Today is 2024, We Need a New Breakthrough, bitcoin is calling you Hey Genius

[Sarah Azhari]

The higher fees are a big problem for long time ago. Many don't know how to resolve it. Several time ago some developer create the hard fork just to make the bitcoin network bigger, but we must move to a new network which many disagree with it. After that, the lightning network appeared as a problem solution, but still, because of different networks the user still need a fee to change the network. Now, After the (taproot) soft fork, a bigger problem emerged, they tucking the new token (ordinals) on the narrow BTC network.

We have to think together about this because this is a more serious problem than the mixer. Bitcoin has become the greatest, over more 190 million people in the world own the bitcoin (maybe more added users after ETF is approved). if all these people make transactions at the same time (like they used fiat), I am really sure shipping costs (fee) will be much higher than the main transaction. Maybe the new user will regret it if they find out (the incredible fee)

I have to call the clever person who can resolve the problem, we've downsized the address just to make small transaction fees (segwit), I don't know if it could be reduced further in the future, and the scalability Bitcoin network size (1 MB) can't be more upgrade right?, So, how we can resolve this classic problem?

1. does taproot have to be closed?
2. Create a small address than segwit?
3. Upgrade size? (I am surprised when look Ilcoin have 5 GB block size)

[OcTradism]

1. does taproot have to be closed?

If there are problems with Taproot, like holes for Ordinals, BRC20 tokens to exploit and cause big problems for mempools, Bitcoin users, it must be solved, not to be closed or killed Taproot.

2. Create a small address than segwit?

Bitcoin address is not small or big. Transaction types will have big or small transaction size.
https://bitcoinops.org/en/tools/calc-size/

3. Upgrade size? (I am surprised when look Ilcoin have 5 GB block size)

It is the easiest way but you will have to increase block size from 4 GB to 5GB, then 10 GB and more. It is not a good solution.

[thecodebear]

The solution is to do more work getting higher layers (L2, L3) ready for mass usage. LN is a good example, but there should be others with different designs and different benefits / tradeoffs so people can use whichever networks are best for their use case.

You don't scale a blockchain on the base layer. All that does is destroy decentralization. Sure it would be useful to and give a temporary reprieve from high fees if the blocksize was 2x'd or 4x'd or whatever without harming decentralization too much, but that's all it is - a temporary solution. You can never have solve transaction throughput at the base layer, because the base layer is meant to be secure, decentralized, and low throughput in order to keep those things intact.



So the breakthrough you are asking for OP would be a much greater development effort on LN and other brand new higher layer solutions. Eventually we're gonna have to get to the point where the average bitcoin user hits the blockchain roughly 1 time ever (like to onboard to higher layers) and then can perform thousands of transactions over years without the need to hit the blockchain again, or perhaps worse case scenario rarely hit the blockchain as part of a massively batched L2 transaction or something like that.

Think about this: let's say one day there are 2 billion bitcoin users using bitcoin on a daily basis, average let's say 2 tx per day, would be 2B users x 2 tx / 24 hrs / 60 min / 60 sec = 46,296 tx/sec, so with about 5 tx/sec on-chain that's about (46,296 / 5) 9250 times more transactions than the blockchain can handle. You can't scale on-chain up by 10,000x. It would be a useless centralized s**tcoin long before you get to that level of scaling. So on-chain scaling is not a solution to anything. Which is why bch and bsv and all that nonsense was rejected and those turns into barren cr*p cryptos. The only way Bitcoin scales is through higher payment layers built on top of the bitcoin network, like LN. So that is where we "Need a New Breakthrough", or not even a breakthrough, just a hell of a lot more work needs to be done in that area. Until we get high layer solutions ready for mass use bitcoin will remain a HODL investment and not a transactional currency for any large amount of users.

