Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 6. (Read 88277 times)

Yes, I experienced that moment years ago when I was travelling but I don't remember the country. By the way, I don't understand what's an issue for them. Don't they get charged the same percentage for $1 and $10?

Ordinal transactions aren't normal transactions. Money and Bitcoin too, are fungible. Ordinals try to make each Satoshi non-fungible and on top of that, they also try to value blocks (halving block) and the place of ordinals transaction in each block (someone paid 6.73 Bitcoin on transaction to make his/her transaction appear number one in particular, 840000th block).

Sending dust from one address to another will be perfectly legal if JPEGs aren't embedded. If someone is willing to create dust transactions and pay for it from their own pocket, then they can do it, no one can stop but I'm glad you mentioned this. This only proves that Bitcoin is far from perfect payment method. Today, it's very easy to abuse Bitcoin. Miners, if they collab, can easily increase transaction fees cause every money they spend on fees, will end up in their pocket but it will make transaction expensive for everyone else and that's where they steal money from other people. Like I said above, I also think that there might be some deal between ordinals and mining pools.

Netherlands is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. By the way, check Call Of Duty - Modern Warfare 2 Amsterdam Mission. You'll feel at home

So, when you buy something and pay with cash, Greek merchants hide the fact that they sold something and evade taxes this way?

1 sat/vByte is the minimum relay fee setting that nodes use, oeleo told me if I am not wrong, when I asked a question about fees and empty mempool.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11405

Things were very different back in 2009:

1) Revolut/FinTech didn't exist.

You got charged for exchange rate fees.

2) SEPA cost €1 and took 2-3 days.

These days SEPA instant costs €0 and offers instant settlement.

Fees are not an issue, not only because they're low enough, but also CBDC will offer zero fees via ECB, so that excuse won't hold any water.

Hell, if you visit some FB groups you'll see an image of a €50 banknote where it tells you that it "vanishes" after a few transactions due to card fees.

Nobody will mention the fact that the exact same €50 banknote buys less and less stuff over time (covert robbery by ECB's inflation). €100 today has the same purchasing power of €50 back in 2020.

People are OK with inflation stealing their purchasing power (they cry all day about it, but they do nothing to save themselves) and very few of them are aware of CBDC's real dangers (carbon credits, social credit score).

Bitcoin (and physical gold for less tech-savvy people) is the only way they have to preserve their wealth.

Interesting.  Do you have references for this? Never saw this post of him

I was having this impression that in 2009, banks did charge a lot more than today, and the whitepaper made a lot more sense back then. You'll remember better. Did they?

The reason Greek merchants don't want to accept debit cards is to evade taxes, not transaction fees. Truth be told.

The minimum fee is not 1 sat/vb. It is 0 sat/vb. And the minimum after that is 1 sat per transaction. Then 2 sats per transaction, and it goes on and on.

Property sent through cyberspace within minutes. Overseas. Pseudonymously. Unstoppably. It was, still is and will always be magic Internet money. 

You mean they also charge you for depositing banknotes in Netherlands?

Charging ATM withdrawals would make far more sense... banks want the cash back into the system, not the other way around.

It's never going to happen, only L2 solutions are going to save the day.

Just like IPv4 (2 ^ 32 addresses) was never designed to serve 8 billion people with multiple devices (PCs, mobile, consoles etc.)

Nobody has tried to abandon the tried and trusted IPv4, they just created a new fork with zero backwards compatibility (IPv6) that will never reach 100% adoption for obvious reasons.

It depends on where exactly you're located and how much banks charge you there.

Compared to SWIFT, it's cheap and fast, yeah, but some people want to use BTC for daily payments.

IMHO, BTC follows the exact same trajectory as gold... people used to use gold coins for daily payments hundreds of years ago, but not anymore.

Yes, Satoshi wanted to create p2p cash, but at the same time, he also said that BTC is a "boring grey metal" (yes, Satoshi started the "digital gold narrative", not BTC maxis as BSV folks would like you to believe ).

Chances are he knew that BTC cannot fulfill both objectives simultaneously, at least not in L1.

