Is it possible, We could Bridge Bitcoin's SHA256 Blockchain to other Blockchain?

[classickitana]

Hi Crypto experts, I was wondering now it is a trend of Bridging Blockchain technology. This causes lowest crypto transaction fee across the globe.
But other Crypto that are erc20 or bep20 can bridge, but SHA-256 coins could bridge.
As we know btc costs a lump of fee and if their problem could solve than low budget people can also use btc as a transaction method.

[1714809999]

1714809999

[1714809999]

1714809999

[larry_vw_1955]

Hi Crypto experts, I was wondering now it is a trend of Bridging Blockchain technology. This causes lowest crypto transaction fee across the globe.
But other Crypto that are erc20 or bep20 can bridge, but SHA-256 coins could bridge.
As we know btc costs a lump of fee and if their problem could solve than low budget people can also use btc as a transaction method.

bitcoin is always going to have largish transaction fees because the blocksize is only 1 mb. people have to compete to get their transactions into blocks. that drives up the price. now the thing is, if they increased the block size, relaxed that belt a little then people could have lower fees...

[pooya87]

Can SHA256 coins have blockchain bridges? Yes since it has nothing to do with the mining protocol.
Can bitcoin have blockchain bridges? Not exactly because we are not going to change bitcoin protocol for something useless and allow tokens be used in bitcoin blockchain. However there is nothing stopping another chain being built on top of bitcoin blockchain and creating the bridge using their own protocol (one way kind of deal).

bitcoin is always going to have largish transaction fees because the blocksize is only 1 mb.

First of all bitcoin transaction fees are generally very cheap and the block size is bigger then 1 MB, in fact we use weight now and the cap is 4.
Secondly what you are talking about is the characteristic of any blockchain. In other words any other altcoin that would become popular is going to face the same issue. In majority of them having a small increase in number of transactions translates into a huge fee spike! But of course bitcoin is always under magnifying glass and if $0.09 goes up to $0.2 everyone goes nuts but when an altcoins fee goes from $0.06 to $90 people decide to close their eyes!

[larry_vw_1955]

But of course bitcoin is always under magnifying glass and if $0.09 goes up to $0.2 everyone goes nuts but when an altcoins fee goes from $0.06 to $90 people decide to close their eyes!

Really? People go nuts if the fee jumps from 9 pennies to 20? I doubt that. But I do agree that people playing the altcoin game don't really care if they pay a $90 fee for transferring because most of them are moving large amounts of money around so a $90 fee means nothing to them. Bitcoiners are more of the penny pinching type but I don't think anyone really complains if they are paying 20 cents to move money. When it gets to be in dollars though that kind of seems a bit hard to stomach.

First of all bitcoin transaction fees are generally very cheap and the block size is bigger then 1 MB, in fact we use weight now and the cap is 4.

I'm not sure if the cap is 4. Because if you look at the last 100 or so blocks, all of them it pretty much under 2MB. If the cap was 4 then the transaction fees could go lower because miners could include more transactions in a block than they currently are doing.

[NotATether]

You can always make a bridge on some Layer 2 network that sits on top of Bitcoin so that no modification of the protocol (a slow process) is necessary, and the tokens/alts can eventually be converted to mainnet bitcoins along the way.

[pooya87]

But I do agree that people playing the altcoin game don't really care if they pay a $90 fee for transferring because most of them are moving large amounts of money around so a $90 fee means nothing to them.

I doubt that, although I don't waste time investigating these things that much. Here is an example moving $19 worth of token and paying $63.48 fee. Or $79.69 fee to transfer a token that I couldn't find any price for. Or $66.78 fee to move ~$300.

I'm not sure if the cap is 4. Because if you look at the last 100 or so blocks, all of them it pretty much under 2MB.

The weight cap is 4, the size can be between 144 byte to 4 Mb.

If the cap was 4 then the transaction fees could go lower because miners could include more transactions in a block than they currently are doing.

Fees depend on how many transactions are being made in comparison to the total size, just because it is 1, 2, 4, 50 doesn't mean fees will be low. As long as there is a cap, that cap can be exceeded and fees can go up.

[larry_vw_1955]

LN also aim to solve high Bitcoin transaction fee.

But we're not there yet are we?  I looked up one company that said they charge you a fee to use lightning network. so we're just replacing one fee with another ? i don't see how the lightning network would help a person that just needs to send a transaction once every blue moon. maybe i just dont understand it though.

You missed the part "we use weight unit". Weight and byte are 2 different unit which used to measure transaction/block size.

yeah I missed that part, I thought he said 4mb.

[Pmalek]

But of course bitcoin is always under magnifying glass and if $0.09 goes up to $0.2 everyone goes nuts but when an altcoins fee goes from $0.06 to $90 people decide to close their eyes!

Good point.
It takes around 20 cents to transfer BTC right now according to mempool.space. At the same time it takes over $5 to send an ETH transaction. Not to mention what is required to move tokens from platforms like Uniswap and similar where more complex smart contracts are at play.   

I looked up one company that said they charge you a fee to use lightning network. so we're just replacing one fee with another ?

That's not a problem with the Lightning Network, it's a problem with the company you looked up. If I ask you to pay excessive fees to route your payment, it doesn't mean that the LN is flawed. It means that I am a greedy bastard. Having said that, you are still required to pay small fees to transfer coins over LN. But we are talking about sats here.

i don't see how the lightning network would help a person that just needs to send a transaction once every blue moon.

No complaints there. It's meant for people who transact regularly. But there are also no limits I am aware of to how long a payment channel can stay open. So in theory, you can keep it open for days, weeks, months... not sure until when and transact when you need to.

[Rath_]

I looked up one company that said they charge you a fee to use lightning network. so we're just replacing one fee with another ?

Well, those companies need to run and maintain specialized nodes. For example, Bitfinex charges 0.0004 BTC (~$22) for on-chain withdrawals and only 0.000001 BTC (~$0.05) for Lightning ones. That's 400 times cheaper even though the latter one includes the cost of running a Lightning node and the routing fee paid to other Lightning nodes.