How are we going to beat the reptilians when monkeys are kicking our ass?

[stompix]

Clickbait title? F*** Yeah pretty much!

I've been reading about the new "spam" attack, about how the pool is again growing bigger and bigger how it's best to postpone transactions, how the fad that was supposed to die 3 months ago will die again and I was thinking how the whole narrative changed.
Many here say Bitcoin is the liberator, it will bring the new world order, it will fight against the Cabal, it will dethrone the petrodollar, it will change the economy it will revolutionize everything, the system that is run right now by the evil occultist reptilians will be broken.

But till that final fight, a bunch of jpg monkeys (ordinals) are clogging the mempool, making transactions more expensive, driving some into paranoia mode thinking this is a CIA operation, and all the while forgetting something, if Bitcoin can't deal with this kind of "spam" how could it possible deal with real usage on this level or what is needed for a global currency, 1000 x times more?

So, from jokes to more serious things, there are a few issues here I keep seeing being brought up in denial mode:

1) When the block reward is gone, miners will get paid from fee!
Current fees are 3% in reward, you will need fees to be 30 times more expensive to give the miners the same revenue and offer in return the same level of protection.

Before you even mention the rise in the price of coins, think twice, if the market cap of Bitcoin goes up 100 times but the hashrate stays the same, will the protection be also the same? Guarding a market with 500 billion market cap with 3 million machines worth an average 2000 is one thing, protecting a 10 trillion one with the same hashrate stops being that secure, isn't it?

Bottom line for point 1, if you ever said the network will run from fees, prepare to pay those fees!

2) The immense cost of hosting a node if we double or triple the block size:
In 2009  the cheapest hdd was priced at $0.09 per GB, right now the price is $0.0125. <added $ sign!

Maybe paying $100 dollars extra for a node that would still hold the blockchain for the next 4 years even with blocks 4 times as big won't be that much trouble if you plan on dethroning the banking system, just saying.

3) The lighting network dilemma
While the LN keeps "growing", it's also stalling. If you look from a BTC standpoint yeah, everything is fine, but LN was supposed to be for fast payments, moving instantly value, so the true metric here should be represented in the value locked, and if we look from the $ perspective (orange line) we're well below 2021 levels!!!!



I've always heard, high fees will drive people to LN, not really that true


And guess what, from doing 20-40k tx a day, Doge has again spiked to 100k in the last 24 hours.
Of course, coincidence, right?

So, with these in mind, I do wonder what next and if there is actually a plan or if we go
- 1btc=1btc who cares about moving that BTC at all
- the having will be here, everything will be fine
- Bitcoin was never about being a currency, is about moarr returns

/rant over, beachtime and michelada for me.

[digaran]

It is fundamentally and structurally impossible for bitcoin to become "one world currency" whatever that even means.

You can't run a nation with financial transactions being processed every 10 minutes, you'd need instant transfer and a central authority to manage everything while keeping your money safe, with LN/other layers, you can't trust anyone because they are not governed by the laws of the nation.

This is bitcoin, it will remain like this forever, unless of course they change all the rules of the code in the future, not in our lifetime though.

So, relax and chill, don't overthink it.😉 

[Faisal2202]

Some people are here with the purpose of making money out of BTC, ALTs or NFTs etc. From anything directly or indirectly related to BTC while they have hell lot of money in there banks at the same time. They are money maker. They do not care about spamming the BTC blockchain with Ordinals shit instead they only are here to make money out of it. There have already been many discussions on the topic of "Bad Impact of Ordinals on BTC blockchain".

People made millions dollars from ordinals and that created FOMO among other people too. So now they are also investing in Ordinals. And since then numbers are still increasing.

Point is, this ordinal problem helped many people to make hell lot of money that if they have to pay high fee (the problem of high fee in your first point) In future then they might not hesitate to pay. Because they could bear it. While the middle class users/merchants have already gave up on using the BTC as payment method. I read 2 or 3 topics in which OP announced the removal of BTC as payment method. So definitely they will go after easier one like Doge (which is a coin and also in hype).

[348Judah]

1) When the block reward is gone, miners will get paid from fee!
Current fees are 3% in reward, you will need fees to be 30 times more expensive to give the miners the same revenue and offer in return the same level of protection.

This alone is worth a thing we should give a second thought on, what will be the next phase of transaction fees when all the block reward are no more, could the incentives from transaction fees be satisfactory or give enough income as they have been having of all time, though this is a bitcoin community and i believe one thing is sure, which is the assurance of us crossing whenever we get to that stage.

