10 sats \ 15 replies \ @Fabs 28 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin fees, a worrying trend bitcoin
What speaks against it?
We had a war because of this in 2015-2017 (the "Block-Size War") and we won. Check this answer from the Spirit of Satoshi AI:
Maintaining a block size of 1 MB is crucial for the long-term success and security of the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin's block size limit was intentionally set at 1 MB to ensure that the network can handle a high volume of transactions while keeping the blockchain size manageable. If the block size were to be increased significantly, it could lead to a number of negative consequences.
Firstly, a larger block size would result in larger blockchain files, which could make it more difficult for miners and node operators to participate in the network. This could lead to centralization, as only a few powerful miners with the necessary resources could maintain the network. This centralization would undermine the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and potentially compromise its security.
Secondly, a larger block size could lead to slower transaction times and higher fees. As the network becomes congested, transactions may take longer to confirm, and fees may increase significantly. This could make Bitcoin less practical for everyday transactions, as users may not be willing to pay such high fees.
Lastly, a larger block size could compromise the security of the network. With more data to store and process, the network may become more vulnerable to attacks and malicious activities. This could erode trust in the Bitcoin network and potentially undermine its long-term viability.
Therefore, it is important to maintain a block size of 1 MB to ensure that Bitcoin remains a decentralized, secure, and scalable digital currency that can be used by a wide range of users.
reply
That's bullshit, dude.
The network's already congested, look at the fees and outstanding tx's lately...
It's far from what it should be.
Y'all want adoption but won't budge in order to achieve it. There is no way around this problem other than changing Bitcoin.
Lightning? A joke and a solid way to lose your funds or be a victim of attacks and other "scaling solutions" aren't better.
Y'all good at "but that's not the spirit of Satoshi", well I've got news for ya; If people can't move their UTXO's because the fees won't let them or would pretty much eat up the UTXO, people are gonna jump ship- and rightly so.
"Remember that $10 gift card I gave ya? Yeah... Its Pretty much useless on it's own right now... Wanna buy some more to move your funds? Pathetic.
reply
Well, you can create your own fork and "fix" Bitcoin. Others have tried before, so why don't you give it a try?
reply
Because it doesn't fix anything.
There's no good reason why there should not be an increase in block-size, and the whole competition for block-space might very well hinder Bitcoin from true adoption, not just people hoping to sell it higher.
reply
So what is the correct block size for true adoption?
If you start increasing it, you start getting other issues. Hash rate will go down, due to less profitability. Decentralization will decrease, due to higher hardware/network requirements to run a node.
AND you will still eventually need to move to a Layer 2/3 anyway, because onboarding the entire world for small daily transactions on Layer 1 would require massively large block sizes that will certainly centralize the system into a few massive super-nodes.
If we would need to build layers eventually anyway, why not do it now, and not make any tradeoffs that would compromise the base layer?
Look, I'm seriously concerned about this issue for BTC and I have a lot of sympathy for the things you are saying. You aren't wrong. But I also feel like you haven't thought this out completely. I don't know how to fix this, but I know a block size increase isn't the magic bullet that big-blockers think it is.
reply
The 1Mb block-size is more than enough for layer 1 and the protocol is working as intended. The current increase in fees is due to a spam attack taking advantage of a Taproot vulnerability, not an issue related to the block size. Eventually this will be over, since the attackers need to pay higher fees to keep their scam going on. Other possible solutions are ongoing and will be implemented sooner or later. In the meantime, layer 2 & 3 provide an alternative if you are not willing to pay more for a transaction. Lightning is far from perfect, but it's very useful and their development keeps growing. Liquid is providing an interesting use case in the current situation. Soon we'll have Fedimint and other layer 3 solutions... This is how Bitcoin is intended to work, we don't need to mess with layer 1 because we require a solid foundation so that we can build a strong ecosystem on it. Of course you can add soft forks to fix bugs and add new functionalities, but the block size is one of its main foundations. Otherwise it would be in the hands of a few people.
reply
Those Ordinals sure seem to be able to keep the fees on the higher-end of the spectrum, they should've been "done" months ago and yet they're still here.
And sure, you can use lighting and other variants, but can the average Joe? Absolutely not, most can't or won't even self-custody, let alone try to understand what a "UTXO" is and how it affects the fees they get to pay.
These are things that have to work behind the curtains.
You can't strive for adoption and have people dive "down the Rabbit-hole" in order to not fuck themselves over while transacting and what not.
It's close to 15 years and it's still one big "Oomph" on people's faces whenever I try to dissect Bitcoin in the most simplest of terms, let alone have them do something, but maybe that's just me.
reply
I hear you. And I appreciate the conversation.
To me, all the other FUD has been debunked and is silly. Environmental FUD, Keynesian FUD, Altcoin FUD, PoS vs PoW FUD, Government Banning FUD, etc. All of it is dumb and Bitcoin wins every time.
The issue you are discussing here is the only piece of FUD I still struggle with.
But, to play devil's advocate with you, a few comments:
It's close to 15 years and still a big oomph on ppl's faces when trying to understand or use Bitcoin. I understand and struggle with this also. But how many of those people understand gold or fiat? Trying to self custody gold is not easy, if done correctly (let alone trying to use it as a currency). Explaining counter-party risk with gold ETF's or other equities. Explaining Forex or derivative markets, or even just how shorting an equity works, is a bitch for these normies.
It isn't the gold's fault, or fiat's fault, or the market's fault that people are intellectually lazy.
I think this is why the store-of-value narrative works so well with Bitcoin, instead of the crypto-currency narrative. Bitcoin really is more like gold than currency. It really is meant to be a censorship-resistant, borderless store of value. This is what the world needed, not a new merchant point-of-sale system. And we have to continue prioritizing decentralization and censorship-resistance above ALL other concerns.
I think Bitcoin has succeeded at this over those 15 years. It looks like it's failing if merchant adoption is your number one metric. But should that really be the most important thing? Maybe it only looks like it's failing because you're prioritizing the wrong metrics?
But I dunno.... I also share your concerns. I've been conflicted on this, and it is my number one concern about BTC as an asset. I am convinced that no other cryptocurrency offers an acceptable solution. It's either BTC or back to the fiat/gold world. Because of this realization, I'm still optimistic on BTC for the long run. There just isn't a better solution, despite the downsides.
I see that your main concern is mainstream adoption and some of your points are totally right. Unfortunately Bitcoin is not built to "move fast and break things", as we are used to in the current tech landscape. Its purpose is to subvert the current monetary system, which has been in effect for more than a century, so it will take as long as it needs as we are too early yet.
The current situation might accelerate some of the development required to optimize it, but I think that mass adoption is still too far. The world is not ready yet. The fiat system will fall by itself first and many people will have to suffer the consequences before being aware of Bitcoin's real purpose. So let's take it easy, keep building and educating, and try to help those around us who might need our help.
Fine, and what if those second / third layers are years and years down the road?
We have some potentially very potent catalysts around the corner which could multiply demand for Bitcoin fast, which ironically could cause (another) massive blow to how the public sees Bitcoin; Not just as an instrument for crime and terrorism, but an expensive one on-top.
Nice when five years down the road Lightning finally functions as intended, yet mainstream doesn't care anymore because that CBDC of them does the job just fine.
Maybe i'm seeing things too bleak, but waiting too long with certain steps could turn out as the wrong move.
reply
reply
?
reply
The big blockers were doomed to fail, not necessarily because of the arguments quoted above, but because they tried to push the change as a hardfork, which is impossible* for any change that is even the slightest bit controversial.
*They forked off, but the fork is not Bitcoin.
reply