If he wanted BTC to be more attractive as p2p cash, he would have made it inflationary (no halvings), not deflationary. More like DOGE, more like iron than gold.

Asking to keep halvings and low mainnet fees at the same time is like asking to keep your cake and eat it too. Would be nice if possible, but the math just doesn't add up.

Is it just me that thinks 1-3 usd is extremely cheap for an international transfer, pseudo anonymous,  confirmed within 30 minutes.

You can transfer 100 or 10,000 usd, same fee.

Not all daily transactions are 50 cents coffees.

I love getting paid in bitcoin here!

Netherlands.

Lol. That's cute
The first bank I checked with rates for merchants: €7.96 + 0.26%. They made cash very expensive, so they can claim card payments are cheaper. Card payment rates go from €0.05 to €0.40 per transaction. To get back on-topic again: I'd argue Bitcoin fees should be lower than card fees to be competitive for adoption. LN should be able to do that, on-chain it's not going to happen anymore.

Which country is that?

I know it's not free to deposit coins in many countries, but banknotes are still accepted for free via ATMs.

It's not possible to avoid issuing a receipt with a POS, because they're interconnected with the tax registry.

With cash payments it's always possible to not issue a receipt and thus not pay VAT (13-24%).

It's kinda risky if they catch you though, because it's compulsory to issue receipts for every type of payment (including BTC).

With the minimum of 1 sat/byte, storing movies would still cost $650,000 per GB at current Bitcoin price.

Could it be the €2 is off the books and won't get taxed, while the €1.99 is handled officially?

There is a legislation that says card payments up to €10 should only charge 0,5% fees. Some banks have already implemented it.

For example, one coffee that costs €2,00 is only going to pay €0,01 fee. Is that a lot?

As a merchant in a competitive economy (tons of take-away cafeterias) is it worth losing a potential income of €1,99, just because you're greedy and you want €2,00?

Many tourists prefer using cards (especially Revolut for zero exchange rate fees), so you're going to lose lots of money if you don't accept POS payments.

So even if the government hadn't imposed POS payments, it makes sense to accept them voluntarily.

0,5% loss is nothing if you take into account that BTC can easily go +5% in a single day. Of course it can also go -5%, but long-term wise we all know it can go a lot higher than that.

So if you're smart enough (spoiler alert: most people/merchants aren't), it totally makes sense to convert your fiat income into BTC on a daily basis.

Cards aren't the real danger, CBDC is for reasons I have explained many times before, so I won't repeat myself.

Try this experiment next time after wanting to buy something:


There is a small chance (1-2%) that they may ask you what Bitcoin is and how they could potentially accept it in their shop...

You may even attract their interest even more if you tell them that Bitcoin charges zero fees for the recipient (merchant), only the client pays fees (could be zero with LN).

That's just a simple way to spread the orange pill with minimal effort. (bonus: small talk hones your social skills)

Or a few spammers who want to store 4k movies on-chain. With 700 MB block clearing up the mempool every 10 minutes, you could store gigabytes of movies for a nickle.

In my place, they do hate it when you're asking to pay with card for anything lower than 5€. They'll find an excuse that their POS is broken, and accept only cash for the moment.

Edit: 12 sat/vb high priority, consolidate!

I assumed that 100 GB per day was meant to be further in the future. But just imagine that: that's about 500 million Bitcoin transactions per day, which would mean mass adoption has been reached.

It's funny you mention that: here, it's the opposite. More and more merchants including government institutions refuse cash, and only accept card payments. We're a debit card country though, so fees are a lot less than with creditcards.

From these quotes I understand that Satoshi wanted to convey that the costs of mediation and the oligopoly of financial institutions is what makes micro-transactions impractical. You must have noticed as well that some merchants will hesitate to accept card payments for a soda drink or cigarettes. The cost of the transaction fees may significantly cut into or even exceed the profit margin on such low-cost items.

However, if we take into consideration the fact that Satoshi was thinking of the blockchain growing by 100 GB every day, then it's probably plausible to assume he'd envision cheap on-chain transactions. As I have mentioned before, Satoshi is not the ideal figure to be regarded as the unquestionable authority or ultimate arbiter of truth for Bitcoin.

