Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 153 results by we-btc
Now that Bitcoin fees have come back down, what was the cause of the increase? Was it runes and ordinals?
Has the volume of these derivatives declined to the point that fees are now what they used to be?
Bitcoin transaction fees will always be adjusted to the price of Bitcoin itself because from the current price range it is of course very normal that the amount of fees for each transaction has decreased because the price of Bitcoin itself is not increasing at this time. However, there are also other influences such as the large number of transactions at one time causing excessive congestion, but for now this is normal for fees because it is quite in line with what is happening now in Bitcoin.Has the volume of these derivatives declined to the point that fees are now what they used to be?
I think it is worth noting that the price of bitcoin is going up, the volume is up and yet the fees are down. In my opinion this is a clear indication of what caused the fees to go up and wasn't volume or price. The fees went up because of Runes and Inscriptions.
If you believe in Bitcoin as a game changing currency that can free people from the centralized control of fiat currencies then we should insist that the developers increase bitcoins efficiencies and remove the wasted and counter productive ordinals from the protocol!!!!!
It seems like Runes, which launched on the day of the halving, played a large part.
The increase in fees helped miners when the rewards were cut in half but now fees are back down, bitcoin's price has come down 25% and the rewards are cut in half.
What is this doing to the mining industry? Are miners suffering?
The increase in fees helped miners when the rewards were cut in half but now fees are back down, bitcoin's price has come down 25% and the rewards are cut in half.
What is this doing to the mining industry? Are miners suffering?
Now that Bitcoin fees have come back down, what was the cause of the increase? Was it runes and ordinals?
Has the volume of these derivatives declined to the point that fees are now what they used to be?
Has the volume of these derivatives declined to the point that fees are now what they used to be?
Every time I see that there is a new comment here I wonder what the fees at the moment are and of something happened again to spike the fees.
But looking at them now I a relieved that this is not the case. So I wonder, why dig this thread out that was inactive for about 2 months? We should all be happy with reasonable fees at the moment.
But looking at them now I a relieved that this is not the case. So I wonder, why dig this thread out that was inactive for about 2 months? We should all be happy with reasonable fees at the moment.
I see the value of Bitcoin coming from its potential use as a currency. The limited supply and decentralization only benefits the user if if is a decentralized currency. These features keep central players for devaluing the currency by creating more. If Bitcoin is not used as a currency then these Bitcoin features don't serve the user as intended.
If you think that Bitcoin is a currency than the current $2 or $3 fee is excessive. Imagine trying to buy a cup of coffee with a $2 transaction fee.
A $3US transaction fee is 2.5% of $120US. For transactions less the $120 it is more cost effective to use the current financial system.
Miners are making bitcoin less attractive as a currency by pushing the fees up in order to validate their business models. Runes and Ordinals are the tool being used to keep the fees high.
Re: Do increased Bitcoin fees benefit anyone else except miners?
No one benefits from the increase in fees apart from miners, because everyone except miners, in the Bitcoin ecosystem hopes that fees can be as low as possible so that it will help them complete transactions more quickly and cheaply. But the problem is that this will not happen on the Bitcoin network, because the Bitcoin network is often congested and that makes fees even more expensive. Even though the fees are now back to normal, congested problems can occur again on the network and that makes fees even more expensive.
First: I would not consider average transactions costing $3 US normal. That is a 300% increase over normal from just a short time ago. 300% is a huge increase in pay for the miners.
Second: solutions to the Bitcoin speed problem have been solved by other Bitcoin forks and Bitcoin developers don't seem to interested in working to solve these problems.
The Bitcoin developers increased the block size to 4MB, a 400% increase in size, without improving the speed of the network. They use this additional space to store inscriptions!!!?
This is obviously being driven by something other than "peer-to-peer electronic cash". All you have to do is use the 4MB for transaction storage and you instantly increase the capacity of the network by 400% which would speed up transactions for an equivalent fee effectively lowering fees.
This is not rocket science!
Re: Do increased Bitcoin fees benefit anyone else except miners?
There are a couple of key points to consider: First, If miners can change Bitcoin to increase the fees is Bitcoin really decentralized? Second, and most importantly, do these increased fees help bitcoin to be a better form of digital cash?
