pull down to refresh

JPEGS or no JPEGS... Bitcoin dies without Fee Pressure. THAT is the Truth
2359 sats \ 70k boost \ 88 comments \ @028559d218 1 May bitcoin
It's the case of totally missing the forest for the trees. In the long run, without Block Subsidy, the only thing keeping Bitcoin going is fee pressure. Transactions. The desire and demand to transact in Bitcoin.
The End.
No, that's not today but eventually it will be.
And if Bitcoin is so great, so necessary, so relevant, and so irreplaceable... a few things are logically true:
  1. Using Bitcoin becomes an economic imperative - for the individual, for the family, for the business, for the corporation, for the nation.
  2. Since it's 'imperative' everyone will want and need to use it, therefore the demand to use it will be high.
  3. Since the 'demand' is high it will be relatively expensive to use. How expensive no-one knows... but if that 3 sats/vb fee costs ~ 40 cents for a transaction today... At 60 sats/vb it's 8$ for a basic transaction.
At 100 sats/vb that's ~13$ for a transaction, or maybe double that (25$) to open a Lightning Channel.
That's at 30x current, sustained blockspace demand and my brothers and sisters if Bitcoin is so great that is fucking cheap.
And if people don't pay and can't pay and aren't interested enough in transacting in Bitcoin, spending 25$ at 30x current blockspace demand to open one Lightning channel to make an unlimited number of cheap and instant transactions using the "greatest money" ever devised...
Then What Future does Bitcoin have?
Mara 'mined' this transaction today in block 894667
It consumed nearly an entire block at ~ 3 sats/vb
and cost the 'transactors' 2,952,726 Sats or ~ 2800$
It had one utxo output... for 6969 sats obviously just to troll.
And mathematically at 30x demand for Blockspace, inevitable if Bitcoin is to become the baselayer global monetary asset it would cost ~ 84000$ to mine.
Because of this I think it's logical, necessary, and consistent to include almost any and all transactions that pay the fee because at real demand for blockspace - NECESSARY FOR BITCOIN'S long-term SURVIVAL ANYWAY - JPEGS become so prohibitive, so expensive for 99.9% of uses...
That we must depend on the fee-market for what is and isn't Bitcoin, for free-market selection, and for Bitcoin's ultimate, long-term survival.
The 'transactors' haven't created Bitcoin out of thin air, they haven't broken consensus, they haven't "stolen" from anyone else, they have paid the fee, and they have gone to a miner directly to publish a NON-STANDARD transaction...
Paying more money than most people on Earth make in a month. Outbidding the anemic 1 or 2 sats/vb of everything else in the mempool.
So if Bitcoin's fee market, the monetary market cannot compete with the others in the world, if it is and remains so anemic with demand so low as to have blockspace be practically free where a monkey JPEG can outbid other usage...
Then what are we doing? What is the future?
There is serious on-going debate about op_return and whether we need 'more outputs' or 'fewer outputs' or 'more bytes' or 'fewer bytes' or the 'correct number' if that's 80 or 140 or 250 or whatever...
It's like arguing "about the Polkas."
From the Robin Williams film Good Morning Vietnam:
Sir if it is my programming choices I can change. I've been broadcasting the polkas because I thought a certain segment of the men weren't represented by Cronauer's broadcast of rock and roll but I can easily play an occasional Gary Lewis record...
It doesn't make a damn whether you play polkas or don't play polkas... it's military politics, nothing personal. The men just like him better than they do you.
He maliciously and with ill-purposeful intent read unofficial news...
No No No No he made a mistake, we all make mistakes. Now this thing is a delicate balance over here... and I don't want it dependent on a disc jockey. The men want him back, I want him back.
Sir, you heard from the men who don't like my humor, but what about the silent masses who do? And as far as polkas, they are a much maligned musical taste...
Lieutenant you don't know whether you're Shot, Fucked, Powder-Burned or Snake Bit. I don't care about polkas. They're rioting in Way, we're bringing in thousands of troops every month, terrorism's on the up-rise in Saigon. The problems of this country have not one goddamn thing to do with whether you play polkas or don't don't play polkas. The men want him back, I want him back. Reinstate the man.
It's not about the Polkas guys.
write
preview
related posts
264 sats \ 10 replies \ @Artilektt 1 May
I'm not against them being able to do it, that ship has sailed, I think in this case the issue is taking this decision about what's in someone's mempool away from the node runner. There's also this issue in how core is coming across with this decision. This ivory tower-ism, condescension and holier than thou shit coming from Core is gross frankly. I'm pretty shocked at the behavior.