[Lucius]

Bitcoin has become the greatest, over more 190 million people in the world own the bitcoin (maybe more added users after ETF is approved). if all these people make transactions at the same time (like they used fiat), I am really sure shipping costs (fee) will be much higher than the main transaction. Maybe the new user will regret it if they find out (the incredible fee)
~snip~

There are about 8 billion people in the world, and if about 2% own Bitcoin, I would conclude that it is not exactly a success after 15 years? Of those 190 million, how many actually use Bitcoin on a daily/weekly basis? I would say less than 20% if we go back to the time before the ordinal nonsense, and considering that most people have never (and probably will not) use Bitcoin as a currency, then we don't have to fear that what you are talking about will become a problem.

What is important in the whole story is that the miners are happy because they earn extra profit, and on the other hand, various crypto messiahs also enjoy the fact that their clients are forced to keep their Bitcoin on CEXs. Who cares what people think on this forum or anywhere else, we are the small players at the bottom of the big pyramid.

[Helena Yu]

The solution is to do more work getting higher layers (L2, L3) ready for mass usage. LN is a good example, but there should be others with different designs and different benefits / tradeoffs so people can use whichever networks are best for their use case.

The thing is, many people think L2 or L3 are scam and on chain is the only network that can be trusted. With such thought, you can't expect many people will migrate to L2 or L3. AFAIK to use L2 or L3, you need to make on chain transaction first, people are looking a way without need to make on chain transaction because it's expensive.

Since people who regularly make a transaction is only spend small amount of money, they prefer to use altcoins and use Bitcoin as a long term investment.

[hugeblack]

1. does taproot have to be closed?
2. Create a small address than segwit?

As long as taproot is a soft fork, nodes has to choose, but since miners benefit from high fees, what causes them to reduce their profits? anyway There will be improvement in the coming days due to cluster mempool^[1]

3. Upgrade size? (I am surprised when look Ilcoin have 5 GB block size)

There was an in-depth discussion ---> Why was the block size not increased? several days ago. You can follow all the reasons and arguments why increasing the block size is not the final solution, especially since the Bitcoin block size has been increased via softfork.

[1] Cluster mempool

[Sarah Azhari]

1. does taproot have to be closed?

If there are problems with Taproot, like holes for Ordinals, BRC20 tokens to exploit and cause big problems for mempools, Bitcoin users, it must be solved, not to be closed or killed Taproot.

yes, we are looking for who can solve this problem. I feel pity for people who have small balances in their wallets but have to think and always stay tuned on the mempool to just wait for fees goes down for small transactions. Because not everyone has a lot of BTC, Some of them even wait for months to return to normal (1-2 sat).

The only way Bitcoin scales is through higher payment layers built on top of the bitcoin network, like LN. So that is where we "Need a New Breakthrough",

To switch to a different network the user still need requires a high fee right now. whether in the future, maybe if a lot of transaction happens on LN, 1 sat wouldn't happen also like today, it can also increase to 100 sat.

and on the other hand, various crypto messiahs also enjoy the fact that their clients are forced to keep their Bitcoin on CEXs.

this will also greatly benefit for CEX. The campaign "not your key not your coin" will gradually disappear if not any solution.

anyway There will be improvement in the coming days due to cluster mempool

That good BIP solution. I've read it, but don't fully understand the meaning. If I guess, in 1 block will be inserted some low fee together with high fee rate. I hope it will be approved for the common good.

[SamReomo]

The only solution that may work for long-term is to shift people's mindset about Bitcoin from a way of payment to a store of value. If people consider Bitcoin a P2P payment solution and use it only daily basis for transactions then fees could go higher as more people start adopting Bitcoin payments.

The ordinals are currently causing the problem but then the number of people would be the cause of network congestion. Fighting ordinals is possible but the developers haven't found a way yet, however fighting users is not possible. The more will be the number of unconfirmed transactions the higher will be the intensity of the congestion.

[MusaMohamed]

Cluster mempool is one of things were built for Bitcoin ecosystem in the last year 2023.

The year-in 2023 report from Bitcoin Op Tech


It mentioned Ordinals and Inscriptions in February 2023. It is when Bitcoin mempools started to be affected and Bitcoin miners got more money from mining blocks, confirming transactions while Bitcoin users are affected with on chain transactions.