6 ms·

The cost for a Bitcoin transaction today is $0.96. The lowest daily average cost per transaction in the last month was $0.81, and the highest was $2.52.

by sshine 1y ago

beernet 1y ago
Which is still quite a lot. Litecoin (among other alternatives) provides the exact same service for close to zero cost and at a better speed.
- koonsolo 1y ago
  Nano offers sub-second transactions at 0 cost.
  - lawn 1y ago
    Nano has a completely different security model though, and isn't nearly as secure/decentralized as Bitcoin/Litecoin/Monero and other standard POW based cryptocurrencies.
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      > isn't nearly as secure/decentralized as Bitcoin/Litecoin/Monero and other standard POW based cryptocurrencies. That's not remotely true. Nano is up and running like 9 years now and has survived countless spam attacks. The last attacks have gone completely unnoticed except by people watching for them. As a non-inflationary feeless currency it's inherently far more decentralized, and tends to decentralize over time. Why on earth would POW be the standard when block lattice is better in literally every way? It's faster, safer, and 10x more efficient than a Visa transaction. And then there's quantum resistance. Why do people on a tech site full of 'smart' people let statements that wrong go unremarked. It's weird.
  - golbez9 1y ago
    Nano shills still exist?! LOL Those bags must be heavy
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      So weird. It's like someone was saying, watermills are great because they can help you mill your flour. Someone else chimes in like, hey, you can actually just get a wind turbine or a solar panel now; it's way more efficient... And then you - a year old account with -1 karma - jump in saying, 'lol solar power shills still exist?!'. Like... Who's the shill here? How much BTC is in your bag?
- sshine 1y ago
  It's not a lot when you consider what you get: Globally visible transaction permanence. When you pay the 1.5% visa transaction, you don't get that. And you don't need that for buying a coffee, or almost anything. Microtransactions are just not a good use-case for the Bitcoin network. The drawback with anything beyond Bitcoin is that in order to buy those currencies, you need Bitcoin. There is an extreme correlation with the price of Bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin's current hashrate is 95 Petahashes/second, while Litecoin is 2.35 PH/s. I suppose both are big enough that one does not have to worry about the network being easily hijacked. But when you get below a certain point, the price for taking over the head of the chain temporarily is a real amount of money, not an astronomical one.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  That's very cheap if you're sending money to someone in another country (and not within the EU).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lawn 1y ago
That's still expensive for cheap things. And what's worse is that it's impossible to reliably predict the correct fee to be able to get into the next block. This means that at any time if you're unlucky your payment might get stuck for hours, days or even weeks.
- cykros 1y ago
  If you're buying cheap things with on-chain payments, it's a bit like sending a bank wire to Starbucks for your coffee. Lightning exists for a reason. Comes with far more privacy too -- arguably even more than Monero, if done right.
  - lawn 1y ago
    It's ignorant to claim Lightning provides better privacy than Monero. The problem is that a cryptocurrency could support both large and small transactions, which Monero does.

The cost for a Bitcoin transaction today is $0.96. The lowest daily average cost per transaction in the last month was $0.81, and the highest was $2.52.

by sshine 1y ago

The cost for a Bitcoin transaction today is $0.96. The lowest daily average cost per transaction in the last month was $0.81, and the highest was $2.52.

beernet 1y ago

Which is still quite a lot. Litecoin (among other alternatives) provides the exact same service for close to zero cost and at a better speed.

koonsolo 1y ago
Nano offers sub-second transactions at 0 cost.
- lawn 1y ago
  Nano has a completely different security model though, and isn't nearly as secure/decentralized as Bitcoin/Litecoin/Monero and other standard POW based cryptocurrencies.
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    > isn't nearly as secure/decentralized as Bitcoin/Litecoin/Monero and other standard POW based cryptocurrencies. That's not remotely true. Nano is up and running like 9 years now and has survived countless spam attacks. The last attacks have gone completely unnoticed except by people watching for them. As a non-inflationary feeless currency it's inherently far more decentralized, and tends to decentralize over time. Why on earth would POW be the standard when block lattice is better in literally every way? It's faster, safer, and 10x more efficient than a Visa transaction. And then there's quantum resistance. Why do people on a tech site full of 'smart' people let statements that wrong go unremarked. It's weird.
- golbez9 1y ago
  Nano shills still exist?! LOL Those bags must be heavy
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    So weird. It's like someone was saying, watermills are great because they can help you mill your flour. Someone else chimes in like, hey, you can actually just get a wind turbine or a solar panel now; it's way more efficient... And then you - a year old account with -1 karma - jump in saying, 'lol solar power shills still exist?!'. Like... Who's the shill here? How much BTC is in your bag?
sshine 1y ago
It's not a lot when you consider what you get: Globally visible transaction permanence. When you pay the 1.5% visa transaction, you don't get that. And you don't need that for buying a coffee, or almost anything. Microtransactions are just not a good use-case for the Bitcoin network. The drawback with anything beyond Bitcoin is that in order to buy those currencies, you need Bitcoin. There is an extreme correlation with the price of Bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin's current hashrate is 95 Petahashes/second, while Litecoin is 2.35 PH/s. I suppose both are big enough that one does not have to worry about the network being easily hijacked. But when you get below a certain point, the price for taking over the head of the chain temporarily is a real amount of money, not an astronomical one.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
That's very cheap if you're sending money to someone in another country (and not within the EU).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lawn 1y ago

That's still expensive for cheap things. And what's worse is that it's impossible to reliably predict the correct fee to be able to get into the next block. This means that at any time if you're unlucky your payment might get stuck for hours, days or even weeks.

cykros 1y ago
If you're buying cheap things with on-chain payments, it's a bit like sending a bank wire to Starbucks for your coffee. Lightning exists for a reason. Comes with far more privacy too -- arguably even more than Monero, if done right.
- lawn 1y ago
  It's ignorant to claim Lightning provides better privacy than Monero. The problem is that a cryptocurrency could support both large and small transactions, which Monero does.