[ImThour]

2) The immense cost of hosting a node if we double or triple the block size:
In 2009  the cheapest hdd was priced at $0.09 per GB, right now the price is 0.0125.

Why did you even decide to compare in price with using a US Dollar Value and then a Bitcoin Value? It's not even the same. I mean was it 1 Bitcoin of 2009 or 10 Bitcoins?
If it's at 0.0125, its still cheap according to the number of sats being used to purchase or fulfill the node cost. Next time I would appreciate if you get it clear and use one format to compare two different values.

[stompix]

2) The immense cost of hosting a node if we double or triple the block size:
In 2009  the cheapest hdd was priced at $0.09 per GB, right now the price is 0.0125.

Why did you even decide to compare in price with using a US Dollar Value and then a Bitcoin Value?

It's $0.0125 so down from 9 cents to 1 cent, what made you think that value was in BTC?

It is fundamentally and structurally impossible for bitcoin to become "one world currency" whatever that even means.

Actually, that's the interesting part of all of this, how do people see Bitcoin's role in the future?
The same thing as now with 1% of us trying to actually use it as both a payment and a way to keep our funds secure and the rest being interested in how much will it grow after halving, when ETF, when Wallstreet?
Because no matter how spectacular the rise in price will be at one point that will stop being out of the ordinary and if the coin wants to stay relevant it will need to become really mainstream, not fomo profits mainstream but day-to-day usage, and that...is tricky.

[DaveF]

Think of how long it took for people to go from barter - to gold / silver / coins - to paper money - to.....

BTC / LN / Whatever. Still young. Things will work themselves out. Even now, LN being below 2021 is not a big deal to me. The BTC price vs USD is also way below 2021 so perhaps, people are not using LN because they are sitting on their coins. Or, perhaps spending $0.40 to make a TX is not a big deal to a lot of users so they stay on the main chain.

-Dave

[hatshepsut93]

1) When the block reward is gone, miners will get paid from fee!

This problem will start arising in our lifetime, especially if after a few halvening cycles the price growth will start failing to compensate for them.

2) The immense cost of hosting a node if we double or triple the block size:

Blocksize increase will definitely happen sometime in the future, and it might result in higher block rewards because more tx per block = more fees. But would it alone make mining more sustainable? Probably not.

3) The lighting network dilemma
While the LN keeps "growing", it's also stalling. If you look from a BTC standpoint yeah, everything is fine, but LN was supposed to be for fast payments, moving instantly value, so the true metric here should be represented in the value locked, and if we look from the $ perspective (orange line) we're well below 2021 levels!!!!

LN is still in beta so people are reluctant to adopt it. And the fees are not painful enough to force people to start looking at LN. 10-15 sat/vB is not that much right now. If the minimum fee will consistently be $5 or more, than LN will start looking more attractive.

LN can justify $50 on chain fees, because they will be like a fee for opening and maintaining a payment card with instant zero fee transactions. If the channel will last for a year or two, that's not a bad deal.

But the worst possible scenario is low Bitcoin adoption with low on-chain activity and as the result low fee rewards in blocks - together with halvenings it would indeed knock a lot of miners out of the game and make the network less protected. Our last line of defense will be treating low confirmation counts as unreliable. If right now 1-3 confs is enough, 10-20 might become the new default requirement.

[Eclipse33]

I was reading up on this today, please read this article.

https://river.com/learn/files/river-bitcoin-mining-zettahash-report.pdf

This article goes into detail on how hash rate will increase over time exponentially.

Great read that answers some of your questions.

[hugeblack]

The challenge lies in the source of the information. Many people repeat the same articles on the Internet, which are rarely correct or carry technically correct data, and then move to Twitter, which means the number of followers and the number of retweets is an indication of the accuracy of the information, which is wrong, so the problem is that there are many False information that people circulate to become facts without searching for its source or verifying its authenticity.

Even the trust here is based on the number of merits you have collected, so incorrect information from a legendary account can be more accurate than correct information from a newbie account. Everything that happens confirms our failure to find an accurate and impartial crypto source of information and therefore is not suitable for beginners.

[stompix]

I was reading up on this today, please read this article.
https://river.com/learn/files/river-bitcoin-mining-zettahash-report.pdf
This article goes into detail on how hash rate will increase over time exponentially.

I quit after one page, the same promo bs on how putting your money in their business is a good idea.
Besides I'm really getting tired of how something simply having more hashrate is making the network more secure, it's all down to cost, to attack this so let me explain it for you without the mumbo jumbo the others were saying to make you lose your money in their scheme

- Right now hashrate is at 400 exahash translated into 4 million gears of 100th/s with a cost per piece ~2000.
- in May 2013 the hashrate was 100th/s, was the network protected by gear worth $2000? Could you attack it with $2000?

