Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

bitinfocharts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#41

Post by castlecrasher2 »

gruez wrote: post #28
this_user wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

>But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless. the lightning network isn't going to freeze your funds for 180 days because they think your account is suspicious.

No, it would have its own bullshit to deal with, we just haven't seen it yet.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#42

Post by devname »

gruez wrote: post #34
the_local_host wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.

> The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction o…

If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#43

Post by wmf »

rawtxapp wrote: post #22
noxer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price. Who the heck would care about satishis per byte. Its % of the transacted value that matters. High fees means low value Tx are no longer "possible". >which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected. So it went from p2p cash to store of val…

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.

In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#44

Post by noxer »

this_user wrote: post #24
noxer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price. Who the heck would care about satishis per byte. Its % of the transacted value that matters. High fees means low value Tx are no longer "possible". >which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected. So it went from p2p cash to store of val…

The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

That shortsighted. Blockchain tech isn't only bitcoin. There are solutions to the problems bitcoins has and they are working fine since years. BTW the link includes the transaction fees on the XRPL you probably didn't see it because the line is almost flat and almost at zero.

Blockchains or rather DLTs are here to stay - bitcoin probably not.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#45

Post by ufo »

ahelwer wrote: post #7
swinglock wrote: post #5

This is the consequence of the sudden loss of mining power. The increased usage of Bitcoin transactions while the blockchain is now processing fewer transactions means the fees increase, because users are willing to pay that much to transact faster. Ideally market powers would offset this by people with spare CPU time beginning to mine to pick up the slack, since profitability is up. However due to the development of…

Here's a gap in my understanding: why does bitcoin mining explode so much when the price goes up? With all the new miners, doesn't the difficulty adjustment kick in after two weeks and largely negate the price increase? Or does the difficulty scaling not quite work like that?

The difficulty adjustment ensures that, on average, there will always be 6 bitcoins minted every 10 minutes. If the price of the bitcoin increases, miners will be willing to spend more energy to chase those 6 bitcoins. The end result is the network becomes less efficient, as more energy is burned to confirm the same number of transactions.

If difficulty adjustment didn't exist then mining would still be as easy as it was in the satoshi days. The current ASICs would have already finished mining all 21M bitcoins several times over.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#46

Post by CameronNemo »

rawtxapp wrote: post #22
noxer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price. Who the heck would care about satishis per byte. Its % of the transacted value that matters. High fees means low value Tx are no longer "possible". >which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected. So it went from p2p cash to store of val…

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.

That is what I was told 3 years ago.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#47

Post by xur17 »

this_user wrote: post #24
noxer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price. Who the heck would care about satishis per byte. Its % of the transacted value that matters. High fees means low value Tx are no longer "possible". >which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected. So it went from p2p cash to store of val…

The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

How has lightning network re-invented paypal? One is a custodial way to store and transfer money, another is a decentralized non-custodial way to store and transfer money. It couldn't be more different.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#48

Post by gruez »

devname wrote: post #42
gruez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction o…

If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.

uhh what? It's true that nobody knows what the state of the channel is, but the capacity is known. so they know it would conclude with either party A getting 0.1 BTC (for example), party B getting 0.1 BTC, or somewhere in between.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#49

Post by bavell »

gruez wrote: post #23
haolez wrote: post #16

I wonder what would happen with bigger blocks besides making the blockchain use more disk space. We have BCH and BSV to compare, but not in BTC's scale, I believe.

initially? lower fees. eventually it will be offset by the induced demand and we'll be back to square one.

We won't be back at square one even if the fees end up the same, since the transaction thoroughput would be higher.

Bigger blocks means more transactions per block and at a constant rate of 6 blocks/hr that means the network can handle more TPS before fees rise. As long as the mempool remains relatively empty, fees will be low.

Re: Avg. Transaction Fee of Bitcoin Surpassed the Peak from 2017

#50

Post by wmf »

gruez wrote: post #23
haolez wrote: post #16

I wonder what would happen with bigger blocks besides making the blockchain use more disk space. We have BCH and BSV to compare, but not in BTC's scale, I believe.

initially? lower fees. eventually it will be offset by the induced demand and we'll be back to square one.

Imagine if they increased the block size and developed Lightning in parallel. On-chain fees would be low until Lightning becomes mainstream then Lightning fees would be even lower.
Post reply on HN