51–60 of 77 posts
It seems like Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), a token on the Ethereum chain, could also be used instead to avoid transaction fees. Granted, ethereum has its own fees. The less popular chains tend to have lower fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning th…
But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All this means is that moving Bitcoin in the main blockchain is not practical for most people. Bitcoin is an asset for an elite. Those who are interested in frequent cryptocurrency transactions should not be even paying attention to Bitcoin.
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…
Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.
It'd be a race to close channels, and only if the channel value is above the fee-floor, else the settled value is $0.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Just to clarify a bit further, this is true right now but the amount minted with each block isn't constant and decreases over time. More info on block rewards: https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
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.
Bitcoin Cash has handled more transactions than small-block core for two months now. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.ht... Read the first page of the Bitcoin whitepaper: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf . It's a protest against fees and intermediaries. Now we see BTC claim to be Bitcoin, but it is crippled by high fees and custodial intermediaries.
If only there was a low fee way of doing bitcoin transactions without custodial intermediaries...
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.
Bitcoin Cash has handled more transactions than small-block core for two months now. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.ht... Read the first page of the Bitcoin whitepaper: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf . It's a protest against fees and intermediaries. Now we see BTC claim to be Bitcoin, but it is crippled by high fees and custodial intermediaries.