Topic: ㅤ (Read 665 times)

As often there is a way just not 100% Bitcoin. swap into LTC, channel your funds and reswap into BTC.
Money saved, Time saved win win.

First off, that's what LN is for. By the time businesses accepting Bitcoin actually becomes a thing I expect it all to be done through LN, I would never expect on-chain payments from merchants, that simply doesn't scale. On-chain is for moving money around, LN is for paying.

It seems you don't understand the uniqueness of Bitcoin. Litecoin, BCH, other Bitcoin forks, as well as every other cryptocurrency, are nothing like Bitcoin. They have none of the advantages/strengths bitcoin has. Bitcoin's uniqueness has nothing to do with it being the first mover. It is also the first mover which helps it, but its uniqueness and the inability of Litcoin, BCH, or any other cryptocurrency to be able to do what it does or be anything like Bitcoin is what keeps any altcoin from ever having the ability to replace Bitcoin.

As I said, Ethereum doesn't have those advantages. There is nothing unique about Ethereum, it just has first mover advantage. There is no reason why another smart contract network couldn't replace Ethereum if its first mover advantage failed. That is not the case with Bitcoin. Nobody is going to abandon Bitcoin for some altcoin just because tx fees get high for a bit because then they'd lose the entire purpose they were using Bitcoin in the first place.

Bitcoin is hard money, globally secure, sovereign, immutable, trustless, and decentralized. You'd be hard pressed to find any other cryptocurrency that is any of those things, let all all of them, I mean maybe Monero would be closest to having some of those but its privacy is actually its downfall because it is too closely associated with nefarious uses due to its privacy. Not only is Bitcoin unique that has nothing at all to do with it being the first mover, but there is nobody these days even interested in trying to make a cryptocurrency that attempts to have Bitcoin's strengths. Probably because if you wanna make money you don't make something you don't control and own, you make a centralized token. Also every attempt to make something that could compete with Bitcoin completely failed and none of them had any of Bitcoin's advantages anyway. It's also much much harder to grow a decentralized immutable blockchain from zero than it is to make some centralized token or app that you control and can sell for fundraising.

Basically Bitcoin is entirely unique and there is no market or will to make something that could compete with it. You only need one Bitcoin in the world. If anything Litecoin proved that. For years it was seen as the "silver to bitcoin's gold". That narrative completely fell apart by 2020 as Litecoin finally started going sideways long term while Bitcoin just kept going up. To make that fact clear, at the 2013 peak LTC was about 4.1% the cost of BTC, now its about 0.29% the cost. LTC was the closest thing to a competitor or something that could possibly replace Bitcoin if something happened to Bitcoin, that has ever existed, and it has clearly completely unraveled from that potential. The market has clearly shown that the world only needs one thing like Bitcoin, and since Bitcoin is entirely unique there is no chance of anything replacing Bitcoin as that thing.

Haha, your point is noted bud..
But come to think of it, first understand that I am not pessimistic on bitcoin, I am optimistic as any one else could be, but this does not mean, to say no word when we see things that are not suppose to happen happening.

Yes, the spam attack(as you referred it as) only lasted for two days, and to you, that's not a problem at all, but do you know that there is what is called an aftermath impression? Yeah, two days is not such a long time after all, but what impression have the experience of that two days left in the minds of the people?
Though its rare to see, but imagine a business that only accepts bitcoin as a means of payment for its good or services, that's equals to two days of no business, because no average customer in his or her right mind will be happy spending double the money he used to spend for the same goods or service.

Now lets move away from the currency side of bitcoin, you mentioned that bitcoin is unique and Ethereum is not, first understand I wasn't and will never compare Ethereum to bitcoin, what I said in my first comment is just giving an illustration for better understanding of what I mean.
Bitcoin is unique, but what about litecoin, Bch and all other bitcoin folks? Aren't they using the same pattern of blockchain code bitcoin is using? Most especially litecoin..?

If for example, cost of per transaction goes to $100 and above on bitcoin blockchain and stay so for a very long time, do you think the average bitcoin user will not find an alternative chain/coin to continue doing transaction with? And even if bitcoin continues to stay ahead at such a time, I think the only reason it will stay ahead is due to first mover advantage, as you mentioned that it's what is keeping Ethereum ahead of its alternate chains.

