Topic: Road to 1sat/vb! Destination in sight? - page 2. (Read 870 times)

no its not
lets say a tx is 226bytes
if you think the lowest possible fee is 226sat. you are wrong
you can pay 1 sat for 226bytes, which is far less than 1 sat/byte

the issue is wallet devs decide to set arbitrary bump fee's and fee minimums to try to push the issue that people should pay more via the wallet they are using having set code limits/defaults rather actual choice

1sat/vb is the lowest possible priority, if there are only 6k transactions on the mempool, the ones with 1sat/vb will be the last to confirm. And i don't think it will be a trend at any time. There will always be someone in need of a high priority and paying some extra fees to get a confirmation in the next block. That's how priority works on Bitcoin, and i think is a fair deal, you want a fast confirmation? then pay more.

He's right about that, despite the ATH in price fees going down, you would have expected fees to go up as people would rush to exchange yet id didn't happen at all, past charts actually show traffic from the exchange and sums there are going down!
More and more just leave their coins there and fewer are moving them rushing to sell!

I would bet that with no ordinals and even with a peak of 100k we won't be touching 60satvb for more than a week and then go back to 5-10sat/vb!


Back in 2023 I asked the same question, answers were years months, and it happened in less than a month!
So with no crystal globe available, I would say a month max unless the price moves!


Bruh, hashrate alone means nothing alone, just as profitability per th/s without a price for it and energy consumtion!
If a miner switches from 1000 S19 burning 3MW to 500 S21Pro burning 1.7MW he would produce 117Ph/s with 1.7mw instead of 100Ph/s burning 3MW, the hashrate has grown energy demand is lower, the miner might have spare capacity and not be willing to buy more as it's not economically rewarding.


Anyhow back to the topic, 5sat/vb is the new norm!

Are you HmmMAA's alt account or what?

In terms of mining pools? Sure, but that's still consisted of separated entities. Mining pools do not control those miners. If they act maliciously, their clients can simply leave. All they'll have achieved is ruining their reputation.

Which charts say otherwise? I literally just shared with you a chart that, when zoomed out, clearly illustrates the tension.

Zoom out... and btw, more hashrate does not mean more miners, it's getting more centralized each year.


As a means of payment it's been dead for a long time now.

The fact that you can't deal with reality is really sad, "all time high" and linking to charts that say otherwise...

I'm out of this forum as I don't need to talk with toxic people in my life.

Cheers!

They're "replacing ASICs"? What does this mean? Selling ASICs for HPCs? Even if some miners migrate elsewhere, this means difficulty declines, and makes the rest take their piece of the pie.

Meanwhile, hashrate is pretty much at an all-time-high: https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/hashrate-chart.

Oh, is it two halvings now? So, in 2032, there should be the last headline in here? I can't keep up with "Bitcoin is dead" anymore. 

They are already jumping ship and replacing ASIC's with HPC's as AI learning gives them more stable income.

Two more halvings and you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.

Maybe some years later I'll create a YT channel called "Forgotten Cryptocurrencies" and mention Bitcoin as people are quick to forget.

What is there to convince people from using something that costs them a lot of money instead of moving to an alternative that has very low fees and does pretty much what Bitcoin does?

To fix a problem you have to first understand the problem correctly.
Here, you keep thinking about miners and their revenue and don't care about anybody else. You are forgetting that it is people who are creating those transactions and expensive transactions is not a sustainable solution in long term.

Not to mention that at current prices, miners don't even need the extra revenue generated by increased fees to remain profitable. Not now and not in the near future.

No, they are still in then network completely that's why there will be spikes in the tx fees.

We are still have ~200,000 transactions right now, we need to clear that out in the next coming days to see 1 sat/vB.

However, it's not that easy, as again, there could eb BRC20 tokens activities and it might cause the fees to go up again.  But good to see that we are not in the double digit as the price is somewhat in the 5-7 sat/vB.

Not all Bitcoin miners can make money. They are like investors or traders or speculators and can be smart or stupid.

If miners join the Bitcoin mining industry with FOMO, without plans for their mining business, without financial reserve for their operations when Bitcoin price has problems, falls down a lot and cause loss in short term, they will have to shut down their ASICs or have to sell their bitcoins monthly to pay electricity bills and other expenses for ASIC, ventilation system maintenance and more costs. There are capitulation times from weak and not smart Bitcoin miners.

In bull runs, Bitcoin miners get more money from fees as fee per reward percent increases a lot in bullish months.

I agree with you that with time and each new Bitcoin cycle, new halvings, there are more Bitcoin miners work to support the Proof of Work blockchain because they see chances to get profit and many of them actually get profit from mining.

https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-hashrate-chart/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/hash-ribbons/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-total/
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-fees-vs-rewards/

We were talking about LN, remember ?


The whole UX of LN is fucked up. I don't know what "important" details you were talking about as you wrote about it.


Yeah, just tell average Joe to open channel on LN  
Unless you don't care about decentralizaiton (which is F-UP anyway), then you can tell him to use x service.

Remember: Average Joe does not care about decentralization and all the "mumbo-jumbo" we like - all he cares for is the transaction to be fast, cheap and easy.
They can already achieve this by using different project without any L2's needed.

If it's more than "scan QR code" and click OK to pay (while being fast and cheap) - people won't use it.
Why ? because there are alternatives that are already doing it in cryptocurrency space on L1, why should they care about clusterfuck called LN ? or any other "solution" on top of Bitcoin ?

It's called competition and Bitcoin must evolve (a lot) in order to stay significant because "number goes up" only goes so far.

What type of information is generally displayed and not necessary in a Bitcoin Wallet?

