Massive adoption of BTC could reduce the Transaction fee.

[KingsDen]

If a vendor wants $10 per day profit from 10qty of goods, he'll simply attach $1 profit on each of the goods making the total profit $10.
Now, if the QTY of his goods he sell increases to $100 per day, he should be able to sell at a cheaper rate. Making the profit on each goods $0.1, or if he wishes to maintain the $1 profit, he would still make much profit.
Why does the BTC model differ? If there is a congestion in the network, the transaction fee becomes high. Does it therefore means that, if BTC is massively adopted, the transaction fee will be outrageous?

[HeRetiK]

If a vendor wants $10 per day profit from 10qty of goods, he'll simply attach $1 profit on each of the goods making the total profit $10.
Now, if the QTY of his goods he sell increases to $100 per day, he should be able to sell at a cheaper rate. Making the profit on each goods $0.1, or if he wishes to maintain the $1 profit, he would still make much profit.
Why does the BTC model differ? If there is a congestion in the network, the transaction fee becomes high. Does it therefore means that, if BTC is massively adopted, the transaction fee will be outrageous?

The BTC fee model differs from what you describe in that it's not influenced by the economy of scales, but rather by supply and demand. There's a limited supply of available space per block, so if the demand increases (ie. more transactions to be sent), the fee rises accordingly.

Hence the importance of moving onto 2nd layer solutions such as Lightning Network for day-to-day transactions, as that way Bitcoin can scale massively while largely reducing the fees per transaction in two ways: (1) reduced demand for on-chain transactions leading to lower on-chain fees and (2) being able to do a large amount of transactions at just the cost of two (ie. opening and closing the channel).

[KingsDen]

Hence the importance of moving onto 2nd layer solutions such as Lightning Network for day-to-day transactions, as that way Bitcoin can scale massively while largely reducing the fees per transaction in two ways: (1) reduced demand for on-chain transactions leading to lower on-chain fees and (2) being able to do a large amount of transactions at just the cost of two (ie. opening and closing the channel).

This is great. I stumbled on a poll created by @Pmalek about the Lightening Network few hours ago, it was informative and interesting. And now I have encountered it again. With LN it therefore means that the problem of BTC high fee is 50% solved.
Thanks for sharing.

[NotATether]

Why does the BTC model differ? If there is a congestion in the network, the transaction fee becomes high. Does it therefore means that, if BTC is massively adopted, the transaction fee will be outrageous?

From a BTC point of view, transaction fees are dictated by how much users are willing to spend to confirm their transaction. If there is a shortage of blocks being mined then users may feel that a larger tx fee is justified, but there is a limit to how large a fee users will view as reasonable.

This means the BTC value of transaction fees will remain largely the same. However, in the case of a price increase, the transaction fee amounts are not adjusted - they remain largely the same as before, so it is possible that there will be very high USD values of transaction fees in the future.

[Pmalek]

Users who move their coins from quality personal wallets have the absolute power to decide the fee levels they are going to send at. The problem is that most users overpay because they rely on their wallet's fee estimates, which are usually bad. Another reason users overpay is if they are paying for certain services or goods and they only have a limited window of 10-20 minutes to send and have the transaction confirmed, unless they don't want to be subjected to having to pay additional coins due to bitcoin's volatility. And then we have crypto exchanges and gambling sites who always overpay on the fees to avoid customer complaints and delays in withdrawals.

All this affects the fee calculators that most people use, and without looking at the mempool manually, users just agree to whatever fees are suggested to them. Theoretically, all users could send their coins at 1 sat/Vbyte and those would be included in blocks. But there would be a huge race of who gets in. The community has great power in deciding the network fees, they just don't use it and many times, they aren't in the position to do so.   

[BIN-BIN]

Users can easily adjust the fee amount from the monopole in the custodial wallet at that you don't have to pay the high fees being set by the wallet, but it is best advisable to use the second layer technology such as the lightning network to pay lesser fees and get fast transaction confirmation.

[Pmalek]

Users can easily adjust the fee amount from the monopole in the custodial wallet at that you don't have to pay the high fees being set by the wallet, but it is best advisable to use the second layer technology such as the lightning network to pay lesser fees and get fast transaction confirmation.

Monopole? Were you trying to say mempool? Custodial wallets aren't recommended and should be avoided. On top of that, they usually don't allow for a lot of customization (if any) when it comes to network fees. Some have fast, normal, slow options. Unless your transaction is RBF-enabled (popular wallets should have this option turned on by default), you wont be able to adjust the fees. Don't forget that you still have to open and close the channels for the final balance to be recorded on the blockchain. That requires regular on-chain transactions.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Scalability is the most important issue that is hampering the global adoption of Bitcoin. As we know, an average block contains around 2,000 transactions. And we have approx. 6 blocks per hour, which means that the Bitcoin network can handle around 12,000 transactions per hour without delays. The issue here is that it Bitcoin gets more popular, then we can expect 10x or even 100x this many transactions per hour. And unfortunately, Lightning is not being widely used, because of the difficulties associated with it.

[bryant.coleman]

Yes, but this unfortunately will not increase the processing speed of these transactions.

First of all, Bitcoin was not meant for instant payments. If that was the case, then Satoshi would have never kept the gap between blocks at 10 minutes. For instant payments, there need to be some off-chain solution, such as lightning network. The only thing the development team needs to do, is to make lightning network more user friendly, so that less tech savvy individuals can use it for payments (right now that is not the case). Still, I have high hopes on lightning network and would like to see its usage expanding in the future.