Fees are already back to $2 and the mempool is being cleared out. I don't see how a spam attack that lasted a couple days made bitcoin lose its charm haha.


And the comparison with Ethereum and BSC doesn't hold. Because altcoins have been trying to do that to Bitcoin for many years with zero luck. The huge difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum is that Bitcoin is unique, while there is nothing unique about Ethereum. Ethereum could easily be replaced by other smart contract chains, it was just the first so it has first mover advantage which is a powerful force and so far allows Ethereum to continue to dominate that market. OTOH, there is nothing that can do what Bitcoin does, so no, it is not losing its charm as a currency and there is no adoption moving away from Bitcoin. The only thing that has moved away from Bitcoin over the past half-decade or so is the wild speculation get-rich-quick investing. Those sorts of people now stick to random altcoins like meme tokens and all the rest because Bitcoin is now too big to move up 100x in a market cycle while, so the gamblers not prefer to throw dice at random alts. We've never gonna see a 2013 or 2017-like bitcoin bull run again because all the get-rich-quick first-timers buy up stupid meme tokens and other random alts instead of Bitcoin these days, but that's the only adoption that Bitcoin has lost and those are people who will crash out of the market anyway during bear markets until they learn enough to realize they should have just been buying bitcoin the whole time.

I understand. But what is correct for a nowadays blockchain can become different for some new invention. Different ideas of layer 2 or sidechains or other things are just in the very beginning. You can say that these decisions are at least less secure and I won't argue with that. But it is a way of searching for a solution which can bring new type of blockchain or other distributed ledger. Layer 2 or sidechain is not a solution by itself, we need something that will work inside the main network, but it is a way of research. If not researching we'd never had bitcoin as well.

If the problem will not be solved bitcoin will never become what we expect from it. "Digital gold" for richies to become more rich? "Digital gold" which will be too expensive and elitist for middle and lower class? Is it what we want from bitcoin? I hope devs will find a solution because otherwise there will be not the bitcoin I hope to see.

You do not seem to understand, this is not a hypothesis, but a theorem - it has already been proven that this is the case, so there are few who want to spend time to prove that the proof is wrong.

A very difficult moment is to decide how much we are willing to sacrifice security and decentralization for the sake of increasing speed. When updating taproot, the consensus conditions were somewhat weakened, this is largely a reserve for the future and we still do not see the fruits of this decision, but an unexpected side effect has surfaced in the form of misuse of the blockchain, which we are now actually discussing. In the case of a centralized application, the developers would quickly release a security patch and be done with it. And now opinions are widely divided, because the lack of a single point of failure in the case of a decentralized application has to be paid by the lack of a single decision-making center and the need to reach consensus to make any decision at all. This is neither good nor bad - just an architectural feature.

If not try to prove something is wrong there will be very small probability of occasional proof. Of course we understand that if there was a solution already invented then devs just implemented it immediately. Not so long ago the idea of a decentralized financial system like bitcoin was not less insane and now we see that there is a solution. I'm sure there could be a solution for a scalability problem which can be implemented without significant lowering of a decentralization and of a security. If I don't know which it doesn't mean it can't be invented. And to invent it the one who can do it shouldn't think that it is impossible.

The issue of scaling is important, but not paramount. There is the CAP theorem (consistency, availability, partition tolerance), which, with Buterin’s light hand, is better known in the crypto community as the blockchain trilemma. Among decentralization, security and scalability, you can choose any two of the three at best. Until this theorem is proven wrong, any well-designed and implemented centralized solution will be significantly faster than bitcoin. Of course, if we do not want to sacrifice security and / or decentralization for the sake of high speed. It seems that our plan to seize world domination assumes that the entire burden of solving the issue of scaling falls on the shoulders of second-level networks, and let's not demand from the developers of bitcoin core the obviously impossible.