Having to say that, miners do set the fee which questions of Bitcoin is truly decentralized is a misconception. Supposedly you’ve ever had to initiate a Bitcoin transaction at any point, you’re sure to set your fees and not miners. You might have the illusion that, this is been predetermined by a miner in systems that requires them to set a fee limit but, no such thing exists.Now, understand this.
We have more than one miner out there. There are lots of miners out there with their rigs, doing them computation tasks for block rewards and other benefits that follows having to discover the next block. Given that, other miners would just have to wait in line when the fees are high and then it later drops, where does that place those miners that have been waiting in line as far as benefit goes when the fee has dropped?
That’s to say, they don’t get to decide these things but, network congestion which is directly proportional to users action and inaction does.
Don’t forget, Bitcoin operates a consensus rule and as such, everyone and every Satoshi do matter on the network.
I am not saying that the miners set the fees. What I am saying is that the fees are directly related to network congestion. By adding Runes and Inscriptions to the network there is more congestion and the fees are higher. The miners, who just lost 50% of their revenue, know this and have been planning for this for a long time. Their businesses have to remain profitable otherwise they will go out of business. It is highly probable that miners and pools have influenced the developers to add ordinals to the network in order to increase its traffic and compensate for the halving.
With the introduction of ordinals to the Bitcoin protocol fees have skyrocketed. They have been as high as $190 US and currently are averaging $7 per transaction. For the last few years fees have hovered around $1 US. The current fees are a 700% increase.
My question is who do these high fees benefit?
In a Bitcoin transaction you have the sender and receiver of Bitcoin. The sender is the party paying the fee and they are definitely not benefiting from the fee. The receiver does not pay the fee nor do they receive the fee so they do not benefit either.
Most Bitcoin transactions also include a third party like an exchange or the organizations that hosts third party nodes if they are not self hosted. These third parties do not benefit from higher fees either.
The final participant in a transaction is the Bitcoin miner. Bitcoin transaction fees are paid out to miners with the block rewards. When the fees go up miners make more money so it is clear that miners benefit.
This month the miners rewards were cut in half due to the halving. At the same time fees skyrocketed due to increased volume as a result of the introduction of Runes. I think you would have to conclude that ordinals which include Inscriptions and Runes were introduced to increase the transaction fees to offset the loss in revenue to the miners because of the halving that just occurred. It was no accident that Runes were launched on the day of the halving.
There are a couple of key points to consider: First, If miners can change Bitcoin to increase the fees is Bitcoin really decentralized? Second, and most importantly, do these increased fees help bitcoin to be a better form of digital cash?
My question is who do these high fees benefit?
In a Bitcoin transaction you have the sender and receiver of Bitcoin. The sender is the party paying the fee and they are definitely not benefiting from the fee. The receiver does not pay the fee nor do they receive the fee so they do not benefit either.
Most Bitcoin transactions also include a third party like an exchange or the organizations that hosts third party nodes if they are not self hosted. These third parties do not benefit from higher fees either.
The final participant in a transaction is the Bitcoin miner. Bitcoin transaction fees are paid out to miners with the block rewards. When the fees go up miners make more money so it is clear that miners benefit.
This month the miners rewards were cut in half due to the halving. At the same time fees skyrocketed due to increased volume as a result of the introduction of Runes. I think you would have to conclude that ordinals which include Inscriptions and Runes were introduced to increase the transaction fees to offset the loss in revenue to the miners because of the halving that just occurred. It was no accident that Runes were launched on the day of the halving.
There are a couple of key points to consider: First, If miners can change Bitcoin to increase the fees is Bitcoin really decentralized? Second, and most importantly, do these increased fees help bitcoin to be a better form of digital cash?
It looks like Runes and inscriptions are being supported by miners in order to push the fees up. It is no accident Runes were launched on the day of the halving.
It had to be an 200 IQ plan because they launched something useless, hoping that people will get interested and throw money at them, driving the fees up and making them earn more from every block, despite halving. I don't blame the ones that launched it, but the flock of sheep who outbid one another to be in the first block after the halving and continuing to pay insane amounts of money per transaction.]
Someone opened a shop selling dog poo and you bought it. Who's to blame, you or him?
