/biz/ - Business & Finance

cheaper fees so whatever really

>>16965407
this

>>16965407
Segwit came literally right before the fees shot up to $60.

people complain about BTC $0.27 average TX fee but spend that much to use their debit card at sketchy corner stores, pay more per month for a bank account, use paypal, etc. etc. etc.

TLDR: people who complain about Bitcoin tx fees are fucking retards. The fee serves to prevent the network from being flooded with worthless microtransactions making it far more sustainable than a bunch of trash projects that do things like host redundant weather data or make cloned versions of Twitter.

>>16965378
Its a complication and makes the protocol more difficult to work with.
There is no defending it, it is meant to delay adoption and utility, like RBF, like LN, like liquid.
BTC devs are fucking retarded or malicious or both.

why does bitcoin move so fast and so slow at the same time
it's 2020 bitcoin is at a ridiculous price but it seems like nobody is using it

this is good for bitcoin

>>16965622
Because nobody can use BTC. Despite what retards like >>16965591 say, a few cents a transaction is far too high for any business to give a fuck about when contemporary solutions already exist and cost about the same.

What's worse is if anyone actually did start to use this pile of shit the fees would skyrocket.

>>16965775
bitcoin is the only decentralized project tho

>>16965378
no need it is defended by 3500 yottahash

>>16965775
you got it all wrong nigga business don't care about tx fees they care about legality especially accounting laws and also their expenses are in fiat they have to convert on spot and that makes it expensive for the customer not the fees.

>>16965428
at 0 segwit adoption and max demand right now it wouldnt happen also the peak was like 49 isd for immediate confirmation and like $5 for within an hour

>>16965428
It didn’t see widespread adoption until 2019 desu

>>16965775
Businesses get charged a % if the transaction fee by using credit/debit. Bitcoin is a flat fee. It’s cheaper to buy almost any product over $10 with bitcoin right now for retailers

>>16965825
The way it's headed is not looking good. There is nothing for businesses to build on because it's too expensive and slow to transact with. Price will continue to drop or stagnate. Since there is no throughput and a low price coupled with the halvening the security drops off. On BTAX we're seeing a cartel of miners tax the profits of everyone in the system. The more the hash falls on BTC the easier these cartels will be to form.

Instead what should have happened was scaling so not only would we have a higher price, but vastly more utility and business interest. If mining was that much more profitable, business could actually build then we'd be seeing a 50-100k Bitcoin right now. With that kind of dosh up for grabs mining would be far less centralized in China. The profits in such a system are simply too fucking good to ignore and we'd see more than just corporate interest, but governmental interest as well. Imagine that. Good luck getting the governments of the world to cartel up into one body and change the rules of the system. They'd tell all the other miners to go fuck themselves and just enforce the fucking rules instead of change them for once. Maybe some day.

>>16965853
>nigga
>business don't care about tx fees

Wrong on so many levels.

>>16965861
>>16965863
Because it's a shit solution. Just unbound the blocks. Problem solved.

>>16965891
>Bitcoin is a flat fee
Bitcoin sure, BTC no. BTC has dynamic fees and lead times because users have to compete for blockspace.

>>16965407

>>16965897
wrong. you can set every transaction at 5 sats for every transaction if you wanted to and be fine. blocks haven't been full since segwit reached widespread adoption. even if blocks do fill, transactions appear instantly as no-conf if you use the right wallet

>>16965963
>you can set every transaction at 5 sats for every transaction
And your transaction might not clear for a very long time. The network is literally dying, so yes you could get by doing that now. The moment anyone deploys anything worth a fuck BTC tanks again.

The entire point of full blocks and rbf was to remove payments from Bitcoin so they could create middlemen payment processors like Lightning or Liquid or w/e bs they try next.

With dynamic fee and lead time structure no serious business can implement anything on it leaving only merchants and most merchants began to drop BTC after 2017.

