161–170 of 412 posts
$20 transaction fee. Bitcoin for small payments is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand why miners wouldn’t include all pending transactions in their block. Seeing as how pow is a guessing game, there are plenty of permutations of the Merkle tree to generate plenty of roots. I guess to dissencentivize free loaders so miners can continue to make money once Coinbase txns are no longer a thing? It’s certainly not free to mine!
As the other commenter said, there is about 1 MB of room in each block, and almost always >1 MB worth of transactions in the "mempool" (actually it's often >12MB for the most part, because people will make tons and tons of transactions at 1sat/byte and not really care if they take forever to go through). And you are correct that bitcoin's ultimate goal is to have mining income come solely from transaction fees eventu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be a 'relief' if the price crashes back to $1K?
Because it's better than being on a trajectory where BTC hitting $1m is a real possibility. That world will be terrifying, and it's important for us to think about ways of mitigating or stopping it.
I'm here to say the problems in selling games for Bitcoin are not the same for microtransactions. I'm the original developer of Bitquest[1], where we used to process hundreds of micropayments smaller than 1 cent each day using 0 fee Bitcoin transactions. When the blocks started to fill up we had to move all transactions off-chain except when players send money to the game and cashing out. From the player's perspectiv…
Only if we remove the withdrawal transactions from the equation, and start trading unconfirmed transactions as regular bitcoins (confirmed transactions), can we get around this limitation (such that only the number of new users joining is limited to 20M per month). I’m somewhat skeptical this can work, though, since recipients of funds usually have suppliers to pay, so I assume that we need to settle on the blockchain at least monthly.
[1] https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bit...
Until segwit, lightning network etc. shape up and the wild bull/bear runs smooth out, BTC (and most other cryptos: see ETH and crypto kitties; or IOATA and their overrun nodes) don't really make sense for small transactions. I know LTC says they are the small transaction coin but I guess they'd hit scaling issues too if volume went up (and even if they didn't, speculators and crazy price swings would still make thing…
IOTA is a Tangle[1], which is coordinated[2] flow, similar to a Directed Acyclic Graph[3]. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "overrun nodes" but by virtue of how the network operates, this should not be an issue unless everyone is sticking with only the default nodes in their configuration, but that delves into a conversation of programmer vs user error that isn't pertinent to this thread. Some of us choose to run full nodes without incurring any speed loss, and it doesn't seem to be much of an issue of not having enough of them, only that people aren't using them. Even still, this has not degraded network performance.
[1] - https://iota.org/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf
[2] - https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/792d6c/eli5_the_coord...
[3] - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2283757/can-someone-expl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is what will ultimately bring Bitcoin down People have been saying that for years. It serves purposes other than buying and selling goods, and in fact almost no one uses it to buy things.
What other purposes is it used for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the other commenter said, there is about 1 MB of room in each block, and almost always >1 MB worth of transactions in the "mempool" (actually it's often >12MB for the most part, because people will make tons and tons of transactions at 1sat/byte and not really care if they take forever to go through). And you are correct that bitcoin's ultimate goal is to have mining income come solely from transaction fees eventu…
So are fees a percentage (.05bc a transaction) or a Flat fee (.05bc a transaction)?
So if a fee is 150 "sat/byte" or satoshi's per byte. A satoshi is 0.00000001 of a bitcoin.
So if your transaction is 250 bytes (which is average for a single transaction to a single person), then you will pay (250 * 150) satoshis (37500 sat), which is about $5.
If your transaction is larger, you'll pay more, if it's smaller, you'll pay less.
But they are "ranked" in terms of who is picked first by "sat/byte" since the amount of room in the block is only 1MB.
So a 500 byte transaction with 37500 sats in fees is worth less than a 250 byte transaction with 37500 sats in fees, because the 500 byte transaction takes up more room that other higher paying transactions could fit in.
That’s really not true any more and so a large part of the value of accepting it has simply disappeared. Really, why should they bother any more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like it. Shame, because micro-transactions was the only legal use case I could think of for it.
Currency exchange is a great bitcoin usecase.
It should be a medium of exchange, but for now its a speculative gamble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even the true believers have largely switched to advocating the store-of-value/digital gold model of bitcoin. Which is absolutely insane. What's the point of a currency if you can't use it for transactions? Store-of-value? What value?
> What value? $13K of value, and counting.
And how exactly will it become more prevalent when it can't be used for transactions.