Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 7. (Read 88853 times)

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.

Who is the voter, who gets to decide whether to shrink or expand the block size at a given time? I would assume it is the miners, but what would the miners incentive be to expand the block size? I guess it is the sweet spot where resource expenditure divided by the number of transactions lead to the economic optimum. But when we get to the point where the coinbase transaction is getting closer to zero, it might be against what bitcoin was intended to achieve. It will forever be a good place to store value for the very rich because they don't care about the fees. But the network would certainly not be incluse on a global scale.

How dynmaic would or could these adaptive block sizes be?


That's what I think, too. Second layer solutions are similar to small communities having their own required level of security as the number of nodes facilitating/validating those transactions is smaller in a local community than it is on a global scale so to say. But a local community might not require the same level of security whereas someone sending $100 million from A to B wants the highest level of security possible, hence goes for a base layer transaction and pays a fortune in fees, which in relation to the amount transacted is irrelevant again. It wouldn't be the same with adaptive block sizes I think.


That was a good one about our beloved Crack Wright!

---

Edit: and I am wondering what the backlashes could be of adaptive block sizes and whether there will only be issues once we get to see it in action. Comparing BTC to XMR now is a bit difficult to say the least. BTC is about 290 times the transaction volume of XMR as of now. The idea sounds compelling at first, but it may not be the solution to problems that can't fully be anticipated now. Ordinals only became a problem that everyone fully understood once this insane volume (or number of transactions) was generated with them.

It seems that way, I have been using trustwallet before and they've been like that for a long time already where the default fee that will be sent will always be higher than the transaction fee that we see in mempool.

Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?

Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that allows online payments to be sent directly from one party to another. The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper. I have read whitepaper and it looks like Ordinals completely ruin the Bitcoin. Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant. Bitcoin was created to send money, not JPEGs, so I think we are still in the frames of freedom even if we ruin the Ordinals party.
I completely understand your opinion but Ordinals ruin our freedom, not us - theirs. If anyone wants to send 1 cent but pay thousands of dollars in transaction fees, then they are welcome, it's their choice, their freedom and free will but Ordinals don't do that, they send the ownership of JPEG files, not money. That's why I am against them.

Binance owns Trust wallet, Binance owns Binance pool and collaborates with other leading mining pools, so high transaction fees are their interest. At the same time, keep in mind that Binance does many shady things, for example, on Binance, it's cheaper to withdraw Bitcoin to legacy address compared to SegWit address. Does this make any sense? No! They also do every dirty job to promote their own chain.

Exactly! The red flag is in their names:
TrustWallet - UnTrustWorthyWallet
Craig Wright - Craig Wrong

Really bad decision to use TrustWallet. The red flag is in the name.

Sorry for your loss.