Topic: interesting article: Pay-to-use blockchains will never achieve mass adoption (Read 316 times)

you make it sound like there could never be a successful blockchain with free transactions. then what's the point of trying to make the lightning network isn't that kind of like admitting that having to pay a fee is not good enough? and it needs to be cheaper? what other reason could there be.

but even lightning is not free. plus not to get too far off topic but i think after seeing some updates on it every now and then, lightning network has to be the most complicated project i have ever seen even more complicated than bitcoin itself which kind of questions the very point of its existence.

Do we have pay-to-use blockchains now? I don’t think so, if what you consider as “pay-to-use” are networks that charge their users with transactions fees every-time they make a transaction (which are all of them by the way)then we’re going to have an issue indeed lol. But I don’t think the reason why bitcoin couldn’t be adopted on whether it is free to use or not, it’s all because of the lack of information and prejudice against it which will proliferate amongst those who do not know better, and just like germ theory they’d contract that skewed ideology to other no-knowers until the whole world either knows about bitcoin, or doesn’t and actively hates on it.

Apples should learn from oranges lmao

There's a good reason why Bitcoin is pay to use and can't offer free transactions. There's a good reason why every single "free transactions" blockchain project has failed. It's all because of the basic properties of blockchain - if you want decentralization there will be harsh tradeoffs.

Could this happen? I mean blockchain could definitely used for many stuff, but as a data to sell for ads? I am not entirely sure. It is definitely a big data network there is no arguments there, and that data could worth something if it can be used, but how could it be used? That is a difficult thing to handle. I mean if we could have some new sort of blockchain where you could see ads for transactions instead of fee's, then it could maybe work, but that doesn't really sound like a normal thing, or at least something we haven't seen yet.

I mean people could rather pay for the fee, or just watch a 30 seconds video for example, or they  could see 5 ads for 10 seconds each or something, and do it for free, would that even work?

I don't follow it all, but just observing a little bit of the content can feel that readers will easily misunderstand news like this. Such a comparison is really unfair, when it is impossible to say the advantages of one side compared to the disadvantages. People look to bitcoin for many different things, and of course many factors present the opportunity to earn as a default over time as it becomes more involved in the investment field.

Even some of the recent projects I've read about, they're priced at numbers that I would consider unicorns in the tech space, actually many are actually quite absurd in their infancy, but still is the acceptance of everything in this market.

so it's like being strong armed into buying the native base crypto just to do anything with your tokens. another reason i'm not a big fan of ethereum "tokens" 

For Bitcoin, that may be true. But on blockchains you can make dapps on, there are more uses, examples being: Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, Hive, etc.

You will require native token to use dapps (this term includes plenty: dexes, p2e games, nft marketplaces, etc), On chains like Ethereum (this includes most EVM chains — Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, etc) you must need base crypto (ETH) to make token transfer. Without having native currency, you are stuck, despite the fact that you may be having significant value in token but without having native token, you won't be able to exchange it or make a transfer. 

use the platform for what? to hope the native blockchain currency goes up in value? what else is it good for? 

kyc is not even the worst of it. you have to worry about them "closing" your account and maybe freezing your funds. and it's not like the local bank where you can just sit down and talk to someone face to face.


yeah i mean bitcoin seems like it is losing ground to things like fednow: who wants to go through all the above hassles when it's not necessary?

FedNow’s legal terms contain a game changer for digital wallets and payment apps
https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/26/fednows-legal-terms-contain-a-game-changer-for-digital-wallets-and-payment-apps/

I've had this thought before. It's sad that none of blockchains in existence are free, you have to get their native blockchain currency to even use the platform.

If you already have funds in crypto, it's relatively smooth state of affairs but for those who don't — they have to get funds via on-ramp platforms and they require kyc, some people don't prefer to do kyc and would rather give up onboarding altogether.

There is another, if fiat to crypto is banned by the country, then you either use p2p platforms or give up. Do you realize how much of hassle this is just to use the blockchain? Most people don't realize how big of restriction this is because they already have funds in crypto.

sure you can download a zillion different bitcoin wallets maybe that's free you can make as many bitcoin addresses as you want but you can't really DO anything with it without paying fees. and those little wallet softwares you download onto your phone aren't full clients. to actually download bitcoin core and keep it updated you are going to pay. pay in computer hardware and internet connection and then when you actually want to do a transaction you're going to pay a fee in bitcoin too.
don't forget all the time it costs you to set up and maintain your copy of the blockchain too because no one is paying you for that...

they never charged me any fee for buying things on ebay.


which is totally free.

apparently facebook marketplace is also free. free to sell stuff on. you don't pay a fee to facebook for using it. apparently.

i thought it was. not your typical go with the flow article.

The article is well-written. I completely agree with the ideas about the necessity of free, easy-to-use, and recognisable blockchains. The focus being placed on usability and real-world applications rather than merely tech speak and lofty ideals is welcome.

I might add that mass adoption is heavily influenced by the component of "trust". Having used Google and Facebook for years without having to pay for them directly, the majority of people have a great deal of trust in these companies. Around the world, the indirect monetization strategy is well-known and, to some extent, acceptable. If blockchains are to get a comparable level of widespread adoption, they need to establish trust while guaranteeing user-friendliness and no upfront costs. Without getting bogged down in the expenses and technicalities that turn off a lot of people, we should concentrate on showing the general public the real advantages of blockchain technology. How would you feel about adding more initiatives to educate and raise awareness in order to encourage the adoption of blockchain technology?

