Low Fees Are A Symptom Of Deeper Problems (BItcoin Magazine, Shinobi) \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Low Fees Are A Symptom Of Deeper Problems (BItcoin Magazine, Shinobi)bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/low-fees-are-a-symptom-of-deeper-problems

875 sats \ 15 comments \ @denlillaapan 17h bitcoin

Excellent piece.

This shit is not good.

We all hate it when fees are high; but we should be absolutely terrified when fees are low. It means nobody wants to/needs to use bitcoin on-chain.

Shinobi explains how this is pretty bad:

Bitcoin’s very nature is defined by the users who interact with the protocol directly. Those who have private keys to authorize transactions generating revenue for miners. Those who are sent funds, and verify transactions against consensus rules with software.

If things continue trending in that direction, Bitcoin very well could end up embodying nothing that those of us here today hope it can. This problem is both a technical one, in terms of scaling Bitcoin in a way that allows users to independently have control of their funds on-chain, even if only through worst-case recourse, but it is also a problem of incentive and risk management.

Scaling + values: we need to routes so that we can accommodate more monetary traffic -- AND we need the values of actually wanting to custody one's own keys instead of outsourcing responsibility to exchanges, ETFs, or banks.

view all related items

46 sats \ 4 replies \ @standardcrypto 3h

shinobi appears to be a lobbyist for ark, by way of op_ctv and op_cat. (albeit not necessarily paid, who knows)

#909602 (notes on justin_shocknet vs shinobi scaling softfork beef)

"Whatever the case, shinobi seems to be in complete denial of the (lack of) scaling pressure, and also of the messy security issues, complexity and sybil risks of ark."

quick rando example (his twitter and Bitcoin magazine column are full of stuff like this)

shinobii's heart may be in the right place but he's wrong about the need for a scaling softfork to raise (or even maintain) the security budget.

you page the scale engineers when there is a scaling bottleneck but as how own article argues, the problem is not enough users utilize Bitcoin at either L1 or L2.

not enough people want to custody, he's right about that but the solution is not a scaling softfork or bringing shitcoins to bitcoinm.

it's not a solution. because the problem it claims to solve doesn't exist. we have the opposite of this problem, not enough users.

there's a tricky Overton window jujitsy going on where the ark lobbyists are trying to convince everyone there is a lightning scaling problem (false) to justify scaling softfork roadmap that ultimately ends with op_cat, turning complete smart contracts on Bitcoin. shitcoins for all!

without even mentioning security tradeoffs. it's like scientology, they're trying to save the world.

there's a lot of money bringing shitcoins to Bitcoin.

watch out for lobbyists.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 3h bot

https://xcancel.com/brian_trollz/status/1899087621529190501

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 3h

because the problem it claims to solve doesn't exist. we have the opposite of this problem, not enough users.

This I fully agree with. What I believe is Shinobi's point is having the capacities built before they're urgently needed.

(Of course, we might never get there because either nobody wants self-custody or bitcoin at all—moot point)

45 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 3h

note, YAGNI = you aren't going to need it. engineer catchphrase.

"I can see two sides here.

Don't add any opcodes if there is not a clear bottleneck. (YAGNI)

Add the opcodes asap to future proof bitcoin, because the longer we wait the harder it will be to softfork. (exception to YAGNI because bitcoin is especially hard to change, not the usual code situation)"

#905369

recent back and forth with justin_shocknet. I start out on the "exception to YAGNI" side but justin_shocknet (and my own napkin math let's tell it right) convinces me of YAGNI with prejudice.

ultimately it's an engineering problem.

as with the block size war, trust the engineers. don't trust lobbyists. even if they mean we'll, they don't understand the problem.

Shinobi is not an engineer. He's a lobbyist. And an anon at that.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 3h

Solve the right problem.

Get more people using Bitcoin the right way.

Don't break Bitcoin to solve a non problem, so shitcoiners can have a quick pump at bitcoin's expense.

Shitcoiners don't know wtf they're doing, they'll probably break Bitcoin and still lose money lol. the whole thing is a giant waste of brainpower.

I would consider ctv+csfs if there was clear scaling pressure. there's not.

I don't think I would ever consider op_cat.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @alt 2h

Isn't this mistakenly assuming that bitcoin is only used when it is moved?

I use bitcoin every day, by leaving it exactly where it is.

28 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 3h

"we need to routes"

you had "routes" in italics but what were you trying to say?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 2h

oh sorry, sloppy writing by me -- I meant: "we need the routes in place before they're urgently needed"

64 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 17h

I use Bitcoin every single day.

I play a little lightning blackjack (with a few sats)
Check out stacker news (to tip or be tipped and make the occasional post)
And also experiment with Lightning... moving sats around, trying out new wallets, even using Bitrefill occasionally (Cheap Steam gift cards are cool)

But the truth is that I rarely have to touch on-chain I just don't need to.

Occasionally to open another Lightning channel (3 or 4 are enough) or withdraw from the exchange after DCA but that's about it.

And even withdrawals... from the exchange can be on Lightning so what's the point of 'on-chain' if I don't need it?

Isn't this what we wanted and how this stuff scales anyway?

Blockchains don't scale so... If "the whole world" will be on Bitcoin then as a percentage, touching on-chain will be relatively rare, except for opening lightning channels or making large transfers in and out of 'cold storage.'

So what's the issue? Thoughts?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 8h

I am align with this.

28 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 17h

I would imagine that a lot of regular bitcoin users have gotten used to using lightning. I'm not worried. This is what prices are for.

24 sats \ 1 reply \ @sangekrypto 15h

That's for those who use lightning, what about those who don't? Good pointers my friend.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h

I'm just guessing that there's a fairly small number of people who regularly use bitcoin for anything other than saving and don't use lightning.

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 15h

We might need a good ol rugging. Its bound to happen again. A big one like Coinbase or Bitgo will once again show the value of holding your keys and fees should become consistently higher.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 13h

How often do people move around their life savings in fiat? Same thing