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 1 May
Hey, may I ask what you where you perceived the sense of condescension? Is this coming from reading the PR comments, the mailing list thread, or are you getting that sense via the conversation others are having about the situation?
reply
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @Artilektt 2 May
From the active participants on X and nostr primarily
reply
56 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 2 May
I see thanks. In case that you are spending a lot of time being angry about this, may I suggest that you read the discussion on the mailing list (https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ)? I think it’s fairly readable and doing so would allow you to form your own opinion on the points brought up and the style of discussion.
reply
122 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
I'm not against them being able to do it, that ship has sailed, I think in this case the issue is taking this decision about what's in someone's mempool away from the node runner.
I agree completely. Regardless of default policy... the choices for noderunners (with regards to arbitrary data) should be clear, easy to understand, and optionable by the person running the software.
Do you accept the 'arbitrary data' or not into Mempools? Check or uncheck. Do you want op_return? Check or uncheck. If you do, what is op_return's size limit? Check/uncheck etc.
There's also this issue in how core is coming across with this decision. This ivory tower-ism, condescension and holier than thou shit coming from Core is gross frankly.
While I agree to some extent... there is vigorous debate going on in the Github discussion pages (for the PR) and anyone can make their voice heard. There are logical arguments on both sides... and some amount of moderation is necessary.
The best thing to come out of this in my opinion, is the widespread recognition that there is Knots, Libre, and Core and people can and should choose which one they want to run.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 3 May
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 19h
Why am I not surprised Voorhees has his fingers all over this
reply
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @Artilektt 1 May
If anyone can make their voice heard why did Mechanic get banned for simply pointing out Lopp's conflict of interest?
reply
175 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May
Lopp's conflict of interest is not a technical matter. If said conflict resulted in salient technical objections, those could have been raised.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 1 May
banning the guy who reiterates a comment that was hidden which brought to light a potential conflict of interest is a terrible fucking look.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheCharlatan 5h
For what it's worth the issue of removing the option was raised pretty much immediately during review of the pull request by other Bitcoin Core contributors. It was then also discussed in a separate issue and on the mailing list. Seems like the current momentum is towards changing the default, but keeping the option.
reply
300 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 2 May
One thing that has been concerning lately is if OpenSats receives a lot of money from Bitwise, and OpenSats contributes a lot of money to Bitcoin Core/core dev maintainers, couldn't there by a degree of influence on what gets pushed?
I know there is alot more that goes into it, but I know money can corrupt, and money can influence people to make decisions that are not in the best long term interest of bitcoin, rather a corporate interest.
reply
142 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheCharlatan 2 May freebie
couldn't there by a degree of influence on what gets pushed
There could, but there isn't. I for one care about cash on the internet.
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 1 May
Food for thought. Thanks for this post. I must ask, do your free market sensibilities extend to free expression and open debate?
reply
46 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
Yes, as long as that open debate is done in good faith.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @asterisk32 1 May
Bitcoin will win
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @_stacktoshi 1 May
Isn't this part of the reason for the block subsidy? The fee pressure is going to take time to build. It was greatly alleviated when LN took off and people started buying paper bitcoin. I think that might be giving people a false impression that the network is in trouble. We here all know how valuable transacting with finality is, especially when shit is hitting the fan with violent fiat games. The market will eventually figure it out... at the price they deserve.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @SwapMarket 1 May
fuck the spammers. have set datacarriersize=0 in my node.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kruw 2 May
A mempool filter can't censor them, you have to run Bitcoin Purifier to fork the network - https://github.com/rot13maxi/bitcoin-purifier
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 May
We appreciate the diversity of opinion especially from frequent users
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 May
deleted by author
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Tbagpato 1 May freebie
True
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @standard_sats 1 May
It is just lightning offloading plenty of stuff off-chain. Pressure exists
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
No, it doesn't not at 1-2 sats/vb. Pressure ultimately has to come from monetary transactions - the send, store, and receive.
reply
63 sats \ 0 replies \ @standard_sats 2 May
It is cyclic. It is embedded. Since LN provably put many transaction offchain (it is not me who proved it is surprisingly US FED), we have relatively low fees now. Some new tokenization protocols increased them for a short time which is consequence of them being onchain. So the pressure is adequate to adoption levels.
High pressure > Tech for scaling > Low pressure > Higher adoption > ...
reply
6 sats \ 10 replies \ @SwapMarket 1 May
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Murch 1 May
I only listened to the first ten minutes, but could someone perhaps summarize how OP_RETURNs would increase the cost of running a node? He lost me at that point.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @SwapMarket 1 May
He explains this well. I am not wasting my time.
reply
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @Murch 1 May
There can be up to 4 MB of witness data in a block, but only 1 MB of other transaction data. Output scripts are "other transaction data". So, if you put data in an OP_RETURN, it results in a smaller block than when you put it in witness data.