Fees are back to being manageable if you're willing to wait a few hours then you can pay less than 150 sats.
This is a much bigger issue than high fees. We have to stand up for Bitcoin as it was intended. This is about "purely peer-to-peer transactions" and personal freedom.
Bitcoin was intended to solve one of the biggest problems we face as a race and if we don't make sure it survives as "Purely peer-to-peer electronic cash" everyone loses! The high fees and slow network are a huge problem!
There are periods of time when it becomes very expensive to send small amounts of Bitcoin. It does impose a kind of 'mandatory HODL time period' for small-scale Bitcoiners. I wonder about the implications on the Bitcoin ecosystem and price.
The devs have not implemented anything to counter the blockchain spam.
It is a huge problem. So what is the solution here? Further Lightning development?
The devs have not implemented anything to counter the blockchain spam.
It is a huge problem. So what is the solution here? Further Lightning development?
It looks like Runes and inscriptions are being supported by miners in order to push the fees up. It is no accident Runes were launched on the day of the halving.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, decentralized network. Lightning is not peer-to-peer and not decentralized.
The solution is to remove ordinals(Inscriptions and Runes) and make the full 4MB blocks available to transactions which will make the network more efficient.
This is not complicated. It is common sense if you believe that Bitcoin is "electronic cash".
Re: Bitcoin Taproot Update : Ordinals are killing bitcoin use case
Man seriously they made BTC shitty after the introduction of taproot update !
I mean look at Bitcoin, its almost as same as ethereum in terms of fees
we just want Bitcoin to do one thing, just transfer Bitcoins
We do not need, NFTS and other experimental shit, we have others chains for that
We are a community should definitely do something it
I mean look at Bitcoin, its almost as same as ethereum in terms of fees
we just want Bitcoin to do one thing, just transfer Bitcoins
We do not need, NFTS and other experimental shit, we have others chains for that
We are a community should definitely do something it
Ordinals, which include inscriptions and Runes, are counter to Bitcoin's intended purpose which is "a purely peer-to-peer electronic cash system."
These changes to core which have increased the block size without adding additional transactions to the blocks are bloat ware and now fees have gone through the roof.
What can we do to get this garbage removed from core so Bitcoin can do what is was intended to do?
⭐ Merited by The Sceptical Chymist (5)
Mining reward will decrease over time and will gradually and fully be replaced by transaction fee. That is the reason this should be allowed. But bitcoin developers are sleeping to make bitcoin transaction to remain at 1 to 10 sat/vbyte. We need bitcoin developers to make a proposal that will benefit the future of bitcoin in regards to transaction fee.
The fees should be driven by supply and demand in order to use Bitcoin as electronic cash. They are being driven by ordinals that have nothing to do with Bitcoin as it was intended.
Bitcoin is being turned into a tool for financial institutions and miners and is being disregarded for its use as digital electronic cash.
These changes benefit large organizations who will profit off of Bitcoin. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT BITCOIN WAS INTENDED FOR!
Where did all of the people go who supported bitcoin as an individual freedom and sovereignty coin?
As we all expected Runes have increased fees dramatically and at the same time make Bitcoin unusable as peer-to-peer electronic cash.
I see what is happening to Bitcoin and wonder why no one else is questioning the changes!!
I would like to see Bitcoin returned to its original form without ordinals but wonder if that is even possible at this point.
Why are we allowing this?
I would like to start a group who advocates for Bitcoin as it was intended. Is anyone interested?
I see what is happening to Bitcoin and wonder why no one else is questioning the changes!!
I would like to see Bitcoin returned to its original form without ordinals but wonder if that is even possible at this point.
Why are we allowing this?
I would like to start a group who advocates for Bitcoin as it was intended. Is anyone interested?
Increasing public interest in Bitcoin cannot change Bitcoin as digital cash. Bitcoin is run based on the P2P network concept with the aim of creating a transaction system that is free from intervention by any central authority or monetary authority. The worst possibility might happen if Bitcoin is no longer P2P digital money, the price could drop to zero if the government can intervene in market efficiency, prices, supply and demand, volatility and profits. Bitcoin is freedom because it is a P2P system that operates without the need for intermediaries such as banks or financial institutions, Bitcoin will remain digital cash in the present and future.
