Topic: Bitcoin Transfer Fees Will Go Up With Time - How Can This Affect BTC Market (Read 2052 times)

I don't think that would affect the market at all, the amount we pay in fees depend on the price of bitcoin, if the price of bitcoin is $700 and we pay $0.2 as fee then if the price of bitcoin goes to $1200 then we will be paying $2 as fees, that wont matter at all i guess.

After I used bitcoin for a long time I do feel that transaction fee is quite expensive, but it is still in a normal range, if this keep on continue i think it will affected the user, but it won't affect too much because like it or not you must pay the fee, actually it will be better if the transaction fee can be reduced

Will the fee's eventually make BTC less competitive compared to other remittance solutions?

About the increasing of fees maybe like the blockchain is having a different reason for that because can't always think if that is a big fee comparing if you're sending $1000 and got fees $0.20 and whether you feel so weight with that?

Assuming that the value of Bitcoin goes up at least on par with whatever the fee is (so something like $0.09-$0.10) there wouldn't have to be an increase in the fee Bitcoin-wise. They just have to make sure that they still get about the same amount dollar-wise, and if they can do that then they'll be fine with whatever happens for the most part, I'd assume.

Nice bit of actual content in the middle of the post there Franky. Shame you're putting words in my mouth. Would've been a good post otherwise. Well, apart from all the coffee

seems carlton wants to continue meandering off topic
you have been handed too many buzzwords by your friends and not looked at the real function/mechanisms underneath..
you seem to be more of a frappuccino man, who gets told its the best iced coffee. and you then talk about iced coffee being great and perfect and everyone should try it.

im more of a oh its water thats frozen, coffee beans grounded, all put in a cup, added sugar, then whisked to make the ice slushy then add whipped cream on top. i then check out if there are any variations/inconsistencies

but hey LN transactions are guaranteed to get a confirm no matter what fee is included. all because carlton says so.

kind of funny you endorse LN before its even active publicly.. wait.. you endorse segwit before its active publicly. hmmm i see a pattern here.. blind trust.

next time put a critical hat on and think.. during testing (barrista training) everything looks perfect. but when actually dealing with the public things can go wrong. stop pre-selling something based purely on the glossy leaflet handed to you and instead be a critic learn how things actually work

on topic
people love bitcoin due to the TRUE immutable bitcoin ledger.
increasing fee's, delaying capacity and using less than 100% immutable channels will negatively effect bitcoins original proposition.

the only good thing is that if lets say bitcoins 'trust'/desire went down to 90%, we hope the future ability to be used by people enables more people to use it to counter the 10% desirability loss of current people.

EG 1.8mill people 100% happy in 2015, vs 2.5million people where 90% are happy = more happy people then before

Like I said, you're confused about the role Multi-sig is playing in Lightning. It doesn't create a dependency on the other members of the channel for the protections the protocol offers, that would be moronic. But hey, look who's talking, lol

my question about asking his trust level is 2 parts.
1. standard traditional transaction with no confirms vs standard traditional transaction with confirms
2. lightning transaction not yet settled, vs the two mentioned in point 1

eg onchain, several confirm=100% trust
eg onchain, 1 confirm=98% trust
eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=<50% trust(pre-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)
eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=>50% trust(post-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)
eg offchain LN multisig, 0 confirm=90% trust(post-malle/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc)

i asked what was his personal opinion on trust.. as you can see i just wrote mine

however
your confusing the immutability of a settled transaction(onchain)..
with a separate situation of the unsettled transaction(offchain) just sitting in a hubs mempool that is signed by user and hub(trusted offchain),
i do laugh that you think while a channel is open the transactions are immutable

just being signed is not enough, if it was there would be no need to ever settle and no need for bitcoin blockchain ever again.. think hard about why there is a settlement mechanism. and why the blockchain exists with its many security features beyond a signature

the short and curlies of it is

although a (starbucks) LN hub may be online all month.. the user wont be. and when the customer signed the final transaction for the month and got their 30th coffee.. that customer wont go back to the app

meaning customer is not there to authorise a change of fee when the hub finally wants to settle to match the current fee war price at the time of settling.
the customer has his coffee, nothing more the customer cares to do.
even CPFP is not fool proof trick to guarantee a sub-fee settlement gets higher priority.

