Live data from Hacker News

Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

steamcommunity.com

191–200 of 412 posts

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#191

I can see the headlines now... "Bitcoin running out of steam?"

Not being used is the logical end of it when we know there's a fixed available amount[0]. That means bitcoin is intrinsically deflationary, and at there's absolutely no reason to use them: they'll be worth more tomorrow than today, and next week than tomorrow. Until everything grinds to a halt and crashes down. [0] in which sense it is very different from gold, which kept increasing in amount, just (mostly) slowly

GP's post was just a pun/joke. Think you missed it :)

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#192
post #164
post #118

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…

Indeed there are clearing protocols on top of Bitcoin, which can reduce fee-paying to only occur upon depositing and redemption. But the Bitcoin blockchain is still limited to ~20 million of such transactions per month[1]. 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 tha…

I agree that Payment Channels is a good step forward but there's the hard limit on how many channels can be open. I'm confident that there will be proposals similar to Poon et al. [1] to create a third layer for networks of payment channels where a Blockchain tx can be used only in case of uncooperative channel counterparties.

[1] https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7c...

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#193
post #35

why are transaction costs so high? I thought one of the selling points was that the transaction cost is negligible because miners main incentive comes from mining new bitcoins?

That used to be true, until the network started hitting the "block size limit". That's the combination of two design features:

1) The mining difficulty automatically adjusts to keep the rate of new blocks down to about 1 every 10 minutes.

2) There has always been a 1 MB limit on how large a block can be.

For a long time, #2 didn't matter, because all blocks were much smaller than 1 MB. But about a year ago, transaction volumes finally rose enough that all blocks since then have been at the max. That means that rather than just taking up marginal bandwidth and disk space, transactions are directly competing with each other for the limited space in each block. That's caused transaction fees to skyrocket.

The question of whether the max block size should be raised has been extremely controversial in the bitcoin world, and the "bitcoin cash" fork was primarily focused on this question.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#194
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the main issue is transaction fees are close to $20, so even simple operations like refunding users for a incorrect or incomplete transaction is infeasible.

The "$20 transaction fee" was an absolute top, and when that happened it was the single most congested the bitcoin network has ever been. It's nowhere near that right now. The total cost for your "median" transaction right now (at 226 bytes) is about $4.30 USD (at 150 sat/byte). Even if you double that to 300 sat/byte you are still at ~$9. Edit: I'm not saying even $4 fees are okay, just pointing out that it's not $2…

But it still happened, and there's really nothing in place to stop it from happening again. And Valve would have no control over it.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#195
post #187

Bitcoin is not meant to be used for small transactions. Bitcoin can scale indefinitely in terms of dollar value of daily transactions but it is limited when it comes to number of transactions. I don't think that the lightning network will offer a solution. In engineering, problems are always better solved at the root. As clever as it might be, the lightning network is a bandaid patch on top of a suboptimal solution..…

any blockchain that doesn't set a limit on the value of one single transaction can scale indefinitely in terms of dollar value

[deleted]

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make a bitcoin transaction, it gets put into a "mempool". Basically you send your TX to a node, that shares it with other nodes on the network, and they all hold it in memory. Once a block is found, the miner that found the block will pull as many transactions as possible from the mempool and put them into that block and sign it on the blockchain forever. Since TX fees go to miners, they are incentivized to…

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!

If they could, miners probably would put all the pending transactions into a block. That's why the block size limit exists; every other node in the network has to process all those transactions and they're not paid for it in any way, so without the size limit miners would be likely to act in a way that hurts the rest of the network.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#197
post #164
post #118

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…

Indeed there are clearing protocols on top of Bitcoin, which can reduce fee-paying to only occur upon depositing and redemption. But the Bitcoin blockchain is still limited to ~20 million of such transactions per month[1]. 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 tha…

A Lightning Network transaction results in one of two things - a proof that a certain amount of bitcoins can be withdrawn at any time (minus some delay), or a proof of cheating. Surely a proof that you can withdraw a certain amount of bitcoins is more-or-less equivalent to that many bitcoins, and therefore any rational actor - including your suppliers - should accept it as such?

This isn't equivalent to unconfirmed transactions - it's tokens of exchange which directly and provably represent bitcoins. Settling on the blockchain shouldn't even have to happen monthly.

One of the other interesting things is that Lightning Network allows for payment in one cryptocurrency while you hold another by channeling it through a very simple, provable currency exchange. This could behave similarly to, for example, paying for something in USD when you hold GBP - practically automatically. So the lack of scalability in Bitcoin's blockchain might not matter so much - if something else turns up that's better for a given person holding money, they can start using it while still continuing to trade with all the people using Bitcoin.

IMHO, cross-chain transactions like this are one of the most important parts of Lightning Network - suddenly, network effects around a specific currency don't matter so much, people can hold whatever they like - Bitcoin people can trade with Litecoin people who can trade with Ethereum scripts, and when something new that solves more problems turns up, people holding that can still buy VPSes with bitcoin.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it becomes an asset, like gold.

The thing with gold is that it's been valued for thousands of years all around the world and you can show it off, and we're pretty sure that we won't find a pure gold asteroid hurling towards us. BC has none of those advantages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there reason to believe that sort of congestion won't reoccur?

Every major blockchain is working on scalability (sharding, offchain transactions, and various other solutions are in the works) So ideally there will be more traffic but less congestion

I think Bitcoin has maneuvered itself into a corner where the remaining dev team doesn't dare to do any hardforks in the future even if they are important to keep Bitcoin competitive.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#200
post #38

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…

>IOATA and their overrun nodes 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 thi…

I'm an IOTA fan* but there aren't enough full nodes in the tangle at the moment (and also no direct financial incentive for more public ones to be created, afaik?). You just had to witness their slack last night to see that. People were setting up nodes and getting overrun almost immediately (I saw a guy complain he'd set up 4x 32GB nodes and watched them get swamped and CPU pegged within seconds). I gave up on a bitfinex withdrawal after waiting 12+ hours for it to process.

But, yes, at least with IOTA the tech is proven. More nodes will let it scale. I just wonder how they will incentivize these nodes to come in to existence and keep ownership of them reasonably decentralized/well distributed (and make it easy for light wallet users to find and use them).

* though admittedly I don't follow the project too closely - so apologies if some of the above is off-base/wrong.

Post reply on HN