5 ms·

Nowadays, transactions B2C usually involve an institution like Paypal or Stripe and the fees are about 3~5% of the value of the transaction (depending on which

Nowadays, transactions B2C usually involve an institution like Paypal or Stripe and the fees are about 3~5% of the value of the transaction (depending on which country you are from). I find this fee extraordinary high. If bitcoin can find a way to do the same thing in an order of magnitude cheaper (which I don't think is a far fetched scenario, considering Lightning Network and another L2 solutions being developed), then this is a trillion market opportunity.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
Why would someone use an awkward and complicated second layer built on top of 1.5KB/s of transactions that cost $25 ? Ethereum and bitcoin cash both exceed bitcoin's transaction throughput. Ethereum dwarfs everything else in number of transactions per day. If everyone in the world uses bitcoin, everyone will get a single on chain transaction every 60 years, even though a single hard drive could store the next 300 years of transactions at this rate. If your internet connection had the throughput of bitcoin, reddit.com would take 36 minutes to load. There is no technical reason it has to be this way, bitcoin was crippled just to sell you a second layer while other cryptocurrencies are easily blowing past it in transaction throughput.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Ether fees are staggering now too, and Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. The reality is the inefficiency required to meet the decentralized trustless verifiable goals is so high it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    > Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... > The reality is the inefficiency required to meet the decentralized trustless verifiable goals is so high it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco. This is wrong. This gets said from time to time by people who don't understand how things work or haven't run the numbers. Some people extrapolate from bitcoin being intentionally crippled that there is an actual technical hurdle to more transactions which is not true. There is no technical reason why there can't be many orders of magnitude more transactions with pretty much any cryptocurrency. Only miners and exchanges even need to sync with the main chain. 100x bitcoin's throughput would still only be 150KB/s, far less than a low resolution video stream. After 11 years the entire chain is the size of two large video games on steam. What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. Trust me we both dislike Bitcoin lol. Weren't some BCH miners preferring to mine empty blocks though because the fees were too low so it wasn't worth their time? [1] > What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about. Not possible while maintaining the side-quest of allowing anyone with an average computer to run a full node. I believe that constraint was applied to Bitcoin early on to reduce centralization and improve trust/integrity. Mission failed of course, but if you believe that's important, then of course, it remains impossible. I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_please_consider_orphaning_hathor/ https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_...
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        I gave you specific and relevant numbers. When I asked for your numbers that make you say "it's not possible" your response is "Not possible". You said bitcoin cash is not used by anyone, I showed you a graph that it is second in transaction throughput. Empty blocks and running non-mining nodes are trivial and inconsequential gish-galloping from what you said before. Non-mining nodes don't really matter to general users and anyone that can watch 240p youtube has the bandwidth to run one easily. > I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. I don't know what that means or even what assertion you are making. All you have said is "not possible" without backing it up with any information at all despite everything I outlined above. It should be obvious that multiple orders of magnitude more transaction throughput is possible by looking at the real numbers of bandwidth, chain size, cpu time, latency, etc. etc. Your response was to bring up irrelevant issues to blur what is being discussed.
- rafaelero 6y ago
  Why ether and bitcoin cash would be superior alternatives? They don't solve the scalability problem and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS now and it is probably going to help on that front, but it is still an experiment and comes with drawbacks. Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    > They don't solve the scalability problem There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... Bitcoin cash tested full blocks 32x bitcoin's max block size a long time ago. There is no issue with having more transactions. Bitcoin was just crippled to make people think they need a second layer. What numbers do you have that makes you think there is a technical problem with scalability? > Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. > Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. Like what? > You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. What 'risk assessment' are you talking about? With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. The only risk is when you have some hacky 'layer 2' nonsense that needs to be always on. > I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain. What framework and what features are you talking about?
    - rafaelero 6y ago
      > There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. > That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. I guess you are right. The mining method is orthogonal to the total transaction that can be validated. > Like what? I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments, but it can be hindered by liquidity shortages on the network and less clearance certainty. If you are okay with that, you can then proceed to use this network. If not, then another option may come up that satisfies your risk assessment. > With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. Sure, and that is indeed how bitcoin works. I think you are criticizing the fact that bitcoin does it very slowly, but then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. > What framework and what features are you talking about? The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