It's an issue and a very big one. I was supposed to make three small-size transactions earlier this week but I have not been able to because the network fee is like half the price of the amount of BTC I want to transfer, and it takes too long to complete. It's frustrating. Not to mention that for the past couple of days, yesterday was the only day Bitcoin went us by a few percent, it's just been going down. This kind of thing shouldn't be happening to Bitcoin at this time. The worst part is, if it's not handled, it will only get worst in the future.
Even those that only see Bitcoin as an asset also get affected because they might begin to panic in times like this.
Making payments with Bitcoin was supposed to be wah easier than making payments with fiat or any other currency.
[/quote]

If not NFTs then there will be something else. The issue of scalability should be raised again and again even if the situation is not catastrophic at the moment. We need that developers to work on solving this problem, because to be a competitive alternative bitcoin should be able to pass billions of transactions a day, and it is as for now. There should be a possibility of even increasing that number in the future. Otherwise we will face with the same problem again and again. What if, for instance, some huge retail corporation like Walmart will start accepting bitcoin... dozens of millions customers a day... it is not what bitcoin can deal with at the moment, and we need it to be prepared to anything like that.

I very much agree with your statement on this one. Very interesting! I am among those who are sad about the current direction of Bitcoin development  . Many people have adopted Bitcoin for speculation and fun. I think that the benefit of Bitcoin is that we can make all forms of payment transactions as freely as possible, anywhere and anytime. It's fun to imagine we can pay monthly internet bills or buy domains using some of the bitcoins.

And as for NFTs, I honestly think it's a stupid idea that some people think is cool. I mean what will we get from an NFT ? Sure, some NFTs offer benefits and exclusivity, but come on! How many of these so-called NFTs end up being trash on the blockchain network because so many people are trying to profit there? Which in the end only made the direction of development of the Blockchain network towards something that was not really needed.

An interesting topic I must say, and as disappointing as it is, it's simply the truth, bitcoin is gradually loosing its charm as a currency that is supposed to be used as a means of payment for goods and services, something has to be done and needs to be done fast..

The high transaction cost will do nothing good to the bitcoin network, but rather will limited the networks usage, as well as take adoption far far away from bitcoin..

Ethereum network fees was what gave birth to binance smart chain network as an alternative, and today, binance smart chain have take over 50 percent of what is supposed to be Ethereum market share, just imagine what the price of ether would have been by now if the network was good, and there was no bsc...

im guessing your going two write two books
well if the first book is where you want to call it the rise and fall of bitcoin(your mindset)
then i suggest: compromise and fool of lightning

i know u only have notes to advertise lightning as "cheap fees" but never done the math..
how about do some research on the network liquidity issue of payment routing

LN is not the solution your told it is

One day when all this blows over, somebody needs to make a documentary about the Lightning Network.

real bitcoin miners get shares of bitcoin rewad. many POOLS managing miners and blocks set their share scheme that the POOL MANAGER takes the fee's and the miners take the reward. thus miners dont benefit (unless the POOL is also the asic farm)

these bloating tx may waste funds proping up fee's but REAL BITCOINERS will transact less. sell up or move to other networks
then when the bloating stops millions of users have moved away and given up on bitcoin. thus end result bitcoin has lost its appeal

MINERS dont gain more profit from fee's they gain it from spot market speculation

..
wording it another way
if bank wire transfers were cheap say $0.05 7 years ago and moved any value within the same hour
but then delays and fees rose to $30 per wire, which made people think they needed to invent something like paypal that promised to offer fee's of a few pennies but took middleman profits from those fee's

what they are not saying is this. it costs $30 to subscribe to paypal. and $30 to unsubscribe
this causes idiots to lock into paypal and never want to leave. or they simply avoid dollar and paypal entirely and try euro(ether analogy) with venmo(ethereum subnetworks)

right now there is more bitcoin being pegged to other subnetworks on other mainnets.. such as avalance and WBTC.. much more liquidity in 2 years than lightning achieved in 5 years
(analogy. american prefer EU venmo rather than US paypal)

lightning has not just the locking-unlock fee problem of bitcoin mainnet. but also the many flaws of LN itself. many have tried LN and found LN flawed, it just cant scale. its just a small niche service for small value. it wont cope moving large value in one go. NEVER

so many are moving away from bitcoin and playing with value over on ethereum based subnetworks.

people need to stop this 5 year long broken promise of "move to LN its the saviour", "dont fix bitcoin, use LN" .. its not a saviour, its not capable of doing what bitcoin does. its broke.

meaning that when devs fail to fix a bitcoin exploit and they want to push people into a subnetwork thats also a failure. people will end up just giving up on bitcoin entirely.
and when the drama ends and the fee mania ends. the user base wanting to transact on bitcoin will be far lower, because everyone had gotten used to using ethereum and other shitcoin mainnets and subnetworks

