Topic: Solution to high rates? Maybe not, but it's an idea... (Read 448 times)

I wouldn't worry about it. With many possible route option, i expect some LN node operator will set fee as low as possible (without running at loss) in order to see some transaction routed through them rather than almost nobody doing that.


Or rather, LN alone isn't enough to solve issue about fee and TPS.

this issue CAN be solved by code.. because thats all that bitcoin is, is code. and code can be changed and re-arranged and exploits patched and bugs fixed. thats the beauty of code.

however core devs are not waiting for the halving..

they are waiting until the deadline of their sponsored contract expires.
they were paid to do crap things that benefit corporations more than the bitcoin community.

its been seen many times before

they dont want to stop the open door policy of unconditioned opcodes. because the previous need for network readiness nearly threatened them losing a sponsored contract years ago, they want open access to do as they please using the exploit to change things without network node readiness.. they have failed in their responsibility to secure the network.
until their sponsorships dry up they will continue to keep things open and manipulatible as it helps them make a quick income doing what corporations pay them for. they wont grow morals until its no longer financially advantageous

they wont care about bitcoiner needs, nor bitcoins "experiment" longevity. in their mind as long as someones paying their salary they will take whatever bullshit it thrown at them to keep their salary flowing and just treat bitcoin as an "experiment" where they dont care if it fails. they just get paid to be "scientists" doing experiments and get paid even if it fails

that's because you want btc to be big and small at the same time.

it is not about work arounds like I listed above.  In your case it is about wanting the impossible.

Ay least it can not be done with code. This is an infrastructure or second layer problem.

Every wallet for btc needs an easy to fill LN wallet. That is not going to be fixed with code.

Why do you think dev have not done anything. They will wait to see the effect of 3.125 coin rewards and 3 coin fees before anything happens.  SO the fix you think code can do will not be attempted until June or July. of 2024

So high fees until then are certain.

Well, things are, they put BTC only to be used by tycoons/rich people.
Honestly, I think this is a little unfair, because I see the necessary potential for BTC to serve all types of people, with many or few resources. I think it makes no sense to make BTC an elite currency. Well, this will not help with its adoption.

All ideas that have been given and suggested are redundant and there is no effort from the developers to coil the situation though I will not know if they are trying their best behind the scene. And all what we need right now is the solution and not any suggestions and ideas. The developers know what to do stop this maladies because they are in control of the system. And this high transaction fee is really affecting everyone both the investors and traders and all the people that use Bitcoin for transactions.

And as I said before, Bitcoins are stuck in wallets because this. Though it might help some to save their coins.

They do not have to move small numbers constantly. 

If you have 5 btc or more in cold storage leave it there.

Do KYC at kraken exchange put in 500 cash no fees so far.

Buy btc and send it via kraken on LN.

a small fee to buy the new BTC
a small fee to send it on LN

no hard maintain a LN node yourself.

If you have the 5 BTC or more stored offline putting in 500 in cash and doing kya does not reveal much about you.


Now if you have 0.2 btc or less it is more of an issue.
also if there is not an exchange you can use LN on with KYC it is an issue.

and keeping $500 on an exchange if you have only 0.2 BTC total is a bigger loss if there is a fuckup..


ie 500/8600 is about 5.8%  loss while

500/215,000 is only 0.23% loss


the question is how many with 0.001-0.200 btc are getting crushed by this.  I do not know

Hence I say that Ordenals are just a tool to generate this fee problem, but it is not the only tool.

Pools and large miners have already figured out the most appropriate mechanism to ensure that rates remain high most of the time. It's because? Because Bitcoin already has a movement that allows it to generate this type of situation.

I think that was what we had to think about combating, or better yet, minimizing this impact. Because I believe that miners should always earn for the work they do.




Your idea in itself is not bad. And it looks very interesting to explore.
But we're back to the same thing, you're just hiding the fees, they're still there.

If I'm a new user (I'm buying BTC) or I'm a miner (I'm earning BTC), it's not complicated to manage it. Place the new BTC you obtain on an exchange directly, and then migrate to LN.

The problem is for someone who already has BTC and wants to use it. The person is not going to move thousands of BTC to LN, they just want to move what they want to use in the next few days/weeks. If you do this, you will have to suffer from the high rates charged.

And we do not talk about this a lot (I do) scrypt has 2 LTC and 10 Doge blocks for every 1 block that sha 256 BTC does.

So they naturally can do 12x the volume that BTC can do.

And large miners seize upon  this fact of carrying ability attacking sha 256 in many ways. It is not just ordinals. It is down clock all of foundry pool for a few days make a log jam of fees . then over clock foundry pool and grab the high fees. you literally save power and make more fees this way.

The time idea would be defeated this way.

Lastly whatever sha-256 does in second layer  scrypt can copy it and do it at 12x the volume.

So if you want a small change money/wealth movement with BTC you will always be fight against the 12x capacity of doge/ltc

Storage of wealth large value movement BTC is clearly better.
Small wealth and large volume LTC/DOGE is clearly better.

every ½ ing will show this to be so.

Think of 2 hammers





so why insist on using the sledge hammer for values under 100 bucks.

if you want to the ways are :

 KYC at an exchange that will allow you to use LN
 Put cash in there.
 Buy BTC
 USE that exchanges LN wallet.

I did a thread that does show it works.


Obviously only do a little of you wealth as this is the workaround for small wealth movements.