This argument is silly.  Who says you need to know what happens in the background when Spending or Receiving Bitcoin?

Except a few terms you need to look up to understand, such as Mining Fees, Blocks, Confirmations et cetera, it is pretty straight forward.  It is not like a Bank is straight forward to use any way.  You still have a lot of terms you need to look up, you do not just log in to an Internet Banking interface, write the name of the Receiving person, write down the Amount and press 'Send'.  You need to know what an IBAN is, maybe Swift or BIC, what an Account Statement is if you need to prove you paid et cetera.

Bitcoin is straight forward.  You only have the more advanced details at hand if and when necessary.

Everywhere.

There are plenty of studies about this matter:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225966


UX does not need to be complicated, users don't need to know what's in the background.

Do you need to know how engine works in order to drive a car ?
How many people would drive a car if this knowledge was a requirement ? not many.
And should they care how it works in order to use it ?

Imagine being required to know how VISA/Mastercard works in the background by average Joe in order to use it.
Average user doesn't care and shouldn't be required to care about any details.

It's more of a theoretical talk as LN arrived at a dead end.

strangling the tx count to get a premium is not good economics. far better to allow more users who pay reasonable fee
you dont need to strangle the size of the block to force only 3k transactions.. pools can choose the min fee they accept, and the max tx they want to include even if there are masses of space, they are not forced to fill a block, they are not forced to empty block. pools can decide what they want to go in. it does not require putting a stranglehold on the blocksize

infact even if blocks had a capacity of say 16mb pools could fill a block and if the block had propogation delays, thats no reason to lower the blocksize instead pools would decide to half fill the block and find the right level that they still get to be fastest first propagation to be the next blockheight. even if the blocksize code limit is higher then the real world resulting block content average
(take 2009-2013 when block code was 1mb but blocks only contains <0.5mb)

yep the code of blocksize limit is the thing that doesnt influence competition. its the mining pools decisions over what they decide to have included that does.. having a block limit is just pure dev politics to promote annoyance to advocate for other networks to be used.. other networks they designed for sponsorship income. it has nothing to do with technicals of economic growth. limiting blocksize has the opposite causality on economic growth

having wallets that 'bump fee' in huge increments is again not good economics. its just dev politics pools can decide to ignore transactions under a set fee even if there aren't that many transactions waiting. it doesnt require core dev politics to make it too expensive to use bitcoin under the premiss of helping the mining pools. the mining pools can choose what to include or ignore themselves

It doesn't work that way. Fees are primarily determined by block space competition. Back in 2012, you would notice transactions paying even ~0.03 BTC as a transaction fee, but that's because it was an unimportant amount back then. A few years later, it declined, because of the abrupt rise in price. But, if you look closely, you can see that, in dollar terms, these fees were all unimportant. And if you search the blocks at that time, you'll notice there were even transactions paying nothing at all, a feature that was advertised at that time, in favor of Bitcoin. (Misleading, as on-chain transactions wouldn't always stay at 0.)

Just because Bitcoin is deflationary (in terms of USD/EUR purchasing power), it doesn't influence the transaction fee. Remember, you can choose to enter any fee you want. If When Bitcoin goes to $1M, then instead of 1 sat/vb (which is currently unimportant), you could use 0.01 sat/vb. But, what will drive you to increase it, is competition.

And it is true that there has to be competition for Bitcoin to survive. Which, incidentally, results in high fees becoming the status quo.

again the failed economics of that thought is the less people transacting the less fees go to a block reward meaning the less that can be split to go to each miner.. whereby then even the miners cant then spend their rewards as they are locked to a pool whom it would cost a miner alot to split the coin away from the pools reward(yep shooting self in the foot)..
the solution again is not less transactions per block with high fee per tx that remain in a block.. the solution is more transactions per blocks so each tx pays less, but where the total accumulates per block total

10 years ago the network had no problems handling 2k-3k tx.. and many things have moved on, apart from tx count totals.
we could have easily done things to utilise lean transaction, fee formulaes, bloat penalising and other things so that when devs finally agreed that 4mb was network safe we could have easily 4x+ the average tx count to get to ~12k+ tx count per block. we could have also then scaled a few increases(emphasis on scale not leap) in the last 8 years to further that. but instead idiots went with the model of less transactions and more fee's which is the opposite of good economics.

as for some idiots thinking we desparetly need fee's in the era of 2020-2030 they have no idea about bitcoin economics of the market price deflation work.
again the market price deflation will look after miners for many halvings to come. what we should do is not shoot the foot to spite the toe, leaving bitcoin staggering around. instead we should be doing things to help bitcoin walk forward. not limp

Nope, the developers haven't remove inscriptions completely from the network. It just an idea by Luke Dash Jr to ban inscriptions, but not many people agree with that.

Even though the fees going lower and lower, but there are still many inscriptions, here's the recent block that has been mined. But, that's the good thing it means even though developers did nothing, the BRC-20 tokens hype is over.

I would say it's temporary! You will see the volume of translations increasing again if the price goes up. However, it's also important to be cautious, as unexpected events can quickly change the scene. Your prediction of two wees might be on the optimistic side, but it's not entirely out of reach if current trends continue and no major market changes occur.

By the way, what about the ordinals? Have they been removed from the network completely? I am unable to find any news related to that so I guess it's still the same. If the activity of BRC-20 tokens pick up, the network may see some congestion again and may not show any fees reduction. For me, it feels like a temporary scene.

part true. frankly people don’t want to $5 worth of btc to move $25 worth of btc.

and 144 x 2000-3000 is 288,000 to 432,000 tx possible in a day. (very general number but gives you an idea of the limits to the chain.

 A simple LN ver 3 could help handle this.

Time will tell if they fix this.