Topic: Lowering transaction fees will promote the use of bitcoin and adaptability? - page 2. (Read 663 times)

he pokes again(but never learns). so lets keep biting until he learns to research before poking

1. increasing fee's does not make the system better. it make bitcoin look less appealing.
2. not everyone needs to run a full node with 120 peers
3. price of data storage is NOT $$millions.
4. scaling bitcoin network does NOT mean "gigabytes by midnight"

users with low bandwidth and low storage can do many things right now to reduce the impact on their personal circumstance without trying to stifle bitcoin adoption as a whole.

its the same argument about videostream uploaders/ online gamers/ etc.
doomads mindset is to push hard that video upstreaming and online gaming should not be allowed because it costs so much to run.
doomad is the kind of guy that will want to go back to playing 2player pacman

if they want to stifle bitcoin adoption because they cannot afford to be a full node then maybe being a full node is not that important to them.
its like why want to be a train driver if you want the passenger carriage to be empty, just so 2 millionaires can have a carriage to themselves

being a full node IS important to businesses that actually need to monitor many transactions an hour. not the basement dweller that uses their mums phone bill to monitor two transaction a week and then complain the phone bill is high in comparison to the lack of personal utility they gain from being a full node

when speaking to real people thats the ultimate rejection/objection they come to once you get to the root problem.. they dont want to spend $100 every 4 years on a new hard drive or pay XX a month on a phone bill if they personally are only watching for their own 2 transactions a week. they dont see the cost/utility benefit.
yep. get to the root of the problem and thats its, people see the phonebill and hardware upgrade every 4-8 year and say 'but i only handle xx tx a year personally"


and as such those only monitoring 2 transactions a week are not the important usecase category of people that should be full nodes
its far better to have 100,000 BUSINESSES as fullnodes that can afford fibre/5g and hardware upgrades, where those businesses NEED to monitor hundreds of transactions a day. compared to 100,000 basement dwelling kids who have to explain to their mum that the phone bill is high because they need to monitor 2 transactions a week

that said. increasing the transaction capacity is not a "gigabytes by midnight" debate which doomad continues to try to imply. since 2010 we could have scaled onchain in small increments which even today would have allowed more transactions per block, kept fee's at sub-penny levels and still be well under home computing costs

simply because home computing is not expensive, home computing does allow for more transaction capacity than so far seen.

ultimately after month of reading doomads flip flop arguments, all i see doomad wanting to do is push people into LN in the (miss)informed belief that he will make money out of users routing through him. his mindset is not on the ethos/ethics/morals of bitcoin. but on his personal greed.

now here is the funny...
doomad is happy in scenarios of 100,000 users to be non factory nodes of LN where they are just phone app litewallet users where the funds are not 100% in the users control... but then flips the flop to pretend them same users are crying about needing to be full node bitcoin network users. whereby bitcoin needs to be stifled purely for empty cries

ok its been months and i still see a big lack of research done by doomad. so lets change the narrative
doomad how about attend some bitcoin meetups regularly to atleast get you out of your cabin fever/echo chamber, maybe that will be the stepping stone you need to look outside your personal rhetoric.

and yes in the UK there are many meetups happening regularly. so no excuses not to attend

bitcoin is not peer to peer electronic cash anymore its nowadays a "store of value" and a quite bad one

He said as he spends the rest of his inane reply talking about completely unrelated and off-topic nonsense.  

Your so-called "cheap" transaction fees have costs which you refuse to acknowledge.  I am wholly on-topic pointing out that non-mining full nodes and miners are stating their intentions in that regard as we speak.  They are choosing to enforce rules which strongly suggest they don't want to bear the cost of your "cheap" transactions.  Why can't you include them in your little crackpot conspiracy theories?  Oh, that's right, they don't fit neatly into your little narrative.  So you sweep them under the carpet and tell everyone to look at the boogeymen developers.  It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly tragic and pathetic.  