As you mention, ordinals should be faced directly, i don't feel Ordinals belong to Bitcoin Blockchain, maybe a good solution would be to give Ordinals their blockchain. There could be a bitcoin fork to create the Ordinals branch for those who like that tool, and that way they could spam as they wish their branch without affecting the main Bitcoin blockchain.

in essence
the solution to tell car drivers to solve car insurance premiums is to tell them to ride a bicycle.. to never need to use car insurance for a while

in essence
not a solution to car drivers desires for lower insurance premiums but just stupidly tell people to stop using a car even if they want to use a car

in essence you did not grasp the problem and understand their wanting a solution to the problem, and in essence you just told them to avoid the whole issue completely and pretend there is not a problem by avoiding using the thing you want to use

i do find it funny how the only promoted solution keeps being the subnetwork that is buggy as hell, yet the only one people want to promote

How I wish the OP was a developer or had a friend of sort who contributes to the growth of cryptocurrency, this idea would be brilliant. I said so because it helps really much to have more than one solution on ground to combat the high fees rates these days because with new solutions so far like the LN, people have to adopt and use it, for it to gain much relevance. The issue I fear is that once there's is massive adoption of such an ideal solution on fees, suddenly, the fees start increasing and charges too.

For those trading with low fees or low funds, there could be a special network that would make the fees deductible very insignificant that one may not notice just as this idea, but I believe because the adoption and use of other initiatives are being developed like the ETF, to help this issue of high fees and charges, we might yet see an end to the case of high fees because this is even how these cryptocurrencies increase their value.

LN can easily solve natural fee spikes that is caused by natural increase of usage. For example an exchange that creates a lot of on chain transactions could move to LN and make payments there hence decreasing the on-chain transaction count helping the fees come down.

Otherwise when the fee spike is caused by a spam attack (like these days with the Ordinals Attack), the LN can not help at all because if we move every single bitcoin user to LN, the main chain will still continue being attacked by these malicious attackers and the fees will continue rising.

The problem, we can say, is when mass adoption is done.
10 years ago, no one thought of having this level of transaction fees. With the same line of reasoning: we will want to adopt BTC.

At least I don't see that the LN solution will really solve the issue of fees, because this network has low fees today, due to low adoption.

That sounds very pessimistic. I expect channel/node run by average Bitcoiner or some LN enthusiast is less likely to set high fees due to either they don't know they can set routing fees or LN enthusiast wish for wider LN adaption. And depending on your usage, routing isn't needed at all.

In the idea presented, it indicates a way to minimize this impact.

Now, abuse of the system will always be difficult to avoid.

In any case, I do not argue that this is the ideal model, just a way of analyzing the solution to this problem from another perspective.





Yes this is true. And it seems that some large miners are already playing this "game" in order to obtain greater profits.
So this stops being a real issue, to resolve the issue of fees.

First off, it's a brilliant idea to reserve block space for older transactions, no question about it. A "transaction democracy" of sorts - fair, but practical? Allow me to explain: Bitcoin benefits greatly from reasonable fees. It's a free market at its core. If you implement a flat-rate zone, there's a chance it will annoy people.

Prioritizing by age over fee? Sounds good on paper, but remember, Bitcoin is not just a technology; it's an economy. Higher fees are paid by users for urgency. It's just supply and demand, nothing more. Although expensive fees are disliked by many, they are an indication of a successful network. Not to mention that hefty fees encourage miners, protecting the network.

Theoretically, your model could function. However, balance is required. Perhaps a hybrid strategy? Maintain the fee market while adding a tiny area for previous transactions. It's about evolution, not revolution. We help Bitcoin by making it better, not by creating something entirely new.

Since the network adjusts itself every 14 days, couldn't the hash power be increased inside one of those periods of time to process the transactions faster, at least for few days? Then for the next cycle of 14 days the difficult will increase a lot, but if hash power keeps increasing as well, transactions will be being constantly solved faster than 10 minutes per block. The high fees being paid for transactions should compensate the high difficult of the network, or not? And once the flux of transactions decreases, there is no need to put so much hash power at work anymore, so things start going back to "normal" once again.

I think this is a great idea but as you have already mentioned, people will try to take advantage of this scenario and most likely make that part crowded too. And the line in the queue will be as long as this one we are facing now. I have made a transaction 15 days ago and still on pending. If they flood that part of the blockchain too, then we will just have to wait like this. I think in order to prevent this from happening there should be a minimum fee requirement to be able to get in that queue. 1sat/vByte should not be the minimum requirement when the blockchain is congested. At least some extra fee for being able to get in the queue.
Also, if someone is making transactions from the same wallet address with same amount of fee, it should not get included in the next queue. It should be processed as a regular transaction with regular fee. Also people are using paid transaction accelerator, why not use a monthly or weekly subscription for fastest transaction or being included in the queue.

I like the op's idea, it looks like the op thought of different aspects and came up with a reasonable solution. Of course, not a full solution, because many wouldn't consider a transaction finally getting through after a couple of days a win, but it would be an improvement, I believe.
As for the fees, they are still higher than desirable, but they're not outrageously high if one follows mempool.space instead of going by websites that track average fees or by wallet recommendations, that seem particularly off lately (at least on Electrum).
That being said, I support bitmover's point that it's also important to address the matter of Ordinals directly.

this idea may be attractive to users, but it has the flaw in that it can fill the network with transactions with low fees since they know that their transactions will still be processed even if it takes longer.

compared to proposing an idea like this, it is better for us to move ordinal to another network. maybe they could have their own network like bitcoin cash or other bitcoin derivatives do, that way it might make the network less congested than it is now.