Why would someone use an awkward and complicated second layer built on top of 1.5KB/s of transactions that cost $25 ? Ethereum and bitcoin cash both exceed bitcoin's transaction throughput. Ethereum dwarfs everything else in number of transactions per day. If everyone in the world uses bitcoin, everyone will get a single on chain transaction every 60 years, even though a single hard drive could store the next 300 years of transactions at this rate. If your internet connection had the throughput of bitcoin, reddit.com would take 36 minutes to load. There is no technical reason it has to be this way, bitcoin was crippled just to sell you a second layer while other cryptocurrencies are easily blowing past it in transaction throughput.

arcticbull 6y ago
Ether fees are staggering now too, and Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. The reality is the inefficiency required to meet the decentralized trustless verifiable goals is so high it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  > Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... > The reality is the inefficiency required to meet the decentralized trustless verifiable goals is so high it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco. This is wrong. This gets said from time to time by people who don't understand how things work or haven't run the numbers. Some people extrapolate from bitcoin being intentionally crippled that there is an actual technical hurdle to more transactions which is not true. There is no technical reason why there can't be many orders of magnitude more transactions with pretty much any cryptocurrency. Only miners and exchanges even need to sync with the main chain. 100x bitcoin's throughput would still only be 150KB/s, far less than a low resolution video stream. After 11 years the entire chain is the size of two large video games on steam. What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. Trust me we both dislike Bitcoin lol. Weren't some BCH miners preferring to mine empty blocks though because the fees were too low so it wasn't worth their time? [1] > What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about. Not possible while maintaining the side-quest of allowing anyone with an average computer to run a full node. I believe that constraint was applied to Bitcoin early on to reduce centralization and improve trust/integrity. Mission failed of course, but if you believe that's important, then of course, it remains impossible. I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_please_consider_orphaning_hathor/ https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_...
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      I gave you specific and relevant numbers. When I asked for your numbers that make you say "it's not possible" your response is "Not possible". You said bitcoin cash is not used by anyone, I showed you a graph that it is second in transaction throughput. Empty blocks and running non-mining nodes are trivial and inconsequential gish-galloping from what you said before. Non-mining nodes don't really matter to general users and anyone that can watch 240p youtube has the bandwidth to run one easily. > I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. I don't know what that means or even what assertion you are making. All you have said is "not possible" without backing it up with any information at all despite everything I outlined above. It should be obvious that multiple orders of magnitude more transaction throughput is possible by looking at the real numbers of bandwidth, chain size, cpu time, latency, etc. etc. Your response was to bring up irrelevant issues to blur what is being discussed.
rafaelero 6y ago
Why ether and bitcoin cash would be superior alternatives? They don't solve the scalability problem and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS now and it is probably going to help on that front, but it is still an experiment and comes with drawbacks. Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  > They don't solve the scalability problem There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... Bitcoin cash tested full blocks 32x bitcoin's max block size a long time ago. There is no issue with having more transactions. Bitcoin was just crippled to make people think they need a second layer. What numbers do you have that makes you think there is a technical problem with scalability? > Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. > Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. Like what? > You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. What 'risk assessment' are you talking about? With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. The only risk is when you have some hacky 'layer 2' nonsense that needs to be always on. > I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain. What framework and what features are you talking about?
  - rafaelero 6y ago
    > There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. > That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. I guess you are right. The mining method is orthogonal to the total transaction that can be validated. > Like what? I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments, but it can be hindered by liquidity shortages on the network and less clearance certainty. If you are okay with that, you can then proceed to use this network. If not, then another option may come up that satisfies your risk assessment. > With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. Sure, and that is indeed how bitcoin works. I think you are criticizing the fact that bitcoin does it very slowly, but then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. > What framework and what features are you talking about? The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain.