3 ms·

Then how is that a "threat to bitcoin"?

by TekMol 4y ago

latchkey 4y ago
Bitcoin maxi's get their panties in a twist as people stop using their network and all the bitcoin gets wrapped up into these bridges. The real value gets developed elsewhere.
- bradwood 4y ago
  I think maxis like Saylor think that the L1 bitcoin network will become one where fewer big blocks are traded (like gold transactions) rather than where daily payments are running. The tx fees will become bigger too. And L2s like lightning or the various wrapped BTCs will be quicker and more commonplace for smaller sizes.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Once emissions stop on BTC, fees should have to increase to replace the emissions. Except that fees won't increase because fewer people will be using the network, having long moved to L2's. The majority of transactions will be checkpoint transactions for L2's. If you zoom out, transactions per block have flatlined, even during this last couple year bull run... https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block Miners will stop mining because they depended on the emissions and not just the fees. Difficulty will go down and so will power usage, but the network will remain as secure because of the adjustments. This is part of why we see such a large land grab right now to mine as much BTC as possible. I'm sure Saylor owns large stakes in mining companies.
DenseComet 4y ago
Block rewards will eventually be replaced by transaction fees, meaning that to keep transaction fees low, transaction volume needs to be high. If most transactions aren't taking place on the Bitcoin network, then either transaction fees will have to increase to incentivize miners, or the security of the network could be jeopardized.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Security won't be jeopardized because of PoW difficulty adjustments. The 'fear' here is that say 50% of the hashrate turns off, difficulty adjusts... and then it all turns back on and attacks the network. That won't happen as long as mining is as decentralized as it is today. Saying that 'China' controls the hashrate is wrong because it isn't 'China'... it is a bunch of smaller individuals and they are acting in their own best interests. Attacking the network wouldn't help them at all. AA covers this in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd8ZGgm6Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd8ZGgm6Qo

Then how is that a "threat to bitcoin"?

by TekMol 4y ago

Then how is that a "threat to bitcoin"?

Bitcoin maxi's get their panties in a twist as people stop using their network and all the bitcoin gets wrapped up into these bridges. The real value gets developed elsewhere.

bradwood 4y ago
I think maxis like Saylor think that the L1 bitcoin network will become one where fewer big blocks are traded (like gold transactions) rather than where daily payments are running. The tx fees will become bigger too. And L2s like lightning or the various wrapped BTCs will be quicker and more commonplace for smaller sizes.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Once emissions stop on BTC, fees should have to increase to replace the emissions. Except that fees won't increase because fewer people will be using the network, having long moved to L2's. The majority of transactions will be checkpoint transactions for L2's. If you zoom out, transactions per block have flatlined, even during this last couple year bull run... https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block Miners will stop mining because they depended on the emissions and not just the fees. Difficulty will go down and so will power usage, but the network will remain as secure because of the adjustments. This is part of why we see such a large land grab right now to mine as much BTC as possible. I'm sure Saylor owns large stakes in mining companies.

DenseComet 4y ago

Block rewards will eventually be replaced by transaction fees, meaning that to keep transaction fees low, transaction volume needs to be high. If most transactions aren't taking place on the Bitcoin network, then either transaction fees will have to increase to incentivize miners, or the security of the network could be jeopardized.

latchkey 4y ago
Security won't be jeopardized because of PoW difficulty adjustments. The 'fear' here is that say 50% of the hashrate turns off, difficulty adjusts... and then it all turns back on and attacks the network. That won't happen as long as mining is as decentralized as it is today. Saying that 'China' controls the hashrate is wrong because it isn't 'China'... it is a bunch of smaller individuals and they are acting in their own best interests. Attacking the network wouldn't help them at all. AA covers this in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd8ZGgm6Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd8ZGgm6Qo