pull down to refresh

1827 sats \ 5 replies \ @Murch 9h \ on: Great read... Bitcoin Has a Squatter Problem. BIP 110 Is the Eviction Notice. bitcoin
when inscription spam drives fees through the roof, regular people can’t afford to make on-chain transactions anymore

We must be living in different universes. The mempool cleared this week to 1.04 blocks worth of transactions waiting. The feerate necessary to be in the next block is currently 0.1033 s/vB. The spam transactions make up the absolute bottom of the mempool, their feerates are a fraction of those of payment transactions. So that “market failure” your son(?) is decrying seems to be insufficient demand for payment transactions. How is that supposed to be fixed by BIP 110?

write
preview
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @satring 2h

That's beside the point. This is likely a temporary lull, the calm before the agent storm, it wasn't so long ago that fees were unreasonably high.

reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 2h

What exactly... will make fees go up high again?
Are we adding more Bitcoiners who are going out to use Bitcoin? No.
More merchants? Not really.
Price volatility for traders? I mean... maybe. But it's not payments so much as people sending and receiving to an exchange.

Most of the Stackers know how to use Lightning which is... CRAZY efficient. Buying one channel from an LSP with 1 million sats will cost you < 10$. Use and refill, use and refill, use and refill...

The only reason to transact is for a transaction more than 600-700$ or to move in/out of cold storage. That's it.

reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @satring 2h

Have you heard of AI? Nonetheless if fees don't go back up (which they likely will, as they've done before), you're arguing in favor of bloating the blockchain with spam just to artificially make it more expensive to use Bitcoin? Not a great argument. What are the actual arguments against BIP110: spammers gonna spam? Cause that's weak ass.

The article is rather compelling. Until I hear an actually logical argument against BIP101 it's clear to me which way to vote.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1h
you're arguing in favor of bloating the blockchain with spam just to artificially make it more expensive to use Bitcoin?

No... no I'm not that is a crazy idea so no. But even if I wanted to...
The spammers don't want to pay for blockspace anymore.

The spammers only pay for ordinals/runes/inscriptions when they think someone will buy them from them... which they won't anymore so the spammers have left and we are at .1 sat/vbyte.

Even if I thought "spam was good" let's "bloat the chain" who's going to pay for it? Me? Core? Wall Street?

No the spammers have to pay, they did during the last havening they burned >37 BTC and what did it get them?

They left.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 5h
reply