't like to go to work so working from wherever I am is such a great gift. It has made using the internet easier for me and made transactions so simple. Being paid and paying others is wonderous now. We live in a world we can earn money doing all kinds of odd weird and wonderful things. Imagine trying to explain to people of the last two generations how we make money out of "thin air" HAHAHHA those of you here long enough know exactly what I am referring to. xP

[jhonjhon]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

Failure is on people who don't ride the wave where the price is still cheap, I guess they can not have easy access anymore whenever it is in the forum Earning, Trading, and Investing I guess it is too hard for them to really ride this kind of opportunity, Well I don't think that the technology of Blockchain is a failure because we can see that there are other uses for it instead of just using it on Online Ledger And these companies are highly positive with the technology of Blockchain.

So true, that's because when bitcoin was still cheap they didn't trust it and now when bitcoin's price is soaring high again they wanted to ride the wave but I guess they are having a hard time now, and also considering the fact that mining is so hard these days that's why they say its a failure, when in fact, its not. Bitcoin market trend right now is going upward and with a lot of people having interest in bitcoin means it will increase the demands, and once the demand will increase then so its price.

[Kakmakr]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

They should give us an example of any technology where they pay "almost-zero fee" transactions with other payment services out there, before they can say that about Bitcoin. Everything from Diners club to credit cards to PayPal has some kind of fee structure to pay for their expenses to run that system.

The Lightning Network is the closest we will ever come to a "almost-zero fee" transaction scenario, but it is still in it's development stage to sort out some teething problems. Crypto currencies will always need some remuneration or reward system that would need to be funded by someone else to fund the transaction volume on the network.  

[squatter]

I don't know about almost zero, but I feel like cheap fees should still be a priority going forward. Cheaper fees than ones charged by third party payment processors was one of the primary selling points of Bitcoin, and Satoshi even addressed it in the introduction part of the white paper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.

Maybe we could afford for it to be a selling point years ago when transaction demand was very low and the block subsidy was very high. Cheap transactions didn't hurt miner incentives when block rewards were 50+ BTC. That's changing. In 5 years, the block subsidy will only be ~ 3 BTC. Shouldn't fee revenue be rising to compensate miners? How long can miners be expected to subsidize users with cheap fees?

I think Satoshi was naive with some of his economic assumptions.

[jseverson]

-snip-

Maybe we could afford for it to be a selling point years ago when transaction demand was very low and the block subsidy was very high. Cheap transactions didn't hurt miner incentives when block rewards were 50+ BTC. That's changing. In 5 years, the block subsidy will only be ~ 3 BTC. Shouldn't fee revenue be rising to compensate miners? How long can miners be expected to subsidize users with cheap fees?

I think Satoshi was naive with some of his economic assumptions.

I probably don't know enough about the subject, so please be patient with me.

I'm not defending Satoshi, but maybe he thought that BTC's rising value (it is deflationary by design after all) would offset the loss in mining revenue of the decreasing block rewards? I mean, I'd bet that 3 BTC 5 years from now would still be a lot more valuable than 50 BTC from a few years ago. I understand that mining costs are also increasing, but isn't that what the difficulty adjustment is for? It ensures that there will always be financial incentive for miners, regardless of transaction fee revenue.

I concede that transaction fees will have to rise, and that micro transactions won't be plausible at some point anymore (nor would it indicate failure). My concern is that it still has to be cheap enough as to not be detrimental to adoption. My views may be a little too naive though (like how Satoshi's may be lol), so I would appreciate any insight.

[xvids]

I don't know about almost zero, but I feel like cheap fees should still be a priority going forward. Cheaper fees than ones charged by third party payment processors was one of the primary selling points of Bitcoin, and Satoshi even addressed it in the introduction part of the white paper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.

Maybe we could afford for it to be a selling point years ago when transaction demand was very low and the block subsidy was very high. Cheap transactions didn't hurt miner incentives when block rewards were 50+ BTC. That's changing. In 5 years, the block subsidy will only be ~ 3 BTC. Shouldn't fee revenue be rising to compensate miners? How long can miners be expected to subsidize users with cheap fees?

I think Satoshi was naive with some of his economic assumptions.

I don't think that Satoshi expects things to happen as it is.
Nobody expects this do you even imagine 10 years before that the price would be that high ?
The things that Bitcoin has been through?