Also, if low fees really were the driving force behind adoption, surely we should all be using Dogecoin for our daily spending habits?  No?  Any further "arguments" you'd like to present, or is this just the part where you scream "research" over and over like some brain-damaged kook?  Or how about one of your other catchphrases?  Please keep telling us how you think you're some sort of bear.  All I see is a sad and misguided little creature.

volatility is not a problem
every week we see retailers changing the prices of bread, milk. people are actually used to seeing prices of things fluctuate
EG when the dollar-pound moved from $1.60 to $1.25 not many people were screaming bluemurder that forex is broke.

if bread moved from £0.80-£1 and then to £0.70 people have not been going out and doing strikes/protests. they just treat it as norm

volatility is not a problem
i have travelled to many countries and the biggest issue is using bitcoin where each transaction is an hours minimum wage is the thing that makes 'the unbanked' not want to use bitcoin.

too many people are stuck in their own basement mindset of 'its ok for americans'
and too many people are happy to censor out billions of people purely due to racial motives of only wanting the west to get rich.

(im a white brit with a large hoard, but i can atleast see beyond my personal circumstance)

anyway, right now we do not need to concern ourselves with excuses to stifle bitcoin innovation onchain under the fake narrative of doing it for the benefit of miners. because for DECADES the miners will be incentivised by non fee's

so we should be concentrating on scaling bitcoin getting the adoption. and then.. IN DECADES let the fee's interplay.

the real foolish thing is this
before fee's are even an issue. the roadmap is to push people off network already so that without scaling. user utility of bitcoin declines onchain and drops the fee's(total) thus making it become a situation that all individuals ned to pay more.

thats like taking trains off the tracks to convince people to use buses and then say train tickets are cheaper, even though there ar not enough train seats being allowed to cope with normal demand because they are pretending that all the efforts of reducing train usage is to give train operators a christmas bonus. yet its not even giving them a bonus. its just charging less people higher prices.
the complete opposite of charging more people less fee's

it seems that every project even though offering a low fee transaction is just a pretext to make investors more hooked on their actual project. But sometimes those real stuff project is wouldn't reach the goal. So its like they want to extend and extend to make it real just to see how they grab investors money

The problem is not in the costs of bitcoin transactions but in people's awareness of bitcoin. There are still many who don't use bitcoin because of the volatility and price fluctuations that occur in bitcoin, so these two things should be overcome to be able to grow bitcoin in everyone's eyes.

oh here goes doomad meandering the topic way off topic... he pokes the bear so lets bite.
firstly i talk about alot of things. but i talk about the deeper stuff. and the cause/effect

 its not like there is much code diversity to oppose/object to/counter the roadmap.
and when there is, the roadmap advocates do everything they can to push non roadmap off the network

i do understand how bitcoin works. more so than you. i also know what events actually occured. where as you deny they even happen.
you have been pushing hard to deny that august 1st 2017 happened. you have been pushing hard to deny the REKT campaigns even happened.

yet the developers have been happy to admit their actions. it is only you and your buddies who deny such events.
so spend less time on your social drama. and spend more time researching, and maybe you will learn what bitcoin is really about and what actually occurred.

the reason developers are to blame more so than users is this.
1. developers develop the code.. users dont.
2. developers put code in to bypass peoples wishes (mandated bypasses, inflight upgrades)
3. users dont get as much of a decision if they are always treated as "compatible" and dont get a opt-in or opt-out. it just changes without choice.
4. when there is a choice lately its not a if opt-out it dont happen. but more so if opt-out your thrown off the network to fake a vote of acceptance

so like before its you that needs to decide ar you a flip or a flop.
because some days you pretend users get a vote/choice. and others your anti-vote mindset shouts that people dont get a vote.
its you that does not understand the issues and how bitcoin had/should function vs how it has been run lately

so spend less time replying and more time researching until you yourself can stick to a rhetoric that atleast matches data found on the blockchain

...
any way
sorry folks doomad does that alot.
hopefully he doesnt reply and spends the time to learn more about bitcoin. but i expect he prefers to keep replying and now derail this topic.. and then play the victim

Lower transaction fees are to be closely coupled with the idea of a scalable solution. The faster the transactions, the more scalable > more blocks > less fees required to keep people incentivised.

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?  

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    

you said to put your buddies aside...
yet then go into a speach that your buddies have used time and time again about coffee..
not original, not new, and not the point.

atleast try to sound original by doing some research.
the coffee debate is outdated and laughed at. try picking a rebuttal with substance that actually shows good technical reason to avoid blockchains.

but lets update you...
1. no where on the blockchain would it ever say "coffee". what developers dont want is value of less than $3 being used on a blockchain(equivalent of coffee)

2. in a CENSORSHIP RESISTANT VALUE TRANSFER system, should developers be choosing to CENSOR and RESIST VALUE TRANSFERS of under $3

remember $3 is a weeks wage in some countries..(think before you reply)

Haha. Me and my buddies? Stick to the debate.