all starbucks can do is keep rebroadcasting and hope someday the fee war settles down to finally get in a block

there are a few other loopholes lightening need to fix before its ready for general public use, but that was just one.

seems before today you didnt even know lightening uses multisig.. maybe you need to check it out a bit more.. bt take off your glory hat of fluffy cloud perfection. and put on a critical thinking cap on

have a nice day though

Lol you are right of course. There must be a better description.... chain-purgatory tx's maybe?

Fine. I will adopt your "pre-chain" term. But I will acknowledge that this is purely out of expediency.

Half-joking, but isn't "pre-chain" technically inaccurate, since channel-opening transactions are actually on the blockchain? So in a sense, LN transactions are also "post-chain."

You know what I like about facts, Franky? Their immutability

And you're ignoring the fact that all outputs originate from chained hashing when they are mined to begin with, Bitcoin 101. What you're saying in essence is that Lightning will break double-spend protection, which isn't the case, as the Merkle root hash of every output is validated both today and with Lightning transactions.



You're talking gibberish man, there is no reliance on multiple parties for transaction immutability in Lightning. You're conflating multi-party addresses/transactions with Lightning's operation, likely in the hope that your bizarre presentation might confuse some poor frightened individual to believe it. More research needed, Franky lol

wow lightning network gonna fix bitcoins ability to drop transactions. kool no more fee war because no transaction will be dropped
oh wait..
transactions will drop off still if they lack enough fee even when using lightening network.. (just one example)

Well, that's why using a different expression altogether is more appropriate, to my mind. If you start adapting the pre-existing phrase, people will try to abuse it's true meaning (see the over-complicated blathering in the above post from Franky), as you suggested elsewhere. And "pre-chain" really is a much better description, because there is no situation under which Lightning transactions won't hit the main chain anyway (unlike what Franky is suggesting)

the thing you have to ask yourself...

understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added)

knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled

what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based)
would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)

I do not think this will be the case.  If the fees go up, I would think that these investors would want to back out and not get involved.  Why would you want to just into something where people will be walking away because the fees will be higher.  Now if there is a need to use Bitcoin then this may make a difference, but I do not think investors will flock to Bitcoin in the event that the fees go up.

I think it will make the market stronger.  Think about it.  Go to a small investor with a $10  idea.  Tell him you can make $.05 for every one of these $10 items you sell.  They have not much interest because they rather invest their money elsewhere and make more money. With the fees going up, there will be more investors interested.

Fair enough, I think this is a semantic issue. That was never my take on "off-chain". The way I see it, the real addition to scalability that Lightning provides is moving transactions off the blockchain---directly mitigating mainchain throughput not by expanding its capacity, but rather by moving throughput into contracts.

Yes, they are still Bitcoin transactions, but the blockchain is only involved in opening and settling a channel. Everything in between could take place on the blockchain, but it doesn't. Sure, we could call it "pre-chain", but to me that also implies "off-chain".

But like I said, I think this is a semantic thing. I get that hard forkers try to leverage the "off-chain" term to argue that a) the model isn't trustless (false) and b) LN transactions aren't Bitcoin transactions (they are). But the reality is, the reason LN is the answer to scaling is precisely because it scales outside of the Layer 1 protocol --- as opposed to, say, Layer 1 optimizations like Schnorr signatures.

I don't think "off-chain" needs to permanently hold onto the negative connotation of "trust-based/custodial". The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain."

go play with your monero, because now your starting to sound like a troll again. come back when you have something informative and ontopic to say

What, stupid people like Mike Hearn, king of "on-chain scaling"? Stick to multiplication and addition Franky, it appears as if division is beyond your mathematical prowess, lol. You're starting to sounnd like RawDog