And Ordinals send dust from one address to another, which is perfectly legal from the protocol's perspective. They don't abuse anything.

You can neither prohibit someone from using the blockchain as a storage.

I assume, these quotes basically mean that Satoshi wanted Bitcoin transactions to cost low.
o_e_l_e_o asked me this question and it really lingered in the back of my mind. Centralized exchanges don't abuse Bitcoin on a protocol level. You send Bitcoin from your address to another address, this is perfectly legit and doesn't abuse anything while ordinals send images. You can't ban centralized exchanges, that's impossible, you can't prohibit someone from getting coins from multiple people. I, as an individual, can basically ask you to send me coins to my address, send me KYC documents and then I'll offer you to exchange crypto with me. If I do it with thousands of people, I'm basically becoming a centralized exchange. It's impossible to block centralization but on the other hand, do you notice how centralized exchanges remove Monero from listings? That's why I am saying that Monero is everything that people want Bitcoin to be.

---

Mempool is probably cursed If there is not a spam of ordinals, there is a spam of UTXO consolidations. Blocks are full of huge transactions. Basically each transaction comes with more than 1000 inputs

What would the fees have been if you didn't get this wrong? Were it tons of outputs?

But $760 sounds nasty, life goes on though!

Good! Unfortunately, you had to suffer a financial loss to do it, but it's good that you decided to abandon it. There have been several issues with Trust Wallet recently, and anyone serious about bitcoin should really stay away from it. I have read stories about coins disappearing, people not being able to send them despite setting appropriate fees, random error messages here and there. It's a bad wallet.

It doesn't solve the problem. Block reward penalty applies to the block subsidy, and it is really negligible with only 0.6 XMR as subsidy. With Monero transactions sized at at least a few kilobytes, it only takes a few hundred transactions to incentivize the miner to burn the subsidy; it only takes 600 transactions paying 0.001 XMR each (which is essentially nothing). In an envisioned global adoption, the system should be able to handle more than 600,000 per 2.5 minutes, let alone 600. Your Monero client would need to verify 4000 transactions per second, which is infeasible.

Others can use it; they simply pay a higher price. This distinction is significant. Bitcoin relies on the assumption that there will always people who will compete for an on-chain price. The solution is not to censor your fellow users, but to work on scaling.

Referring to this explanation


Ordinals - as is correctly said here - do not technically abuse Bitcoin. One of the most important principles Bitcoin is based on is censorship-resistance. Whatever Satoshi thought Bitcoin would be used for and at what scale, I think it would go much too far to believe that Satoshi was able to anticipate any single angle Bitcoin could take or would be used for. The difference with Ordinals is that someone can spam the network and others can't use it. With exchanges these mutual effects don't exist. We can just decide to not use them. I am quite sure that there is more stuff coming for Bitcoin in the next few years that nobody has yet thought about.

Since privacy is one of the most important principles of the ancestors of Bitcoin, I'd have to say yes. Monero does better what Bitcoin was envisioned to become; peer-to-peer cash.

Unfortunately, the dynamical block size is neither the answer. It's just another temporary solution. It can render the system dysfunctional. See what happened last March in Monero: https://monero.observer/monero-daily-transaction-new-ath-100k/. A single spam attack might not seem of significant matter right now, but if you're running a node (as you should), it takes a decent time to verify those 100k transactions. And consider that if more people join, it no longer becomes "spam". It's regular transactions that slow down verification.

And since there's a dynamical block size, imagine what can happen if an attacker with a decent amount of money (dynamical size -> cheap fees), actually executes a spam attack for many months.

Which part of the whitepaper talks about "low fees"?

Centralized exchanges abuse Bitcoin, as it was meant to be peer-to-peer cash without trusted third parties. So, let's ban centralized exchanges.

Do you get it now?

The biggest issue I see for BTC is LTC/Doge is better for small money transfers.

I am not sure what will happen in 10 years. But LTC/Doge is designed to last longer for money transfers under say $500 then BTC is.

But wait what about LN for btc.

Answer both LTC and Doge can do a version of LN.



So I think a constant pressure to attack BTC will continue because big money people see what I see.