Topic: Why don't we have a fee-free, 0-conf P2P coin yet? (Read 76 times)

Sadly, when it was getting the momentum and the community is recognizing it a little by little, they didn't capitalized the situation when they can. And yeah, that rebranding was a headache and most people that are familiar on it would just forget about them eventually until now.

I think I've heard of this before but didn't really digged on it but well, that's how it goes for most of these once good coins but not anymore.

I see you have answered your own question on this topic, yes, one of them is Nano (XNO) which has 0 fees for transactions. But is that a solution to all the problems occurring in the crypto industry? certainly not. In blockchain, there's a problem called the blockchain trilemma, it's a case where decentralization, security & scalability can't work optimally for all three, there will definitely be one that's not optimal.

I remember Nano or XNO, the problem is that it was rebranded several times, and the market never took it seriously, its enthusiasts were really clingy and defended it at all costs as the new Bitcoin.

I used Nano, it really does what it promises, instant transactions with no fees.

There was another cripto too, its name was Vcash, its creator was a genius, but in the end he went crazy and sabotaged his own coin...

And it was better than Nano.

IIRC, there was this that I've seen that charges no fees for transfers. It was Nano(XNO).
~> https://nano.org/en
-> https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nano/

There has been some development in the adoption of the LN, but it’s not significant enough for most people to notice, which is why it seems like almost no one uses it. However, that assumption is incorrect.

Here’s the fact:

https://coingate.com/blog/post/lightning-network-year-over-year-data
Recently, we’ve observed a significant increase in Lightning Network (LN) adoption among our users.


It’s not possible to have on-chain transactions with zero fees that are entirely free - everyone has to pay, either directly or indirectly.
While it’s true that CBDC transactions appear to be free, they actually enhance the issuer's ability to increase revenue and minimize costs. The more people use CBDCs, the easier it becomes for them to integrate their products and services into the system. That’s the kind of indirect fee I’m referring to.
 

Bitcoin plays a great role as a store of value and for a few years (~2016) as a coin, because up until that time we didn't face problems like traffic jams in the mempool, since there wasn't much demand for transactions per block, so it was quite common to pay fees that cost $0.00, but today this fee would be expensive.

We went through the block war in the turbulent year of 2017, then with the segwit update, things went back to normal. We have more space per block because of segwit and other updates, but it still doesn't guarantee scalability.

In the meantime, several coins appeared to solve the problem of high fees and limitations of the bitcoin block, but all of them were "solutions" that resulted in more centralization (like bitcoin cash, which simply increased the block size by 8mb).

No other coin has solved this problem to date, why? Is it a technological limitation?

We have the Lightning Network in Bitcoin, but it is complicated to use (and almost no one uses it), because it has a whole channel configuration, maximum fund capacity and routing.

It would be ideal if there was a coin capable of processing transactions instantly and with zero fees, all on-chain to keep the system decentralized and P2P. But why is it so difficult to create?

With the threat of CBDCs around the world, it's very easy for governments to create a CBDC currency that processes transactions instantly at zero cost, and it doesn't need to be decentralized, but this would be an instrument of mass monitoring and censorship, but the population would use it without caring, as it has the "support" of the government and for them the government will protect them.