Quote from: Synchronice on May 29, 2024, 05:34:40 PM

Quote from: NeuroticFish on May 25, 2024, 09:28:02 AM

Yes, I know, it may sound a bit harsh. On the other hand we start getting used to use on-chain transactions only when it's meaningful (hence worth paying even 50$+ for it). For the rest, for small amounts like for example the signature campaigns or paying for VPN, sorry, but LN, no matter how imperfect it is, is the solution we should really consider. At least until the proper solution is discovered and implemented.

Why is LN a solution? What if everyone moves on LN? Will miners still profit?

As reminder, you need 2 Bitcoin on-chain TX when you use LN in order to open and close LN channel. That's where miner earn some income.

Quote from: LoyceV on May 29, 2024, 06:12:41 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 29, 2024, 01:17:30 PM

I haven't argued that rising the block size to 10-16 MB will eliminate Bitcoin. I'm just saying that it doesn't solve the problem, it only alleviates it.

I think we can agree on this, but with one difference: I'd like to see the "breathing space" in more Bitcoin transactions, while you don't want it. I'd like to see more on-chain transactions until a more permanent scaling solution is in place.

In addition, other scaling option (e.g. using LN or sidechain) needs on-chain TX to open LN channel or "peg" the coin on the sidechain. So very high TX fee would make those option not very attractive.