5 ms·

The cost is increasing because more people are trying to use Bitcoin, but it has an artificial limit to the number of people who can use it per second. Thus, w

by toomim 9y ago

The cost is increasing because more people are trying to use Bitcoin, but it has an artificial limit to the number of people who can use it per second. Thus, with increasing demand, and static supply, the fees rise roughly quadratically over time. To reduce the fees, we need to remove that artificial 1mb limit. Here's the main approach to that right now: https://www.bitcoin.com/info/what-is-bitcoin-cash https://www.bitcoin.com/info/what-is-bitcoin-cash

icelancer 9y ago
>To reduce the fees, we need to remove that artificial 1mb limit. Here's the main approach to that right now... Removed the BCH spam link. No, this is NOT the main approach to that. The main approach to that is the Lightning Network, which is not yet in production. Your "main approach" is a hardfork that increases the block size, run by someone who owns the bitcoin.com domain, regularly misrepresents what Bitcoin Cash (bcash) actually is, and goes on live shows yelling obscenities and flashing the middle finger very professionally when these things are pointed out. So, no, Bcash is not the main approach to "fixing" Bitcoin. It is a wholly separate coin with trading volume less than one-third of Bitcoin.
- relyio 9y ago
  Increasing block size is the low hanging fruit for reducing tx fees. It's a dead-simple idea. You increase the supply side of the fee market and users don't have to compete for transaction finality anymore. It has been implemented and we know it works. Of course, that is only kicking the can down the road and has many caveats. It still has proven effective to complete its goal (minimize tx fees). Lightning networks is a WIP that is months, perhaps years, away from hitting production. As such, I wouldn't call them the "main approach" to scaling except in the mind of core engineers. It might drive tx costs down, it might not, at this stage it is too early to tell for sure. As such, I think OP is right. It is completely fair to say that block size increase is the "main" approach, as in the "the one that we know for sure works right now", to making Bitcoin usable as a payment system. Now on a side note: I don't think you needed to be that aggressive with OP. I won't address the attacks on Roger Ver because it is my belief that attempts at turning a technical debate into politics should be met with contempt.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    Increasing block size definitely can solve the problem. Bitcoin Cash solves many short-term problems, I am not saying otherwise. It is NOT, however, the "main" way Bitcoin is dealing with the problem. It is the way another coin is dealing with the problem and this coin is not Bitcoin. >I won't address the attacks on Roger Ver because it is my belief that attempts at turning a technical debate into politics should be met with contempt. I mean, you just did, via this comment.
    - qsucvatz 9y ago
      Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original Bitcoin implementation in code, philosophy, and community. Same thing that worked since 2009, until the blocks ran out of space.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        >Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original Bitcoin implementation in code Because it's a 99% pure fork of BTC, sure. Closer than the "original" Bitcoin? That's not possible to say. >>philosophy Subjective at best. Unless, you know, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi, since he's involved in BCH and has claimed to be him. In which case, it absolutely is. >>community Also subjective.
        relyio 9y ago
        I think the claim that it is closer to the "original vision" has some substance if you think of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer cash system rather than as a settlement layer. With that said, this certainly does not imply that p2p cash is what Bitcoin could actually excel at once it reach global scale. Modifying the original vision is not some great sin, it literally happens all the time with startups and no one bats an eye. I don't think being closer to Satoshi's original vision is any important, Bitcoin is not a religion and Satoshi isn't a prophet. The split-up was a good thing, I'm excited that different avenues are being explored. Maybe core maintainers are wrong and p2p cash is actually the way to go. Maybe Bitcoin Cash fans are wrong and the solution lies in developing L2 solutions. Maybe both are wrong. Time will tell and we should be happy that different things are being tried. The engineer in me says that the "real" Bitcoin is the one with the most total difficulty. I think that definition is too narrow. To me, both are the real Bitcoin, just in different timelines. The timeline that wins will overwrite reality such that it was the real Bitcoin all along. Meta!
- qsucvatz 9y ago
  How does litening work if it takes a transaction to open and a transaction to close, and the median fees are increasing with time?

by toomim 9y ago

icelancer 9y ago

>To reduce the fees, we need to remove that artificial 1mb limit. Here's the main approach to that right now... Removed the BCH spam link. No, this is NOT the main approach to that. The main approach to that is the Lightning Network, which is not yet in production. Your "main approach" is a hardfork that increases the block size, run by someone who owns the bitcoin.com domain, regularly misrepresents what Bitcoin Cash (bcash) actually is, and goes on live shows yelling obscenities and flashing the middle finger very professionally when these things are pointed out. So, no, Bcash is not the main approach to "fixing" Bitcoin. It is a wholly separate coin with trading volume less than one-third of Bitcoin.

relyio 9y ago
Increasing block size is the low hanging fruit for reducing tx fees. It's a dead-simple idea. You increase the supply side of the fee market and users don't have to compete for transaction finality anymore. It has been implemented and we know it works. Of course, that is only kicking the can down the road and has many caveats. It still has proven effective to complete its goal (minimize tx fees). Lightning networks is a WIP that is months, perhaps years, away from hitting production. As such, I wouldn't call them the "main approach" to scaling except in the mind of core engineers. It might drive tx costs down, it might not, at this stage it is too early to tell for sure. As such, I think OP is right. It is completely fair to say that block size increase is the "main" approach, as in the "the one that we know for sure works right now", to making Bitcoin usable as a payment system. Now on a side note: I don't think you needed to be that aggressive with OP. I won't address the attacks on Roger Ver because it is my belief that attempts at turning a technical debate into politics should be met with contempt.
- icelancer 9y ago
  Increasing block size definitely can solve the problem. Bitcoin Cash solves many short-term problems, I am not saying otherwise. It is NOT, however, the "main" way Bitcoin is dealing with the problem. It is the way another coin is dealing with the problem and this coin is not Bitcoin. >I won't address the attacks on Roger Ver because it is my belief that attempts at turning a technical debate into politics should be met with contempt. I mean, you just did, via this comment.
  - qsucvatz 9y ago
    Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original Bitcoin implementation in code, philosophy, and community. Same thing that worked since 2009, until the blocks ran out of space.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      >Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original Bitcoin implementation in code Because it's a 99% pure fork of BTC, sure. Closer than the "original" Bitcoin? That's not possible to say. >>philosophy Subjective at best. Unless, you know, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi, since he's involved in BCH and has claimed to be him. In which case, it absolutely is. >>community Also subjective.
      - relyio 9y ago
        I think the claim that it is closer to the "original vision" has some substance if you think of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer cash system rather than as a settlement layer. With that said, this certainly does not imply that p2p cash is what Bitcoin could actually excel at once it reach global scale. Modifying the original vision is not some great sin, it literally happens all the time with startups and no one bats an eye. I don't think being closer to Satoshi's original vision is any important, Bitcoin is not a religion and Satoshi isn't a prophet. The split-up was a good thing, I'm excited that different avenues are being explored. Maybe core maintainers are wrong and p2p cash is actually the way to go. Maybe Bitcoin Cash fans are wrong and the solution lies in developing L2 solutions. Maybe both are wrong. Time will tell and we should be happy that different things are being tried. The engineer in me says that the "real" Bitcoin is the one with the most total difficulty. I think that definition is too narrow. To me, both are the real Bitcoin, just in different timelines. The timeline that wins will overwrite reality such that it was the real Bitcoin all along. Meta!
qsucvatz 9y ago
How does litening work if it takes a transaction to open and a transaction to close, and the median fees are increasing with time?