100 sats \ 4 replies \ @okpj 10 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: deleted by author bitcoin
I don’t think having a developing fee market is a weakness. This is literally how the security of the chain will be paid for in the future.
I do agree that Ordinals are an attack on the usability of the chain. Smarter people than I will have to contend with that issue, hopefully without censorship.
If I didn’t know any better I’d say that Ordinals token that got listed on Binance is being used to fund this bullshit.
Bitcoin is in the “then they fight you” phase. Along with hostile governments, unfortunately there are billions of dollars worth of shitcoins out there with a vested interest in destroying Bitcoin, because as long as Bitcoin is successful, their VC funded shitcoin of choice solves exactly 0 problems. Ordinals (includes BRC-20 garbage) are an obvious attack on the usability of the chain and the fungible nature of Bitcoin.
We have a workaround, though. Use lightning.
deleted by author
reply
The plan from the beginning was for tx fees to replace block subsidies on layer 1.
Fees on layer 1 for a standard transaction are $3.50 (58 sat/vbyte) at the time of this post.
Lightning fees are 1sat for every 1m sats sent/received.
reply
deleted by author
reply
I don't know if pricing people out of being able to use Bitcoin as the transaction fees rise was intended. I think the unsaid assumption is that fiat value will rise enough to make the amount of Bitcoin spent in tx fees more reasonable.
That wasn't my assumption
My assumption was: in 95% of cases, bank cards and cash work well enough
In the other 5% of cases, bitcoin's base layer works well enough
If someone wants you to pay them a small amount, e.g. to buy food for your family, that transaction is not in the 5%
reply