Are there people after the use of such service, blockchain exist as an independent technology which is free for everyone to use, if some people are trying to introduce something similar then we should be careful not to be a victim of their attack because we are talking on decentralization, anonymity and security here abd i don't think such can be well secured under such a paid service under the guise of being a blockchain technology network, just as you don't pay to use every wallet, the network is also available for free for everyone use.

yes it's free to have an account not only that you can actually use that account to make transactions unlike with bitcoin where if you want to make transactions it cost something. why do you think people use paypal on ebay?

yes there's lots of free checking accounts from different banks.

they wouldn't have to but if they want to attract a large user base it might be in their best interest. otherwise they might fall away into obscurity oneday.

it's called value added services. you make the base services free but have premium services that are not free. ever heard of robinhood stock trading?

facebook tried to get its own cryptocurrency and if they had done it it probably would have outstripped bitcoin in popularity. how many users does facebook have? how many does bitcoin have? case proven.

you know what it is. we all know what it is. why pretend you don't know?

it depends on how you define "use the blockchain" but for the vast majority of people it would mean conducting transactions.


so someone has to be competent to have an opinion? well if that's the case then maybe crypto has too big walls for entry. like with paypal everyone knows how paypal works so they don't need a phD in mathematics.

man if that day comes then bitcoin is doomed.   doomed, i'm telling you!

firstly all users need to retrieve their UTXO from somewhere to then form tx's to spend value. but if full archival nodes are only transmitting data to paid partners(lite wallet server owners) then those paid partners will pass on their 'costs' to end users.. EG lite wallets and full nodes charge customers to retrieve their UTXO's (much like banks charge to receive bank statements/ATM balance checks)


seems some core devs are under the impression (probably via their sponsors) that bitcoin inevitably will become a pay-for-blockchain

funny part is the reasons for the bloat of nonsense data the dev quotation has concerns about, that will in his words lead to a drop off nodes and a commercialisation of full nodes.. is due to code he has personally advocated for and desired to be added which then got abused

other funny part is he pretends to define nodes as not requiring features that actually do differentiate them from standard software wallets. as another pre-amble of pretending the network doesnt need to decentralise the blockchain.. thus will lead to commercialisation of the blockchain if less 'nodes' are actually full nodes..  

maybe instead of him worrying about the litigations and commercialisation of blockdata.. he should do his job and make new code to stop the unchecked(auto isvalid) data. EG if witness data is not some form of signature/proof of key system, thats actually listed as a rule. reject tx

also having a NODE that has ability to switch off features like archiving(via pruning) downgrades the utility to just that of being software like litee wallets are, if people dont want to be full nodes they can just use lite wallets.. instead of making what once was a full nodes become a mass mess of limp nodes pretending they are classified as full nodes but not actually offering the full node utility or purpose of what is "full node".. again something he as a core dev can change by ensuring full nodes do full node tasks... instead of these silly PR games of switching off utility but trying to still promote that they are 'full nodes'(a PR campaign his clan of ass kissing friends have been pressing for years)

Is Paypal free? Is using a bank account free? Why would blockchains have to become free? Is there any payment infrastructure/system, that has zero maintenance costs, therefore there aren't any transaction fees in that system? I don't think so.
Comparing blockchains to Google and Facebook is like comparing apples to bananas. Does Google and Facebook provide financial services?
Does Google and Facebook have their own currencies.
What the hell is a "pay-to-use" blockchain? Are there any blockchains, where the users have to pay an upfront fee, in order to gain access and use the blockchain?
How the replace the transaction fees in the blockchain? This guy is totally incompetent in regards to crypto, but he has opinions about it.
What a joke.

nope, you have to pay a fee to use it.

bitcoin? are you kidding? it's not free to use at all. its about the most expensive way i know of to "send money".

call it gas or call it a fee. what's the difference? bitcoin is no different than ethereum. except one thing. with eth, even if your transaction fails they still steal the gas.

twitter maybe because elon musk might start charging people to use twitter. but i heard there's a decentralized version of it that is picking up steam but i'm not sure how legit it is...


i mean i think i get where you're coming from but we don't want to be too exclusive with bitcoin otherwise it will just drive people away. the more people that can use it the better but by charging transaction fees, no one wants to do that. it's just a game people play when they convince themself that "its worth it". it's really not. unless you can point to all the other possible ways to send money and show they are all more expensive.

The author seems to see blockchain as a service similar to social media. That is inherently flawed. It would be a disaster if anyone could make transactions, while social media by nature needs people to visit them to function properly. Besides, what kind of monetization is he referring to when he wants to remove the fees to make transactions? Does he suggest blockchain projects sell their user data and collect their transaction history, basically becoming their own chain analysis project? That is insane. Might as well stick with fiat if people are fine with that.

Blockchain technology was not built to monetize people in paying for the use of these service, that is one of the reasons it's called an open distributed ledger, it is decentralized, no one controls it, the operation only works by protocols, anyone interested in using it should learn about it and follow the strict compliance to it protocols to be in concession, other social media are profit making platform while this is creating atmosphere and opportunities for everyone to be independent on finances.


Aside that bitcoin cannot be under a centralized system, bitcoin is to give people more access to their finances without having to bother on any form of financial embarrassment, we cannot leave the fiat system to now go back to a central server network, that means we don't know what we are doing, but bitcoin has come to serve a solution to every of this problems.

The article talks about permissionless blockchain.


Why is everyone, who replied referring to a private blockchain? A permissionless blockchain is what Bitcoin is, as it allows open participation, is censorship-resistant, has decentralized consensus models minimizes trust requirements, and it can go on. What OP wants to do is compare Bitcoin with Ethereum in this permissionless blockchain model. I think that is what we are discussing in this thread.

What we expected all along.

It was very clear that pay to do anything blockchains cannot keep their tokens stable, they have dumped on several occasions before such as Axie Infinity. They can just use traditional payment methods inside their apps instead.