Nostr View

e7645 - 2y

seeing people post about how the mempool is “clogged,” fees are “crazy high,” can’t believe the backlog of transactions, etc makes me feel like people haven’t fully grasped the endgame yet. 300k pending txs is nothing. 200 s/vb is unfairly cheap. we are just getting started

undefined
undefined
undefined

e7645 - 2y

this is why things like fullrbf matter. it’s why tons of work has been going into lightning. buying blockspace is about to get hella competitive

undefined
undefined
undefined

30e17 - 2y

People haven’t fully understood the concept of a sat squeeze and it shows. Mass adoption is coming and it’ll make this seem infinitesimal.

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

I just hate *why* the fees are where they are, not that they have gotten here. Instead, a bunch of fucking shitcoin trash is pricing out legitimate, monetary use case and payments.

undefined
undefined
undefined

2c2b5 - 2y

Those are communist rogue state agents trying their hardest to spread any FUD that will make people perceive Banana bread as risky or too expensive to transact with! It’s entertaining watching entities that are nefarious in their actions trying to fight something they don’t or can’t understand!

undefined
undefined
undefined

3e310 - 2y

Never a dull moment.

undefined
undefined
undefined

79d43 - 2y

In the other hand it forces us to think of solutions right now and not when they are actually needed. This nonsense will stop eventually. The issue will occur again though.

undefined
undefined
undefined

38dbb - 2y

For how long I wonder?

undefined
undefined
undefined

5b3c0 - 2y

Can someone explain to me both, why it’s happening from a technical standpoint and economic standpoint? I’m very much lacking in transactional knowledge. I understand fees with be this high on main chain when more people around the world are using it but this seems sudden. And I’m curious. #[4]​ #[5]

undefined
undefined
undefined

Zach⚡️ @zforce - 2y

I listened to your podcast Guy, and I understand your perspective, but I’m in the camp that a valid Bitcoin transaction is a valid Bitcoin transaction. If people want to make transactions which seem silly to us non-shitcoiners, that is well within their right. And it’s probably a great net benefit for security and scaling.

undefined
undefined
undefined

e7645 - 2y

well said. the bitcoin network decides what a valid or invalid transaction is by verifying it follows consensus rules. it’s as simple as that.

undefined
undefined
undefined

16f1a - 2y

Yes exactly. Wtf do you think fees on L1 will look like when Bitcoin is the global reserve currency? 10k sats/vb easy. If you think this is an attack or a dos, you haven't done enough work to understand Bitcoin or free markets yet. nostr:nevent1qqsz5nrcus6q7fdvzqt0qgtmfc2ugle5g6a90kyzmxax4e3w3w7lysspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqzyrnkg5xljnuyc8qtw9nh53whtdu33u9hscgnctgr3e4t3pqmn8e8vqcyqqqqqqgpc2yv7

undefined
undefined
undefined

cfc09 - 2y

Agree. We don't like people telling us that bitcoin is a waste of energy, yet we look down our noses at use cases for bitcoin we don't like? All value is subjective. It is okay not to like it. But, be careful on where this hate and fear takes you.

undefined
undefined
undefined

22f29 - 2y

Exactly. The network is working as it was designed to work. Ppl can be upset, but this the free market idea: base premise is set, and as long as it is a valid transaction, all good.

undefined
undefined
undefined

22f29 - 2y

Well said. I have no clue on how to use or why ordinals matter. I only use for regular UTXO spending. And it’s fine, free, open network working properly

undefined
undefined
undefined

22f29 - 2y

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

It's not about whether it's "in their right" or not. The content of the chain is not arbitrary or something that is divine as long as its natural and pays a fee. Ultimately this is software and an open, adversarial network that needs to be robust. DoS and spam are the ultimate issue of all open networks. If someone figured out a way to make 1,000,000 unspendable UTXOs in a single transaction or just a handful of blocks are were happily willing to pay those fees while creating a huge, immediate jump in the amount of RAM every node had to have to stay in sync, despite not a single one of them having any monetary use or relation whatsoever, would you consider that "valid" and perfectly fine? If you did, then I would argue that you and I disagree on both the purpose and engineering concerns of the network. Bitcoin is like a giant, trustless clock, that has no alternative. To stamp a bunch of bullshit images and shitcoins into it is like grabbing a precious time keeping device and using it to hammer a nail. Its dumb, doesn't even work very well, and is directly at odds with why the device is so valuable in the first place. This is *not* about who is willing to pay a fee, this is about the purpose of the network and whether the bloat of data is at odds with the very fundamental value that #Bitcoin provides. This is about the tragedy of the commons putting costs on those who maintain the network, by people who don't even give a shit about the value that the network provides.