Taking that aside, Bitcoin will not be compromised so that billions of people can use the network for their coffee transactions that will be recorded in the blockchain FOREVER. Do you believe that censorship-resistant value transfers should be used to buy coffee? There are trade-offs, and there will be costs to keep the network decentralized while scaling out.

Of course. Lowering transaction fees of bitcoin can promote it to people especially those people who don’t know what is bitcoin. If someone is enjoying the use of something, of course he or she will share it to thier loved ones and if they always use bitcoin because of low transaction fees, that alone will be effortlessly promoting bitcoin. Just like my brother, he first start using bitcoin than me then he likes it so he shares it with me and i get interested because it has great features.

segwit has not lowered fee's

pre segwit fee's were only a couple cents (under $26k a day)
post segwit fee's are more than 10cents (over $50k a day)

the whole segwit 2015 promise were cheaper fee's where people were expecting sub-penny prices again.. but instead fee's are higher

its like walmarts fake offers
all that happened was cheese rose by 2000% and then reduced by 5x to make it empty feel like a discount from temporary bubble.. yet still expensive compared to previous norms.

put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
if you have not yet done this then...
put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour.
and then ask yourself about the utility of btc

but here we go ago, another dude trying to promote lightning without understanding that its a different network thats not encapsulating features purely for bitcoin.

and all of your rebuttals are empty
simply because you wish to avoid scaling the blockchain now. when fe's are not needed, to incentivise more adoption... purely to stifle adoption with debates that only concern things in many decades.

its far better to make things cheap and easy to use now. ONCHAIN to get people using bitcoin. and then let th miners concerns play out in a decouple decades. than it is to say bitcoin shouldnt scale now or ever, purely to promote other networks and harp on saying that blockchains cant work. (but they can)

Segwit v2 has already lowered the transaction fees which were getting ridiculously high. It is more about the transaction times that will drive adoption, this is where lightning network comes into play

I think you are making reference to two things here. Firstly, transaction charges when trading crypto to fiat and also the transaction fee. For the transaction, I do not think the fee is too high especially when some network such as lightning network has been in existence. However, alot of phases is involved when exchanging crypto to fiat currency. The highest fee is not being charged by the bitcoin network but the third parties such as merchant that offer conversion of crypto to fiat. This is the reason why many projects are trying to bridge the gap in term of use between fiat and crypto.

that's an oversimplified analysis. the two situations are not exactly the same in the context of block size. what matters is how many transactions can fit into a block. if all transactions can easily fit into blocks at all times, fees will approach zero because there is no competition to drive fees up. therefore, there is no incentive for miners to publish transactions or secure the chain after inflation ends.

the block size limit is the only thing that causes fees to rise above 0 at all. it doesn't matter if there is 2000 or 4000 transactions. what matters is whether there is income for miners.


that's just because miners are subsidizing the cost of transactions. they do this because they're trying to accumulate bitcoins while the inflation rate is still high.

this situation is unlikely to exist when the hard cap is reached and fees are miners' only source of income.

wrong
1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents
    is the exact same as 4000 transactions staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fee's upto 40 cents. it makes more sense(excuse the pun) to increase transaction capacity. to both allow people to transact and not have to pay as much.. win win win

2. no one is screaming gigabytes by midnight. the growth of more transactions IS needed. but no one is saying it has to be
gigabytes by midnight. plus more importantly no one is saying that fee's are important for mining pools this next decade
so we can start progressing now. in preparation for a few decades time.. emphasis PROGRESS,
delaying and waiting a decade then suddenly jumping helps no on and certainly pee's off billions of people that are still wondering what the hell are developers waiting for

3. also needing everyone to pay an average of 20cents is bad aswell. its far better to have someone that only transacts once a wek pay only 1cent and someone that transact several times a day pay $1 each time. that way the punishment for abuseing the space fits the individual rather than spreading it across to make everyone liable no matter how efficient they are

4. as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot mor years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure

the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.

that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.

This only accounts for current transaction demand, which is relatively low. What if on-chain throughput grows 100 times higher than today? Or maybe 10,000 times higher? Micro transactions on Lightning are great, but the LN model can't escape on-chain fees entirely.

I do wonder if we're setting ourselves up for another painful scaling debate. A lot of people are waving away the issue by saying "fees are already low." Fees are just low right now. How about when average fees approach $1 again, and higher?