Hahsrate alone is a meaningless number, what it matters is how much money you have to pour in to obtain it!

Blocksize increase will definitely happen sometime in the future, and it might result in higher block rewards because more tx per block = more fees. But would it alone make mining more sustainable? Probably not.

Prepare to get pitchforked for this! 

The challenge lies in the source of the information. Many people repeat the same articles on the Internet, which are rarely correct or carry technically correct data, and then move to Twitter, which means the number of followers and the number of retweets is an indication of the accuracy of the information, which is wrong, so the problem is that there are many False information that people circulate to become facts without searching for its source or verifying its authenticity.
Even the trust here is based on the number of merits you have collected, so incorrect information from a legendary account can be more accurate than correct information from a newbie account. Everything that happens confirms our failure to find an accurate and impartial crypto source of information and therefore is not suitable for beginners.

While I agree with what you said as a definition and situation per se, is there a deeper something-something hidden that refers to my own assumptions?  Cause like now I feel like getting in defensive mode over any of my claims if one or other do need such!

Think of how long it took for people to go from barter - to gold / silver / coins - to paper money - to.....

It also took humans about half a million years to realize hitting with a rock tied to a stick is more efficient than with a rock in your hand.
Look how long it took to go from cheques and landlines to smartphones with NFC payments 

[franky1]

the subnetwork you mention made many broken promises 6 years ago and has not fixed its flaws..
many users have rejected it and used other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin.. theres a few that are only 2 years old but have more liquidity than the one you advertise. which just goes to show your favoured subnetwork has lost the game..

broken promises, lack of security and too many exploits.. is why the subnetwork you mention is losing its fame.. i think those devs need to go back to the start and make something new that meets promises from the start rather then try and fail to patch exploits that just create new exploits of the flawed existing subnetwork

[hatshepsut93]

Prepare to get pitchforked for this! 

Pitchforks are only for those who demand blocksize increase today, especially an unrealistically huge increase.  I think it's pretty much a conensus among everyone that there will be an increase at some point, when storage will be much more affordable. It could be in 10 years or 20 years or even more, but technology will surely progress. But this doesn't cancel the fact that on-chain capacity will always be small, compared to transaction volumes of even a small country.

[Iroh]

This alone is worth a thing we should give a second thought on, what will be the next phase of transaction fees when all the block reward are no more, could the incentives from transaction fees be satisfactory or give enough income as they have been having of all time, though this is a bitcoin community and i believe one thing is sure, which is the assurance of us crossing whenever we get to that stage.

By the time the block rewards are gone, the price of bitcoin would probably be through the rooftop and for transactions, the fees would likely increase just enough to continue to motivate miners.

Even the trust here is based on the number of merits you have collected, so incorrect information from a legendary account can be more accurate than correct information from a newbie account. Everything that happens confirms our failure to find an accurate and impartial crypto source of information and therefore is not suitable for beginners.

I guess on here, legendary members are thought to have gathered accurate information themselves during the journey from lower ranks, enough to teach and correct the misconception of new members.
On here, a legendary member may be ignorant and may also spread false information as truth but it  would be quickly debunked and corrected by other members who are more knowledgeable on that subject.

[Kakmakr]

I have said from the start that the Lightning Network is too complex and too much extra effort for ordinary people. The developers found a side-chain solution, but it is not a user-friendly and simple concept.

We need an on-chain solution for the congested periods and we need a supplementary "reward" for miners, when the Block reward falls away... because the tx fees is simply not going to replace it...and still be profitable for the miners. 

You cannot implement side-chains that will effectively reduce on-chain transactions and still think that enough transactions will still take place to generate enough tx fees to reward miners in the future. 

[Ndabagi01]

1) When the block reward is gone, miners will get paid from fee!
Current fees are 3% in reward, you will need fees to be 30 times more expensive to give the miners the same revenue and offer in return the same level of protection.

This alone is worth a thing we should give a second thought on, what will be the next phase of transaction fees when all the block reward are no more, could the incentives from transaction fees be satisfactory or give enough income as they have been having of all time, though this is a bitcoin community and i believe one thing is sure, which is the assurance of us crossing whenever we get to that stage.

I don't believe the transaction fees will be enough to keep the system going. The miners confirming the transaction own the transaction fees, and because they still have control of the blockchain, they can easily come together to increase the fees of confirming a transaction, which could be relatively okay at the time because the price of bitcoin will be upped, and they may be more manipulated by coming together and agreeing on a common ground that will benefit them all.