What happens if the block size is increased by 400% for NFTs and FTs that congest the network and the fees become unreasonable? Then the financial institutions market financial products that facilitate them buying up the supply and selling Wall street securities in its place?
Financial institutions and meme coin advocates taking over is just an opinion, and it's not even supported by any evidence by the op, which is unfortunate. Which financial institutions are we talking about? Is it about the ETFs? They exist now, but that doesn't exclude Bitcoin in its pure decentralized form. As for meme coins, I've honestly not heard people defending them or talking seriously about them for a while.
Bitcoin is still digital cash, or at least it's still a part of what Bitcoin is. Sure, sometimes it's a more viable option and sometimes less, but overall, it still works as intended.
Bitcoin is still digital cash, or at least it's still a part of what Bitcoin is. Sure, sometimes it's a more viable option and sometimes less, but overall, it still works as intended.
Coinbase, Binance, Black Rock, Fidelity, Ark, Michael Saylor...
This is not an opinion. ETFs currently own 4.5% of the total supply. Michael Saylor owns over 1%. Over 95% of the transactions are through a financial intermediary and the changes to the network benefit other uses of Bitcoin not peer-to-peer digital cash.
BTC is a digital currency, meme coins haven't taking over anything, it is just a pump and dump tool for trading. BTC is p2p electronic cash and you can spend it because it is fungible and is a medium of exchange. You should provide more details in your post, because the little you did provide does not make much sense and is incorrect.
Ordinals and Runes have taken over the news cycle. They have also congested the network and increased the fees to a level that Bitcoin is no longer a valid currency. When it costs $10 to $30 USD to send and receive Bitcoin in 10 minutes it is no longer an efficient currency. It is cheaper to use almost any other fiat currency or credit vehicle like Visa.
Most people are buying bitcoin through 3rd parties like exchanges and ETFs and if people are using a 3rd party node instead of hosting their own node it is not a peer-to-peer transaction. All of these Bitcoin transactions are benefiting the 3rd party intermediaries and it is equivalent to the system we currently have.
Wall street is attempting to use blockchains like Bitcoin to create securities that financial institutions can easily monetize.
All the while no one is working to make Bitcoin a more suitable peer-to-peer digital cash system. It is getting slower and more expensive.
In addition most people I hear from are okay with the transition of Bitcoin as an investment especially Wall street.
All of these reasons lead to my question: If Bitcoin is not peer-to-peer digital cash then what?
I ask this question because I wonder what Bitcoin will become now that the financial institutions and meme coin advocates have taken over.
If Bitcoin is not peer-to-peer electronic cash then how do you see it?
If Bitcoin is not peer-to-peer electronic cash then how do you see it?
Re: Binance NFT Marketplace is stopping support for Ordinals and Runes on April 18th
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. How did these anti cash ordinals get added to the network if it is not centralized when everyone can see that these are contrary to Bitcoins intended purpose?
Why are we not jumping up and down to get them removed?
Why are we not jumping up and down to get them removed?
⭐ Merited by snerd (1)
I'm a bit confused about what you trying to say but Bitcoin will never become centralized because Satoshi made Bitcoin for decentralization.
If the fees are rising it's just temporary there is something going on that is why you see transaction fees rise just like today because the price touched above $50k that is why people right now panic to move their BTC to the exchange before it drops and make a profit.
If the fees are rising it's just temporary there is something going on that is why you see transaction fees rise just like today because the price touched above $50k that is why people right now panic to move their BTC to the exchange before it drops and make a profit.
What makes Bitcoin Decentralized? Nodes? Nodes are not currently making decisions about the network. Who is?
What are the developers, who are making the decisions about the network(decentralized?) doing to fix this problem? They are adding Inscriptions and Runes to the network which is increasing the size of the block and increasing fees.
How well is the network going to work with fees at $15 to $30 US dollars per transaction?
Bitcoin has been turned into a centralized TradFi investment for the wealthy. The exact opposite of what it was intended to be. It was intended to be a decentralized, peer-to-peer form of electronic cash.
Any chance we could get this ship moving in the right direction?
Does anyone care?