So, yeah, the point doesn’t make sense to me.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @sudonaka 3 May
please explain how allowing these fiat snake oil salesmen to store more data cheaply in op_return stops them from also bloating with witness data?
reply
51 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 21h
Their usecase requires the data to become available immediately and not be malleable. Witness data is malleable and therefore doesn't work for them.
Their current solution is to write data to the UTXO set by putting the data into hash-based output scripts. That outputs are unspendable and will live in every nodes UTXO set forever. It is probably that they write to OP_RETURN outputs which do not get added to the UTXO set.
reply on another page
63 sats \ 4 replies \ @TheCharlatan 3 May
They don't care if they store it in an OP_RETURN, or an unprunable output for which also no amount extra policy can stop them. They will post it either way. Giving them and others the option of doing so in an OP_RETURN, we at least give them the option to post their data in a way that is prunable.
view all 4 replies
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cultural_stacker 1 May
I once tried running a $25 transaction on the coinos lightning network and was charged over 55% of the transaction amount as fees, that was very frustrating for me that day
reply
45 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
That's not how Lightning should work. CoinOS is a temporary work-around imo while the growing pains of Lightning get sorted out.
Try Zeus, Phoenix, or even best running your own Lightning Node the fees are very low ( ~.1 %)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @d680ecaa8e 3h
When reading title I was thinking it is about jpeg image but it was a different acronym.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 16h
The title is wrong. If miners bail en masse, it will be possible again to mine blocks on laptops. I would do that for free.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 17h
Saturday midday.
The lack of blockspace demand isn't due to spam and memecoins and NFTs.
So what is it?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecoverBTC 18h
Bitcoin has something called "difficulty adjustment" it will drop to an equilibrium if big miners unplug if that happens home miners can easily secure the network.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @piecoverBTC 19h
No, there will always be an organic fee market to pay miners. No need to force jpeg scams onchain. In 20 years I am sure people will pay more than $300 000 per block of transactions as the value of Bitcoin grows.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 18h
I think that force is the wrong word here
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecoverBTC 18h
The push to ease Op_return limit isn't organic. It's clear to everyone Bitcoin core devs are corrupt with a many conflict of interest.
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @leaf 2 May
  1. Reduce block size
  2. Fees go up 3a. Spam priced out of blocks - utxo set size growth greatly reduced 3b. L2 development put on steroids as demand for them increases
  3. ???
  4. Profit
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 May
Would be great, except it's impossible to get consensus on changing the block size
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @leaf 3 May
I know nothing about building consensus, but maybe a miner-led effort is possible. They have a financial incentive and I presume a big megaphone.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @SqNr65 22h
They already tried that and failed catastrophically.
But yea, give it a shot. The more attacks on Bitcoin, especially this early, the better
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @leaf 20h
Some miners were proposing to increase the block size previously... It seems to me an effort to reduce block size might be met differently.
reply
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @SqNr65 20h
I doubt it. I have no intention of changing the block size on my node and I suspect most node runners feel the same way.
It ain't broke, stop tryna fix it
view all 6 replies
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @saunter 2 May
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 3 May
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 May
what... does this mean?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @saunter 2 May
Filtoors are using exatcly the same arguments and tactics like bcashers during blocksize wars
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 May
To me their arguments are too emotional... and they're not (from what I can gather) looking at things objectively. Just my opinion based on my research so far
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sangekrypto 1 May
Bitcoin does indeed run because of the pressure of up and down transactions, without it Bitcoin would not run, so far the transactions we make can certainly be read.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Dkryptoenth 1 May
What's the best crypto mining site on the Lightning Network?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
No such thing exists.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @SatoshiNakanodo 1 May
Hashrate must be through the roof again.
reply
3 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May
Hashrate is climbing fairly rapidly, and has been for years. Having said that, it climbs faster when hashprice is low.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @SqNr65 22h
Then how can you simply assert that Bitcoin is "anaemic"?
As though this were some kind of objective fact
Bitcoin fees may be too low for your liking, which is fine. Don't mine it.
They're high enough for other to mine it. Which is fine. They'll continue to mine.
The fees are not "too high" or "too low" in any absolute sense.
They're too low for some miners, and high enough for others. They're too high for some transactors, and low enough for others. This is how it always is, has been, and will be. It's called a marketplace. Prices vary. People make decisions based on those prices. Anyone who thinks the price is incorrect hasn't understood what prices are and how they work and what they're doing and why.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 20h
i understand what you're saying... but i believe it's a little more nuanced than this. without the jpegs and nfts, the current blocks would be (and were a few weeks ago) mostly empty at 1 sat/vb.
that's not a 'mining rewards' issue, that's a usage issue. if the plan is to create 'digital gold' well... ok. never transact in it just hold it.
if it's 'digital capital' then for sure there are going to be a variety of uses, based on blockspace demand that will evolve.
if it's "digital cash" then actual usage is not yet consistent with that idea. there are many millions of transactions throughout the world every day, and not being able to fill blocks is indicative of low adoption.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SqNr65 20h
I don't think you have any idea what I mean.
