[LN?] On-chain transaction fees are too high to pay for evil fees

[LoyceV]

From my whitelist email (and I'm only sharing snippets of the email because it doesn't identify anyone):

i got 8,43 unit of evil
the "bill" was just 751 satoshies aKa 0.32 usd
ill be paying like 14$ for the fee

Bitcoin transaction fees have been ridiculous (at least for small transactions) for months now, and it also creates more pressure on the little block space there is.
I get that low-fee altcoins are one bridge too far for Bitcointalk, but would it be possible to add LN payment as an option for evil fees? That would allow new users to make a low-fee transaction, and they can even use some (centralized) exchanges for it, or send a low-fee altcoin through an instant exchanger to pay for the evil fee.

[Learn Bitcoin]

This is not a bad idea. Not only for small transactions but for almost everyone it is ridiculous now. I have received my sig payment in an address and I wanted to move some Bitcoin this week with a 50 sat/vB but my electrum didn't allow me to do the transaction. Transactions with 49 sat/vB were purging at that moment. What a terrible experience it is. So, adding the lightning network for the evil fee payment and copper membership payment could be a good idea.

For those who are interested to know which exchanges support lightning network payment, here you can check a list of some exchanges that support the Bitcoin Lightning network https://github.com/theDavidCoen/LightningExchanges

[hugeblack]

+1, A good idea. I started receiving fewer messages compared to the past. I don’t know if the number of users being banned due to Proxyban is less or if the number of logins has decreased, but that may be appropriate. I tried purchasing a Copper membership and got an address that starts with 3, so upgrading to bc1 may reduce the fees for the forum.

[ABCbits]

I get that low-fee altcoins are one bridge too far for Bitcointalk, but would it be possible to add LN payment as an option for evil fees? That would allow new users to make a low-fee transaction, and they can even use some (centralized) exchanges for it, or send a low-fee altcoin through an instant exchanger to pay for the evil fee.

Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.

[hugeblack]

Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.

L-BTC is more like to be an altcoin than Bitcoin, and because blocks are signed by 15 Liquid functionaries, it is far from being decentralized.
If it is not possible to use LN, increasing the number whitelist members is better than accepting altcoins.

BTW, nice username A new member who has changed his previous username.

[ABCbits]

Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.

L-BTC is more like to be an altcoin than Bitcoin, and because blocks are signed by 15 Liquid functionaries, it is far from being decentralized.

I don't classify Liquid as altcoin since it depends on Bitcoin blockchain. And while i agree it's far from decentralized, it's also true for many altcoin.

If it is not possible to use LN, increasing the number whitelist members is better than accepting altcoins.

I agree, it's better option.

[OcTradism]

Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.

Some layer-2 Bitcoin networks

1. Lightning Network
2. Liquid Network
3. Rootstock (RSK)
4. Drivechain
5. Statechains
6. Omni Layer
7. Stacks Protocol

It is for Rootstock https://dev.rootstock.io/develop/wallet/use/
Increasing Interoperability Between Bitcoin’s Second-Layer Protocols. It is from Blockstream team, Liquid layer 2.

[digaran]

Since these evil fees are very small and won't benefit the forum at all, why not make a new rule to bypass the restriction, something like 10 good reports to the moderators, the number of reports could be changed depending on the evil score? This way at least the forum benefits from it.

[PX-Z]

This also means of fewer new account being registered (idk if there is an obvious stat related to this) for the past months.

Since these evil fees are very small and won't benefit the forum at all, why not make a new rule to bypass the restriction, something like 10 good reports to the moderators, the number of reports could be changed depending on the evil score? This way at least the forum benefits from it.

The whitelisting request could help since it's an option, the user needs to convince admin for this though or whatever it takes to do that.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Who is this ABCbits? I am sure we know each others very well but I don't recognize you now LOL

[...snip...]

I wonder how many members are thinking to buy a copper membership. Paying $20 to $30 fees for the transactions to broadcast only 0.00065789 BTC [copper membership for my account]

[alani123]

Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.

Some layer-2 Bitcoin networks

1. Lightning Network
2. Liquid Network
3. Rootstock (RSK)
4. Drivechain
5. Statechains
6. Omni Layer
7. Stacks Protocol

It is for Rootstock https://dev.rootstock.io/develop/wallet/use/
Increasing Interoperability Between Bitcoin’s Second-Layer Protocols. It is from Blockstream team, Liquid layer 2.

Already many bitcoin users dislike LN a lot in spite of it having been adopted as a semi-official scaling solution by many core devs.
The bitcoin community calls most of the rest altcoins or too centralized for BTC on there to be equivalent to actual bitcoins.
I see bitcointalk.org accepting anything else other than on-chain BTC ironic personally, doing it on something other than LN would be even more ironic.

[dkbit98]

Bitcoin transaction fees have been ridiculous (at least for small transactions) for months now, and it also creates more pressure on the little block space there is.
I get that low-fee altcoins are one bridge too far for Bitcointalk, but would it be possible to add LN payment as an option for evil fees? That would allow new users to make a low-fee transaction, and they can even use some (centralized) exchanges for it, or send a low-fee altcoin through an instant exchanger to pay for the evil fee.

In theory this sounds good, but do you know how many genuine newbies know anything about Lightning?
- Probably nobody, or less than 1% of people, even people who know about LN are not really using it, and there is low chance they would even join bitcointalk forum now.

Instead of doing this I think it's much better to integrate some type of btcpayserver plugins that convert any sent crypto currencies to Bitcoin or LN.
This can also be used for donations or for anything else, not just for paying evil fees.

[NotATether]

I wholeheartedly support this proposal.

Ordinals have completely decimated the evil fees payment structure.

[Lucius]

Who is this ABCbits? I am sure we know each others very well but I don't recognize you now LOL

It's a bit strange when you leave someone positive feedback, and then you don't know who it is - but if I'm not mistaken, it's about the member whom you know by name @ETFbitcoin.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Ordinals have completely decimated the evil fees payment structure.

Is there any solution at all to save us from this Ordinals shit?

It's a bit strange when you leave someone positive feedback, and then you don't know who it is - but if I'm not mistaken, it's about the member whom you know by name @ETFbitcoin.

You are right, when I saw the feedback I left I knew it was someone who I know very well.

[Text]

I've read a lot of complaints in the past month about the high fees when I tried to conduct a transaction, transferring it to an Electrum wallet address from Trust Wallet. Even though some may want to explore using the Lightning network protocol, they don't know much about it. They say it seems a bit confusing, so they are avoiding it for now to prevent making mistakes. They find it somewhat complicated compared to the simple process of sending a transaction using the on-chain network. Hopefully, more people will create or share tutorials on how to integrate LN into Bitcoin transactions so that more people can learn about it and try using it. This is seen as the real solution to the issue of high fees.

[Upgrade00]

+1, A good idea. I started receiving fewer messages compared to the past. I don’t know if the number of users being banned due to Proxyban is less or if the number of logins has decreased, but that may be appropriate.

Same here, I've noticed a decline in emails over the past few months, but this may also be due to some pockets of inactivity when I wasn't checking my emails too often.

Whatever the case, tx fees are too high and I fear LN might be very new to registering users with no prior Bitcoin knowledge and just dissuade them altogether.