Topic: Signature Campaigns in the Service Board - page 2. (Read 1164 times)

I think there is nothing wrong with moving on altcoins for a while because Ordinals aren't going to give up and as it seems they are getting more popular. This will only result in increased transaction fees and fees are so high that it is no different from income tax rates. Manager pays a lot to send Bitcoins, participants pay a lot to send Bitcoins or to exchange them. Bitcoin payment is financial lose for everyone today.
I think that before fees go down, we should move on to altcoin payments (for example Litecoin) but all campaigns must be left on Bitcoin Service board.

I am not against any manager but I assume it is not a right practice and does not match with forum rules and board rules.

To say it is not all right, I will give an example of signature campaigns which run and designed to pay with altcoins like USDT or BUSD. As I saw, those campaigns initially published their Signature campaign threads in Altcoin (Service announcement) board, this is right.

Later, those managers changed campaign rules and payments from stable coins to BTC. Immediately, let me emphasize it's immediately, those threads were moved to Bitcoin (service announcements) board.

I believe we all know reasons to move those threads from Altcoin board to Bitcoin board, instantly because it helps to get better effects from the campaigns, attract better quality posters, better marketing effects for companies.

So, back to this question of Hhampuz, why managers don't instantly move their threads from Bitcoin board to Altcoin board when payment method changed from BTC to LTC or whatever altcoin?

I guess, if it is not moved instantly, it is not all right.

---

Please check a new thread.

• Signature campaigns paid in stable coins/ top altcoins like USDT, LTC

I agree here with some opinions and solutions that I consider good to some extent:

1- We should not abandon the Bitcoin network and that payment is not made in altcoins, because by doing so we will be abandoning Bitcoin and not helping in expanding it and using its network on a large scale.

2- Payment can be made any day during the week without specifying a specific day, only when we find lower fees on the network.

3- I have an opinion, and it is possible that many will not agree with me. Instead of the client bearing the fees or Hhampuz bearing them from his pocket, why don’t the campaign payments be reduced slightly so that the participants can bear them? This would depend on the current fees; some participants may bear these fees in one week, and others may bear them in the following weeks. When the fees are distributed among hundreds of participants, it will be as if each person paid a dollar from his pocket in exchange for reducing the current burden on one person. This will not last long in light of finding future solutions to achieve balance in the network.

@Hhampuz
I believe that these fees really are not easy for your work. Despite this, I think it would be better to wait a while to receive payment in BTC (because of the fees) than to switch to another type of currency.




Here is an excellent point!
Everyone here defends that Bitcoin is the future of money, but then they defend that we should stop using Bitcoin, because we accept the whims of those who want to extort the network, even if they harm it.

LN was still not a solution, because Hhampuz would have to move several thousand dollars every week to LN channels, which in fees would pay the same. I doubt anyone likes to keep thousands of dollars in LN.

If we want to defend Bitcoin, measures must be taken to make the blockchain work at a minimum, and not be held hostage by those who have a lot of money to throw away. Where is the difference between Bitcoin and the traditional fiat system, if it is at the mercy of those with a lot of economic power?

I believe that the Bitcoin community will soon find a solution to try to balance the network. I'm not against anyone who wants to pay a lot in fees, to have their transaction processed faster. But, there has to be something that protects all users. This is to protect the use of the network if it is intended to be actually used on a large scale.

A lot of people will give you stupid solutions to kick the can down the road a bit, but in all honesty this is just a problem with Bitcoin and the draconian leadership that got us here.  We allowed the network to be capped and a patented solution from a private company pushed as the answer instead of allowing the blockchain to scale responsibly.  As a result, and this is the absolute truth...  Bitcoin will eventually price out every use case of it's blockchain due to it's popularity unless this is changed at some point in the future.  I've suggested a dynamic blocksize similar to difficulty adjustments, but this is obviously not the place to discuss blocksize limit solutions.

That reminds me: choosing a different day for (weekly) payments can also help: Sundays usually have much lower fees.

As a member of your campaign. I don’t mind waiting for days or weeks if you will use a bit lower fee than the current insane fee due to ordinals since I will not spend it immediately due to high fee when I transfer it to exchange.

Participants will understand if they will wait a few days just to get their payment since we have an insane fee and this is not a normal occurrence. Fee usually subsides at some point of the day. You don’t need to pay an insane fee just to make the payment instantly.

As the rules says, service board is meant for campaigns thst are paying in bitcoin and no other currency aside this, but what am not aware of is the reason why some of these campaigns make payments yet remain on service board without moving their thread to altcoins section, maybe it's because of the temporary payment in other coins in other for them to meet up for the weekly budget for their work before the whole thing come to normal and they returned back to their usual bitcoin payment, but in such cases like this, i will advise for bi weekly or monthly payment if the participants could agree.

I checked this transaction, and it shows the problem: you're paying several people 0.00086820 BTC. Like this user, who now owns 0.0308665 BTC in 24 inputs. If he would want to spend that, he would have been much better off if you would have sent him monthly instead of weekly payments. And it saves you money too!