You're trying to "save" Bitcoin in case people don't want to use it enough for it to survive.
That's silly.
If not enough people use it, it will die from lack of usage.
If you succeed in trying to save it from lack of usage, it will die by becoming something else.
If this is a problem, you can't fix it, and will in fact make it worse by trying.
If it is not a problem (it's not a problem), then leave it alone.
reply
70 sats \ 13 replies \ @BITC0IN 1 May
oh noooo the subsidy is only 3.125 Bitcoin, what will the poor miners doooooo
reply
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 May
hashprice is at or near record lows. if transaction fees in 4-8-12 years are still around 2 sats/vb we may have an issue.
perhaps it won't be an issue... but either way i don't hear this talked about enough. please see #929974 and #930828
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @SqNr65 22h
It won't be an issue. You just haven't fully understood the ramifications of the difficulty adjustment
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Murch 22h
Please explain your argument further
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @SqNr65 21h
The transaction fee is too low right now. For some. So they don't mine. It's high enough for others. So they do. This will always be the case because of the difficulty adjustment.
Those for whom it's worth it to mine will mine. Those for whom it's not, won't.
If enough people find it's not, difficulty goes down, making it worth it for more. If too many find it worth it, difficulty goes up, making it worth it for less.
Both scenarios are fine, I don't understand why people think this needs to be 'managed' somehow, it's fine.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @028559d218 OP 21h
that's not what i meant.
I can go to 6 no... 8 maybe 10 large cities and there's hardly anywhere to spend Bitcoin. And this is reflected on-chain as the fees are 2-3 sats/vb which they seem to be during a bull run.
for all the hand-wringing, all the drama, and all the 'advocacy' about if and when core software should be changed... all the talk, all the need to 'reduce spam'... there aren't a lot of people "using" bitcoin or spending it
ironically the nft people 'spend' bitcoin and seem more willing to use it than the 'money' people and this intellectual disconnect is ultimately unhealthy for the bitcoin comunity
view all 8 replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 3 May
3 million satoshi block reward is $300,000 when Bitcoin price is $10M ($210T market cap)
Last few blocks paid that same amount in fiat.
(Assume human-advancement future where electricity cost continues to be deflationary keeping up with fiat debasement)
0.03 in 20-30 years should buy you similar amounts of electricity that 3.125 btc does today.
Or are you getting a cut of this sweet sweet poison fiat?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 1 May
DONT REMOVE MY ABILITY TO SET DATA LIMITS WITHIN CORE.
REGARDLESS OF WHY LOPP IS HEAVILY FAVORING THIS PR, THE OPTICS OF IT ARE TERRIBLE, DIRECT INVESTMENT IN A COMPANY WHOSE BUSINESS MODEL WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS CHANGE WITHOUT DISCLOURE, AND WHEN SOMEONE DID BRING IT UP, THAT COMMENT WAS HIDDEN AND FLAGGED FOR ABUSE. THE SUBSEQUENTIAL COMMENT BY MECHANIC, TRYING TO BRING LIGHT TO THE HIDDEN COMMENT, WHICH HAS VERY RELEVANT INFO.
YOU CAN BE INVESTING IN COMPANIES AND BE A CORE DEV, YOU SHOULD JUST DISCLOSE YOUR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, AND NOT BAN AND HIDE COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO BRING UP THE CONFLICT.
ALL AND ALL THANK GOD BITCOIN IS THE WAY IT IS AND WE CAN GO RUN KNOTS IF THIS PR MERGES. HOPEFULLY ALL THESE NODE PACKAGES START RUNNING KNOTS OR AT LEAST GIVING THE USER THE OPTION TO DO SO. IVE DONATED TO CORE DEVS IN THE PAST, I WANT TO SUPPORT CORE.
THIS ISNT ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT ARBITRARY DATA ON CHAIN ANYMORE.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 May
i have an umbrel. and i tremendously applaud umbrel's standard, easy to use 'configuration' options. you can choose from core, knots, and libre right out of the box and do the IBD + connect a wallet through an easy-to-use interface.
on the disclosures i completely agree. and i believe that monetary application -sending receiving and storing sats is the killer 'use case' for bitcoin. all other 'uses' die or are short-term fads relative to it's initial runtime (2009-2140)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @unschooled 1 May
deleted by author