Quote from: Dimitri94 on Today at 02:43:23 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 02:01:04 AM

So yeah of course, related to recent transaction fees, we are seeing a lot of clogging of the network right now, and it remains interesting to see how mining might respond to such increases in fees (that involve both the reward and the fees)... and sure there are also likely a lot of relatively pisses off bitcoiners who have been used to transacting on bitcoin's base layer, and if they want to continue to attempt to use bitcoin for transactions, then they likely may well need to figure out some alternative ways to transact, including either delaying their transaction(s) or perhaps looking at some kind of a bitcoin second layer, such as looking at lightning network as a possible alternative way to continue to be able to transact.

I just recognized that mirners get more fees than a single block reward. I just want to say It's rain without clouds for miners. As a lerner I want to know from you, is bitcoin network congestion caused by BRC20 or is there some other problem?

I doubt that I am studying the issue (or that I am even technical enough) to really provide you with any kind of meaningful assessment regarding how the blockchain is being used and the various spikes in the meme pools which results in higher fees, and of course we have had a recent increase in the various inscriptions that are connected with the BRC20 standard that recently came out, so yeah the actual spike seems to be coming from a pretty BIG rush to get a bunch of the various NFTs, inscriptions or whatever they are called onto the bitcoin blockchain - and so the fact that the fees are going up and people are paying high ass fees in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain is likely attributed to demand rather than being described as a spam attack..

My understanding is that the first waves of the BTC transaction fees going up in early February and during that stage, the purging of the lower fee transactions did not allow the lower fee transaction (attempts) to be placed, and so the purging was in the ballpark of less than 5 satoshis per vbyte - however, this time around the purging of new transactions is going up and up and I believe getting into the area of 50 satoshis per vbyte and even higher for the ones being purged.. which is a sign that people are paying the higher rates.. the transactions are going through and if you want to call the transactions (that are going through) as spam, then people are paying a whole fucking lot of money to be spamming, and it seems that it would be quite difficult to keep up that level of spam, because miners are actually making money on those high fees so for me, it is difficult to call those spam, and let's see how long such high fees are sustainable.. or if various other alternatives might be reached to be able to increase development (and channels) for second layer solutions, such as lightning network and perhaps some other solutions that could evolve (develop) from the concerns that many normies are going to have regarding how much they have to pay to transact on the bitcoin network.

Actually, Mikeywith made a pretty decent post to show how it appears that ordinals are become more than 50% of the onchain transactions, yet again, there still can be questions regarding sustainability of the trend and then possible solutions that might come about because of the congestion and the level of the BTC transaction fees.

Here's a snip of Mikeywith's post from another thread, and he largely answers the question regarding whether bitcoin is broken from BRC20 tokens, as "no"... and at this time, I tend to agree with that current assessment of the situation (which he describes further in that post, and there are other similar kinds of talking points in that thread.. with some members seeming to disagree with him:

Quote from: mikeywith on Today at 01:24:02 AM

.....>>>>>>>>Is this a bad thing for many people? it is, but that doesn't mean BTC has changed. no, we can blame Ordinals and BRC-20, but if we look at the numbers

May 08 > 41.4% of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 07 > 34.2% of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 06> 46% of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 05> 64.9% of transactions were non-Ordinals

There is no doubt that these Oridnals caused the initial spike, but the data shows that there are many people willing to pay high fees to move their BTC around, they are okay with paying 1 sat if they could get away with that, but when it's 500 sats/Vbyte that doesn't seem to stop them.
......<<<<<<<<

Quote from: Dimitri94 on Today at 02:43:23 PM

If miners receive more transaction fees than single block rewards, will they try to create such a situation by creating an artificial crisis in the future? In such a situation, those who used small amounts of Bitcoin on chain will no longer have that opportunity.

You can come up with all kinds of scenarios in which you believe that there could be some "evil miners" but I doubt that the game theory is really working out like that in bitcoin - especially since it seems to be quite likely that mining remains quite competitive and spread out, so it costs a whole fucking lot of value (including acquiring the mining equipment and turning it on or off and gaming the system and trying to control the hash power, so it becomes quite difficult for miners to spend so many resources against their own interests).

Personally, I believe that it is more healthy to consider the more-likely theories in regards to what is happening and what might happen, rather than coming up with elaborate scenarios that would really be way more difficult to carry out than you seem to be suggesting that it might not be difficult and as if it were to be in the interest of the miners to spend so many resources in fringe plots that are not very likely to work anyhow, even if they could either get resources together or to get other evil miners to collaborate with them in such a plot to kill the golden goose.

Yeah, there are government and financial institutions with seemingly unlimited resources in terms of money and even abilities to manipulate information.. but still you are likely giving them too much credit to be able to achieve such a plot, even if they are likely involved in a variety aspects of BTC mining and the market and they would love to kill bitcoin.. but their mere desire and the level of their power (and even evil) still does not mean that they have enough resources and power to achieve such killing bitcoin objectives.

I am not even suggesting that there might NOT be a variety of limited successes along the way, and sometimes undermining confidence could last for years, but still? I doubt that longer term history or truth is on the side of the bitcoin FUDsters, naysayers and/or bitcoin haters.

Quote from: Dimitri94 on Today at 02:43:23 PM

Another question is that the use of on-chain is only for those who want to transact with more fess will only have the opportunity to use it? Can we finally go back to the previous position? Or do you think we should evolve our own system along with Bitcoin evolution?

Each person has to figure out their own options in terms of how to acquire bitcoin and how much and what they are believing are going to be their future transaction abilities through bitcoin, through second layers or through various shitcoins, fiat or other ways that they store and/or transact their value.

There are not any guarantees regarding how these various matters are evolving or going to evolve, so it still likely remains a good idea to try to create many options for yourself whether good scenarios or bad scenarios end up playing out. So the longer that any of us is in bitcoin, we likely need to figure out various ways that we might want to hold our bitcoin, including if we learn how to use various kinds of private wallets (and even lightning network wallets), and yeah, perhaps sometimes we might even have to wait before sending transactions or we might buy through exchanges until some of the congestion clears (hopefully). Sure it is also possible that fees will come back down to 1 satoshi per vbyte, but maybe they won't and we have to figure out how to transact with higher fees, such as 50 per vbyte or some other amount that ends up playing out to be the "going rate."

We are likely in a different position if we already hold plenty of BTC in a variety of places, as compared if we are still in the earlier BTC accumulating stages or if we had been engaging in a business that had relied upon the sustainability of low "on-chain" transaction fees, and so ideally the market is going to work out these kinds of matters, and it seems to me that it tends to not be making any kinds of rash determinations regarding what to do based on circumstances and/or trends that might not last, even though of course, each of us should be attempting to account for information that we know about and what we can reasonably infer from it... including filtering through information sources (and descriptions of what is going on or what might go on) in terms of some being more/less credible than others.