Most of the signature campaigns and the managers who manage those campaigns have been paying people with Bitcoin but due to network congestion the fees have gone to way high levels and in such times I believe a campaign manager should pay the participants in a alternative crypto-currency.

I believe that crypto-currencies like Lite Coin, Monero, Doge Coin, Tron, or some stable coins can be used as an alternative method of payment in such times. LN is out of question for almost everyone and that's why I won't mention it but it's also a good choice in such times.

As long as the market congestion remains the managers should be allowed to pay with alternative crypto-currencies. I'm more than sure that using the above crypto-currencies as an additional  way of payment in such times won't be against the rules of the service board.

Another important thing a manager can do is to ask the participants that if they want to get paid in Bitcoin and wait for some hours or days because of the huge fees of the network or they may prefer to have their payments in alternative crypto-currencies. I believe both of those approaches should be allowed and they should be applied in such times.

Yesterday I did payouts for 4 of my campaigns with fees ranging from $35-$50 and they confirmed in the next couple of blocks. So for now things might be a bit better

I do not like solutions that will give the wrong perception that Altcoins are more feasible to use than Bitcoins or like those who prefer the real decentralized digital currency Bitcoin BTC to penalize them to pay the extra fee.

I cannot comment on what should be the alternative to the BTC payment solution as i don't think any perfect solution exists at the moment.
I think the high fee can be borne by the company as they should incorporate this high tx fee in this marketing budget. If not, then we have no option but for the participants to bear the TX cost (dividing the TX amount among the receivers).

Logically, if they switch to altcoin payments, they shouldn't be on Bitcoin Service Board but at the same time, we had signature campaigns where users were tipped on their casino accounts. They shouldn't have been on Bitcoin Service Board because we don't know whether they pay BTC, USDT, LTC or fiat. Also, if we follow logic, campaigns that have pay rates in USD instead of fixed btc paycheck, shouldn't be either in Bitcoin Service Board.

Rules are rules but there should be exceptions to my mind. It is meaningless to move threads back and forth in Altcoins/Bitcoin service board every time we migrate from btc to altcoin payments because of very high transaction fees. At the moment, payments in bitcoins are problems for managers and for participants too because there is no point to pay half of deposit into fees to exchange.

What if company decides to stop signature campaign? Are we going to leave people jobless? We shouldn't treat signature campaigns as a job that pays weekly, it is not a job.

You can take it as a note. The mempool won't be normal in the next one month. There are 300K unconfirmed transactions. All these transactions need at least 100 blocks. Currently, the mempool can handle around 500K-550K transactions per day. We can verify roughly 140 to 150 blocks each day and each block contains around 3500 transactions on average. So, what if the number of daily transactions decreases to 400K or lower? We will have a free mempool and the fees will be normal again. But, If the number of daily transactions increase more than 500K-550K per day, the mempool will be more congested and the fee will continue to increase.

Here is the recent stats of daily transactions!

I disagree. While sidechain has it's own blockchain, it rely on Bitcoin blockchain. For example, Rootstock sidechain is secured by BTC miners through merge mining mechanism. You also can convert between Bitcoin which located on-chain and side-chain using the network directly by yourself. And LN isn't viable option unless you want to pay few dollars just to open a channel.

There is another solution, most campaigns don’t allow legacy addresses (starts with 1…) as a payment address but the biggest crypto exchange in the world (which is binance) don’t offer a segwit deposit address. (Starts with either 3… or bc1…) If I could take my payment to an exchange address then the problem would be solved for me since i can convert my coins to my favorite alt but of course it doesn’t solve the problem for the campaign manager.

I think moving the campaign to altcoin/bounty section isn’t as bad as it sounds. Maybe do it as a temporary precaution then go back to paying in btc when the situation resolves.

Everyone is suffering from the unbearably high fees for Bitcoin, not just campaign managers but also campaign participants.

Every week I struggle to transfer Bitcoin from the wallet where I receive campaign payments to an exchange, this has become a lot of meaningless fees.

In my opinion, it is not wrong to change payment from Bitcoin to one of the stablecoins temporarily until the fees decrease, and during this temporary period I do not mind that campaigns remain on the Bitcoin Service board.

On top of that, no more than 50% user are familiar with LN. Out of that 50%, only half will be interested to get paid, maybe. I have asked for opinion on LN and the outcome was a "NO" from the discussion I have observed.

I personally find BUSD unreliable, better stick with usdt/usdc, bsc/polygon/optimism have cheapest transfer fees.

BTW, imagine if Bitcointalk went to use dogecoin for signature bounty payments, do you think it would make to the news headlines?

"Bitcointalk starts using dogecoin for bounty payments, dogecoin surges". Lol.

This is a sensitive concern, although campaigns have been launched in services for Bitcoin as payment, I don't see the need for such campaigns to still remain there if they veer off the cause.

If for reasons of gas fees these campaigns decides to pay in Altcoins, they should be moved to altcoins for orderliness. Although, it is not a function of their own making to want to seek alternative paying currency either than Bitcoin but their hands are tied.
 This is a forum and we all should ensure decorum at all times