..

if pools want more fee's
the better economic plan long term is this:

actualy have rules that actually involve lean byte usage. where every byte has a purpose/format/rule/reason for a BITCOIN transaction, not aimless useless bloat. then allow actual utility of the full 4mb limit without out the 1mb 3mb cludgy split of what can go into which part of a block... so that 3x more transactions counts can happen. meaning 4x the users normal transactions, meaning people pay less but in a sustainable long term way while totals increase overall for the pools

also give up on the broken promise of LN and start afresh/from scratch a new subnetwork devoted purely for and functionally just for bitcoin that actually can do the job it promises, as a subnet for certain usage types

The most funny part for me its, some of this pro NFTs guys are saying this cray things like before NFT BTC was dying badly.

Man WTF we have a large history we a future and we dont need them, so from where they come with all this shit, now they are trying to install something like, without NFTs BTC cant live because of miners fee bla bla bla.

Ok maybe we need to rethink some things but come on....

After gathering info about what's actually happening in the Bitcoin blockchain, I agree with your sentiments OP based on what I've read on this thread. I just also want to get back to those days when we're seeing news about transferring millions of dollars through bitcoin and paying fees with cents. That's like the pride that we've got and not these images stuck on the bitcoin blockchain. This is like an indirect attack to bitcoin because they've seen how it went going with ERC20 and other networks that have these features for their NFTs. I believe that this is just like an obstacle, a temporary one that shall be passed not just by Bitcoin alone but also us, the community that have the same sentiments about this matter.

I agree with Op's thoughts and am willing to support him. Still, there are controversial comments needed to be figured out first of all we need to decide what we actually want because when I was new to Bitcoin I was a joiner of Bitcoin as an asset and my primary thoughts about Bitcoin were simple this is an Asset directly proportional to the digital gold and this was how my journey started.

After a specific amount of time, spent in the worn direction I came to know it's not like how I am taking it actually the role of BTC was to provide a patent system seamless to any central system and this concept was the beauty of this project. Now here are two types of narratives as I did explained earlier decide the STandings first then we can take a deep look into the fundamental changes which are most required at this time otherwise it will be alarming.

Ordinals is not a small topic I directly oppose this this is not a playground it's the real independent financial world and these Ordinals are the Bugs here in the financial field. ETH bow down and now we all know why now this fire is in the front face of us we need to reap it out. Because otherwise there can be dirty game on the name of community views.

Actually it just hit me.

A few months ago I posted the James Jani video to Bitcointalk, that was a critique about Bitcoin. It was mainly about scalability, but it also criticized the wider crypto industry for useless NFTs.

Many people here including myself did not like it, but coming into the future, he has a point.

That video has 2 or 3 million views.

That means, potentially several hundred thousands of people agree with the verdict that NFTs are useless and should be avoided.

Now I have heard some miners and youtubers say that we need to keep BRC20 to preserve the miner fees, but that only works if people continue to use it.

Do you guys really think that BRC20 is going to be around strong forever like how Bitcoin is strong?

It is highly more likely for BRC20 to disintegrate and fall by the wayside just like ERC-20 NFTs fell. (And don't tell me "well they are actually still around" I know that, but their usage is a far cry from what it used to be. That is exactly what will happen to BRC20.)

BRC20 mining income is not sustainable, and it will probably not even last for a full two years (the time it took for NFTs to fall from its peak).

Honestly, fuck all this "DECENTRALIZATION FREEDOM FOR ORDINALS" bullshit. This income is not sustainable for miners and it will actually drive users away from the network, which will decrease the total number of users.

The battle is truly and earnestly on, and we must not only smash this harmful use of Bitcoin, but also set up sustainable deterrents such as Lightning Labs Taro and make sure they are in end users' hands, so this kind of user payment disruption (not necessarily mempool congestion) can never happen again.

---

Sustainable miner income means assets that are continuously transferred on a protocol without the possibility of a traffic jam.

Bitcoin is "A peer-to-peer electronic cash system". This is what Satoshi invented.

In 2021 I moved from shitcoins to Bitcoin only. I have set a multisig vault with money for my retirement.

I hate NFTs, I hate Ordinals.

In 2023, if Bitcoin doesn't get rid of this bullshit, I will sell all of my Bitcoin.