>>16965893
>Wrong on so many levels.
you are retarded tx fees are nothing takes about 5% to convert on spot bow that's rape

>>16965893
>Just unbound the blocks. Problem solved.
that's retarded also unbound blocks don't support miners with declining subsidy. sv has the same blocksize and tx count as btc lately yet btc miners get a few thousand dollars in fees as opposed to the $1 to $5 for sv miners

>>16965995
you really drank up the build on it coolaid btc is the only protocol right now that's locked in and only built on top of. your shitcoins with the weekly hardforks are the opposite.

>>16965995
https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all
segwit is working fine right now. transactions are near where they were at the peak of the bull run in 2017. the network can handle a lot more now

Theres some optimal medium where
>increased tx throughput/data payload of bigger blocks attracts more users and
>fee markets caused by full blocks attract more miners.
Miners should seek profit everywhere but also need to make the chain more useful if they want to outpace the halvings with fees.
Also, what are the biggest risks of unbounded blocks? Could attackers feasibly spam blocksizes up high enough and long enough that they could shut down miners who earn lower margins? Is that still a realistic threat? If so, how big can blocks get before it's a problem?

>>16966181
Someone trying to "spam" would run out of money long before the billion dollar ventures that are mining would be unable to facilitate them all the while making a hefty profit. Spam is literally something Bitcoin is designed to combat.

>>16966181
>Theres some optimal medium where
there is one hardfork that makes the block limit self adjusting based on average block weight. could use a formula like moneros where miners need to pay a penalty (ie can only claim less) from their block reward if they include more tx-es and make a larger block than they should. this means the block size would only grow when there is true demand for it. not dirt tx-es but real financial demand.

Segwit was the worst thing to ever happen to btc

>>16966181
>how big can blocks get before it's a problem?
the immediate problem with block size is propagation. long term the blockchain can be pruned the utxo set is the only thing you can't prune normally. i mean you can prune op_return data obviously but the rest is problematic.

bitcoin could require as little disk space as a few hundred megabytes right now. all it takes is a small change in the protocol that allows for trustless sync on a pruning network by including the hash of the previous utxo set in every block (like either in the header as hard fork or in the coinbase tx las soft fork).

>>16966364
it was the second best thing that happened to bitcoin the best thing was p2sh.

>>16966351
>not dirt tx-es
A transaction is a transaction. Literal food for the network helping secure it.

>>16966368
Yeah you could fork btc to have even less data than it does. They may as well at this point desu. Pretty sure that's what Jr. Advocates for on top of shrinking the blocksize. At least something like that could be interesting.

>>16965378
BASED

>>16966384
>A transaction is a transaction.
no a transaction made for the sake of taking up block space and not for transacting value is spam. and it really shouldn't be a global concern and burden. thankfully fees take care of this as they naturally disincentivize blockchain graffiti.

>Yeah you could fork btc to have even less data than it does.
which would also allow for larger blocks without adding undue burden to nodes. this is the way bitcoin should go.

laws and legality is local the blockchain is global thus must stay neutral as much as possible thus storing data on it should be discouraged by all means. financial transactions however should not be limited needlessly. the balance between the two effort is possible but very few people talk about this.

>>16965378
muh buttcoin

>>16965378
greatest update of all time

>>16965914
>0.00070 liquidity
you also have the same sat/byte fees
the only reason you have lower fees is because your coin is worthless

>>16965775
>That restaurant business will fail; nobody wants to go there because it's always full

>>16965378
Allows second layers for Bitcoin. Issue with small block size is the extent of which fees can be high. Big blocks fees are low but nodes are not cheap. Segwit is a soft fork. It divides data allowing faster transactions and essentially a bigger block size without a true increase in the block size. Doesn't seem to be an issue with it.

>>16965914
Stop comparing bitcoin to usd. Until you measure in sats, nothing gets adopted. Fuck the dollar. Its understandable since fiat is the primary exchange of value, but fucking a.

>>16965893
decentralized money is the application and there are several companies building out businesses within the consensus
you're seeing a negative mining environment but I see the opposite
the hate hate is higher than its ever been and futures markets are forming to stabilize the fee market
just because coinbase signed a paper with bitmain doesn't mean they get to change bitcoin to fit their business model and maximize profitability

>>16967692
the hash rate*

>>16966886
Animals

There rekt

>>16965378
>Defend this.
Its umm... interesting technology