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

@note1lke78ehle27kccj2au5tgprmazvw0gvq7ecntmn8k8kakf5t2fjsxnmn8u

undefined
undefined
undefined

70bf7 - 2y

Definition of a free and open market. Doesn’t it increase incentives for building out the L2/Lightning?

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

It's not fear. It's about the fact that #Bitcoin has a very clear purpose and its not for maintaining a permanent record of others people's garbage. Just because the park happens to be a place that people can dump their trash if it starts to overfill their living rooms, doesn't mean it's good for the park because they are willing to pay a fee to do so. It is exactly at odds with what the park does and why it was created in the first place. This isn't some sort of #Bitcoin killing issue, but it absolutely is a concern regarding the tragedy of the commons. Do not mistake #Bitcoin as some divine or perfect thing where as long as things play by the rules then its all by default something we cannot question. This would be to reject the idea that Bitcoin has a purpose, and our responsibility as its stewards. @note1lke78ehle27kccj2au5tgprmazvw0gvq7ecntmn8k8kakf5t2fjsxnmn8u

undefined
undefined
undefined

Zach⚡️ @zforce - 2y

Guy, maybe I need to spend more time on the technical side of things to understand your argument. How is the UTXO set stored in ram? And if UTXO bloat is a problem of ram storage instead of dedicated SSD storage, then isn’t that a huge issue which needs to be solved in order to increase the number of UTXOs anyway? It seems like your main argument is that it’s a stupid way to use Bitcoin and creates bloat, which I definitely agree with, but I’m confused about how that relates to the issues people are voicing with the fee market. And if these transactions are uniquely causing excessive ram consumption, at what point is my 4gb ram Raspberry Pi no longer going to be able to sync?

undefined
undefined
undefined

e7645 - 2y

lol both of them did. but that’s not the point. the point is your argument is that we should be making judgements about what is a legitimate use of bitcoin OUTSIDE of the rules of consensus, to make sure people are “using bitcoin in line with its intended purpose.” i fundamentally disagree with that.

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

How does a difficult to compute script, or a means of creating a boatload of unspendable UTXOs break the consensus rules? What rule is broken by either hypothetical?

undefined
undefined
undefined

b9e76 - 2y

Second, yes we should be making that judgement as engineers, just as everyone who worked on it has always done, or the system literally could never have worked. It’s not a judgement of “which transactions should be allowed or which people should have access,” which is the principle you seem to *want* to apply, but doesn’t. It’s about what *kind of data* is allowed, which cannot be avoided. Again, you seem to be sacrificing the extremely unambiguous concerns of security and design of an engineered, open protocol & network, for abstract libertarian principles that cannot apply unless the system works in the first place. You are falsely equating the conversation with censorship or specific ideas or specific people, when that isn’t what it is, anymore than the blocksize is a “censorship” of all the people who want to use Bitcoin but can’t fit their transactions in. There are engineering realities that we can’t hand wave away with moral declarations.

undefined
undefined
undefined

Zach⚡️ @zforce - 2y

I think the main issue people are having with those who are frustrated about ordinals and inscriptions shitcoining all over the “park” is that there is no legitimate solution proposed. All technologies incorporate a balance of different trade-offs, and lots of people think that we are already in a place where keeping things the same and living with the current structure is better than continuing to try and fine tune the protocol and the way data is stored on the time-chain. I’ve spent a decent amount of time thinking about ways to disincentivize this behavior, and although I’m not very technical, I’ve come up blank. I’m open minded and am willing to listen to the proposed solutions of others, but many Bitcoiners find it dangerous to call for engineering changes when there isn’t a straightforward solution on the table as a proposal which can even be discussed. This post I made a week ago also came to mind in relation to blocksize and how most individuals will interact with Bitcoin in the distant future: nostr:note1mngvwgetst5jnruuq9kr4sfz35nr84lqpfteccetxvtysm8y4xfsuwxge6

undefined
undefined
undefined
Showing page 1 of 1 pages