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

71–77 of 77 posts

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

#71

Post by ccortes »

rawtxapp wrote: post #9
ccortes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected To me it says that only rich whales get to transact in bitcoin. Pretty sad that now regular people get excluded from something that was conceived as p2p internet cash.

Not really, it just means big centralized companies are settling their end-users funds on the blockchain while providing them access to it practically free. Regular people right now use it through Paypal, Cash app, Venmo, Coinbase, etc. And soon enough channel factories should make it possible to create multiple lightning channels at once, so an end-user will never pay the whole channel opening fee by themselves. As…

> Regular people right now use it through Paypal, Cash app, Venmo, Coinbase, etc.

I'm not American, but as far as I know you can't withdraw bitcoin from paypal, cash app or venmo.

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

#72

Post by noxer »

gruez wrote: post #62
noxer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.

It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes.

The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. There is no "wrong way" in this case its arbitrary which side the network goes the only thing that matter is that everyone goes the same way. Which is archives if everyone sided with their surrounding majority.

Its very important to understand that if someone would have the control over which side it goes in such a situation he could do absolutely nothing with this "power" as both ways must be valid in the first place.

The only person who "loses out" is the one who attempts a double spend because he has no way to know which Tx will success and which will fail. But no honest participants cares about that. If you attempt a double sends you voluntary let the network pick one.

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

#73

Post by noxer »

pfundstein wrote: post #64
gruez wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.

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

#74

Post by BLanen »

rawtxapp wrote: post #4

That's because you're looking at it in terms of USD, when you look at it in terms of satoshis per byte, it's actually much lower [1][3]. And if you want to avoid the fees because you expect to transact a lot, just use lightning network, exchanges are starting to integrate it[2]. edit: I should also add that, when you look at it in terms of USD, the average transaction fee is a drop in the bucket compared to the avera…

Lightning network is a non-workable piece of shit that REQUIRES AN ON-CHAIN TRANSACTION TO SET UP A DEBIT CHANNEL BETWEEN WALLETS

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

#75

Post by gruez »

noxer wrote: post #72
gruez wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority". You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes. The consensus maj…

>You are wrong on that.

>The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes.

so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.

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

#76

Post by noxer »

gruez wrote: post #75
noxer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority". You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes. The consensus maj…

>You are wrong on that. >The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but s…

>"if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"

Yes but also no. There is no trust needed because what the other nodes say does not define whats correct its arbitrary. Its only relevant if 2 or more equal good AND correct ways exist. You aren't listing to others to find out the "right" way you solely listen to other so everyone choose the same.

>still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.

Not at all. If there is a double spend attempt your validator node picks one at "random" (the one it revived first) it then tells every node to include this one an discard the other. All other do that too completely on their own (decentral). Only if this does not lead to 80% agreement everyone is tasked to adjust and vote again. So your node looks what the nodes around them voted and switches if needed to the majority. There is no central anything that tells your node to switch. Your node does so solely because your node doesn't care which way to go but it wants to go the same way ass all others.

All this does it it breaks ties. If there would be a near 50/50 split or 33/33/33 for 3 conflicting transaction, this is guaranteed to shift to something near 100% after some re-voting. Because the existing "majority" grows faster with every re-vote if everyone adjust by these rules. And that's the sole goal. We want the network go agree.

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

#77

Post by pfundstein »

devname wrote: post #39
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.

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.

Intersting to see the downvotes, looks like the BTC vs BCH is quite polarizing even on HN
Post reply on HN