camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Current vis of transaction fees here: Johoe's Bitcoin Mempool Size Statistics
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
Suppose it costs £10 to make trade. Then if the trade I make gains me less than £10 "worth" of Bitcoins then even if the Bitcoins are given to me for free, it is not worth my while to take them.
That's the principle. As we get to the point where the energy costs are higher and higher to mine a coin then the dollar value of the cost of trading has to go up too. At the moment, that is covered by an increase in the value of the bitcoin. That's a circular reasoning though, like all good pyramid schemes. If it starts to collapse, there has to be an alternative funding mechanism, and the charge for operating a wallet will be that mechanism.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Yea I bought £25 on localbitcoins. When it got to my dreammarket wallet it was £16
There we go. If when it gets to your wallet it is £0 then there is no market any more.
gosub
~#
The people who make the most money in a gold rush is thems that sell shovels
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'm happy to do you a slightly better deal than that.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
in that analogy hackers who have jacked wallets are like the cowboys that used to attack the wages train. Only they will be in their wanking chariots rather than in the saddle
joustmaster
offcumdun
But that doesn't really apply on larger transactions, does it?
It always applies. The thresholds change but the principle still holds. It has a sizeable effect on the marketability of the asset.
Let's not forget that the point of Bitcoin is ostensibly to be a currency. How much of that currency are you willing to lose as part of a transaction, and what's the highest minimum transaction size that makes the thing viable? If a transaction fee is £100 then any transaction less than £1000 is paying more than 10% in commission. If it is £1000 then you need to spend £10,000 to have the fee be less than 10%. And £100,000 for it to be less than 1%. High fees like this are just not viable, and the impact is multiplied if the unit of currency itself starts to lose value. Remember that fees have been kept lower because miners get coins, which have value. If the value starts to drop, the fee has to pick up the slack.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
So you are talking about transaction fees. Well Lightening Network is finally here and starting it's jog up the adoption curve. Not spent much time looking into it but from what I've been able to glean thus far- transaction costs are radically slashed, so are confirmation times. That's why it took so long to implement LN and SegWit in many of these wallets actually, because they represent a loss of income to miners (even though the additional volume of traffic should more than make up for that as per the usual pattern).
Who knows you might be right, but it's not looking like things are going that way for the moment. Remember, bitcoin is an open source project with zero barrier to entry except time taken to develop and submit code to peer-review, so it adapts itself continuously and the concern about grinding to a halt due to transaction friction has been the subject of a great deal of heat and energy the results of which are finally starting to show up in production.
The Fornicator
Active Member
oppps answered
phillm
Trolling through Life (TM)
Read this on a comment on another forum ....
ACP, what do you think about the problem that when the crowd starts throwing in the towel and more sales beget more sales (which also requires more mining) as in a typical flight to zero, BTC has the problem that you can't sell unless someone is willing to pay the expense to run the mining machine to validate your exit (sale)? There has never been anything like this. The cost to use the depreciating asset is rising while the value of the asset is falling.
What happens in the situation?
ACP, what do you think about the problem that when the crowd starts throwing in the towel and more sales beget more sales (which also requires more mining) as in a typical flight to zero, BTC has the problem that you can't sell unless someone is willing to pay the expense to run the mining machine to validate your exit (sale)? There has never been anything like this. The cost to use the depreciating asset is rising while the value of the asset is falling.
What happens in the situation?
joustmaster
offcumdun
low enough for people to be able to afford the transaction fees, then back up again
joustmaster
offcumdun
fewer people mine, the mining becomes easier and cheaper
Ranbay
The same rules apply
another hack! hence price fall.
as i stated before, you have to have massive balls to keep your money anywhere if this is a investment for you.
BlackWallet Hacked: Warns Stellar Community Not to Log In to Site — Bitcoin Magazine
as i stated before, you have to have massive balls to keep your money anywhere if this is a investment for you.
BlackWallet Hacked: Warns Stellar Community Not to Log In to Site — Bitcoin Magazine
Yossarian
⏭️
Boris Pickett and the Crypto Kickers?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Yeah, well.. that's just, like, your opinion, man.
gosub
~#
It's pretty much 80,000 people, globally, say different.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
What does the 80,000 signify (I thought you meant bitcoin owners but a quick Google suggests there are a lot more than this)?
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Isn't that like saying that dolphins are far too splashy to be expected to live in water
Maybe you meant this-
Last edited:
Similar threads