[stompix]

On here, a legendary member may be ignorant and may also spread false information as truth but it  would be quickly debunked and corrected by other members who are more knowledgeable on that subject.

Are you calling me ignorant and spreading false rumors?
What false rumor, what am I ignoring and what do you hope to debunk?

Pitchforks are only for those who demand blocksize increase today, especially an unrealistically huge increase.  I think it's pretty much a conensus among everyone that there will be an increase at some point, when storage will be much more affordable. It could be in 10 years or 20 years or even more, but technology will surely progress.

Common, waiting 20 years when probably 100TB smartphones capable of 1 Gbps will be normal to raise the block limit from 1MB to 4 or 10 is just ridiculous, it's like a company saying now they plan on waiting till 2040 to release a laptop with 2gb of storage! Yeah, the time has been long gone when this should have been done already, all the babbling about high cost is just non-sense, nodes would need to spend $100 extra, make that for 10000 nodes, that would be 1 million over 4 years but no, no problem, let's have users spend an extra $400k in fees each day, that is normal!

This move could have killed all those shitcoins and cleaned the whole crypto space of copy-paste projects which have only one slogan, faster and cheaper than bitcoin, but no, just because the ones that had this idea in the first place were some pieces of shit now we can't do it because it would prove they were a bit right, and no one wants to admit it!

I've always heard, high fees will drive people to LN, not really that true

People who say either doesn't use LN much or know LN well enough. High fee also affect cost to open/close channel. And as i say stated many time, people who rarely make transaction won't notice benefit from LN.

LN right now would save a lot of space if only it would be used by more exchanges as a ton of transactions that are only people moving coins from one exchange to another would be done through it. It would save a lot of space not to mention the whole batching process when exchanges consolidate their inputs but seems like things are going way too slow.

[Darker45]

Or perhaps Bitcoin doesn't even have to be that day-to-day global currency everyone shall be using all over the world. With what's happening right now, we're once again confronted with the reality that Bitcoin simply can't perform that role. I'm reminded of Hal Finney's vision of Bitcoin becoming some sort of a "high-powered money" in the future. The genius was at least realistic in acknowledging Bitcoin's shortcomings. The Lightning Network is a development in this direction.

Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient.

[Iroh]

On here, a legendary member may be ignorant and may also spread false information as truth but it  would be quickly debunked and corrected by other members who are more knowledgeable on that subject.

Are you calling me ignorant and spreading false rumors?
What false rumor, what am I ignoring and what do you illiterate money can hope to debunk?

Never said nor did I imply you were ignorant or spreading misinformation. You clearly misunderstood me.

The post I replied to made a point on how for some, number of likes and retweets can indicate factual information. Bringing it closer to home, on how information from legendary accounts could be considered accurate compared to one from a newbie. I replied that unlike Twitter where misinformation could quickly spread from an account with a large following, it would be difficult to tout misinformation as truth on here as there are knowledgeable people ready to debunk such information.
 
What do I know anyways, I’m just an illiterate money.

[stompix]

Never said nor did I imply you were ignorant or spreading misinformation. You clearly misunderstood me.

The post I replied to made a point on how for some, number of likes and retweets can indicate factual information. Bringing it closer to home, on how information from legendary accounts could be considered accurate compared to one from a newbie. I replied that unlike Twitter where misinformation could quickly spread from an account with a large following, it would be difficult to tout misinformation as truth on here as there are knowledgeable people ready to debunk such information.

Ok, let's say it was a misunderstanding.

But why continue on this path the discussion about misinformation here when obviously there is none?
If you're thinking of accounts on twitter that spread such a thing related to this subject feel free to post it here but don't make it sound like I'm the one doing it because you can see right here on this topic I'm the only legendary that posted data while the others commented on it, so it's pretty normal I feel targeted, not to mention the fact that legendary implies bitcointalk since there is no such rank on Twitter.

I feel like nowadays you can't say anything bad about something happening in crypto without getting pitchforked as I said above, every single attempt to discuss negative issues is hitting a stonewall and I'm starting to wonder if some don't wish to live in a total denial state where there is no bad news and thus no threat on their wealth in coins.

The genius was at least realistic in acknowledging Bitcoin's shortcomings. The Lightning Network is a development in this direction.

Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient.

Yeah, but if you go to the next line I dare you to say this in a post here without mentioning who wrote it first, and if you do please let me know so I can enjoy everything that is being thrown at your :

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.