[franky1]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for $20 per transaction for only vaulting it up. But is it truly a failure?


the silly thing is those that want expensive fee's go to extremes of stifling bitcoin and then blaming bitcoin for it(pretending bitcoin is AI and it stifled itself). they then go to extremes of thinking those that want regular use of bitcoin want it to buy google adsense at 0.001cent a tx

the even stranger thing is that its not even the pools that want excessive fees right now.
the even stranger thing is that when pools do rely on fee's they can set their min fee without care about blocksize

the real reality is if a tx fee is more than an hourly wage in any country. its automatically pushed that country out from viewing bitcoin as viable
entertaining alternative networks as the solution is not a bitcoin solution. its an altcoin solution

[creeps]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

Bitcoin is not a failure, you can transact big money for just $5 compare to a banking trasactions who requires you to pay for more fees and took almost a week before your transactions done, now tell me who’s a failure? Bitcoin usage is not that high right now, because not all coffee shops accepts bitcoin so we can wait if the adoption will beging in the next years, or in the coming months. Bitcoin will succeed, its ok to fail but we will still achieve our goal in the end.

[Genemind]

If we'll be keen and observant in the movement of Bitcoin, we could notice how things have changed that fast so considering Bitcoin as failure is really being too narrow.
We can't eliminate fees that fast and we could rely success on lowest fees. We should focus on its development and just appreciate how bitcoin works for us these days.

[Herbert2020]

almost all the times when people talk about bitcoin failure they are either blinded by some altcoin advertisement that kept lying to them about their "solutions" that magically has solved every problem that bitcoin may or may not have. or they are just advertising that altcoin themselves because they are bag holding it and want to make profit.

otherwise the rest of us know that bitcoin is not perfect and it has issues but it also has a lot of advantages and good features that nothing else has and so far no altcoin could even come close to bitcoin's usability.

[CryptoBry]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

Should we really expect a zero-fee transactions with bitcoin? I think that it is impossible for now because every transaction has to be confirmed and each confirmation carries a cost. However, I think there is already an experiment where transaction is done P2P or from one gadget to another and the wallet is within the gadget...but I am not so sure if this can get popular. As for me, bitcoin is not successful if it is not being used or traded by the people. There is still a long story for bitcoin and I am sure that its history can last a lifetime. Judging the way it is now is not doing it justice as we are only experiencing the tip of the iceberg.

[Rufsilf]

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for "almost-zero fee" coffee transactions. But is it truly a failure?

They should give us an example of any technology where they pay "almost-zero fee" transactions with other payment services out there, before they can say that about Bitcoin. Everything from Diners club to credit cards to PayPal has some kind of fee structure to pay for their expenses to run that system.

The Lightning Network is the closest we will ever come to a "almost-zero fee" transaction scenario, but it is still in it's development stage to sort out some teething problems. Crypto currencies will always need some remuneration or reward system that would need to be funded by someone else to fund the transaction volume on the network.  

I agree, I guess they just looking some lame reasons to say something bad about bitcoin. Well, whether we like it or not there's always someone who will not be happy with bitcoin's success, as for the exact reason, I don't know. Bitcoin has far more useful to most of us and those non-sense are harmless so long as bitcoin is doing good and the price is up then it'll be good for us, it's a shame to those who judge bitcoin badly.

[MonsterV]

No, no. This is not a failure, but it is more unique to Bitcoin, because it is a digital currency and different from others. I think bitcoin is more suitable for large-scale transactions or digital transactions, but if you pay coffee with bitcoin and want zero costs. Then you can use Nano because this platform hears hearing a zero fee service. Isn't crypto not just bitcoin, so nano is more suitable for that.

[MakeMoneyBtc]

If we just think at the fact that bitcoin can be used to send transactions worldwide and almost instant then this fees wouldn't seem so high. Think about what fees do banks charge for a worldwide transfer. Most of them around $15-$25 but it could go up to $50. Besides that you also have to wait at least a few hours in best case because usually it takes a few days to be processed. Now compare that with bitcoin. It's enough to pay a maximum of $5 in fees and your transactions will surely receive 6+ confirmations in less than 2-3 hours. And this is just one advantage because there are others more.

[dothebeats]

It failed on some aspects but succeded in most parts. Bitcoin effectively disrupted the financial scene, helped the unbanked gained some footing on the uneven playing field of today's economy, redistribute wealth (kinda) and a transfer of value. We might not be having little to no fees in sending bitcoin here and there, but compared to banks, bitcoin is still faster and cheaper, especially when sending in large amounts from point A to point B.