Cryptocurrency: People Bitching About Transaction Fees
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Sat Jul 8 16:09:54 PDT 2023
Even though it is known that cryptocurrency networks don't necessarily
have to charge fees to be viable and secure, they just started out that way
and no one's bothered contemplating doing anything different since then.
Bitches are right that adoption will get priced out by transaction fees.
Do crypto enthusiasts really not see the ridiculousness of transaction
fees? (self.Buttcoin)
submitted 3 days ago by Far_Breakfast_5808
In some cases, the transaction fees are much higher than the actual
amount they're planning to spend to buy something. And even the ones
that are not, they are still a ridiculously high amount, like a large
percentage of the planned purchase. By contrast with traditional
finance, transaction fees are much smaller and reasonable. Do crypto
enthusiasts really not see high transaction fees as a problem, not
just for adoption but as a thing?
[–]dyzo-blueIt's basically herpes... 143 points144 points145 points 3
days ago* (92 children)
I think one of the fundamental issues that Butters misunderstanding
comes from is that their whole lives technology has just kept getting
better and cheaper.
Even if you are only 30, you remember the old cellphones before
smartphones — you might even remember pagers and phone booths. You
remember low res CRT screens as found on the original candy-colored
iMacs. You remember the move from portable CD players to iPods to
streaming. You've noticed how shitty the quality is on early YouTube
videos compared to today — everyone's cameras are much better now.
You've been witness to all this shit improving, and you never had to
lift a finger to make it happen. You just sat back and enjoyed the
natural evolution of tech. So, it wasn't crazy to assume Buttcoin
would similarly evolve over time, becoming faster and cheaper and
easier to adopt.
Over the years, the smarter Butters noticed that the tech wasn't
evolving, and got off the orange bus.
But most, I assume, still think high fees and slow TPS are just
temporary growing pains until the tech finally matures. They can't
explain why or how it will get better, but like all technologies, they
assume someone else will figure it out for them — and then they will
get rich!
This magical thinking is reinforced by CZ et al, every time they
preach to their followers: KEEP BUILDING
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]consultingloveWho has time for empathy? 62 points63 points64 points
3 days ago (30 children)
You underestimate how stupid buttcoiners are. It’s been over a decade
of being a useless tech; at this point they literally try to justify
“not evolving” as…good for Bitcoin. Verbatim quote from someone who
replied to me:
BTC not changing is a feature of the protocol. I don't know why
this is so hard for people to understand. Think about it- if you have
a constantly upgraded protocol, not only do you now have a way larger
attack surface, but most importantly- the social agreement of what
that protocol is does NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Far_Breakfast_5808[S] 32 points33 points34 points 3 days ago (29 children)
They also somehow think that transactions being non-reversible is a
good thing. Imagine if banks did the same thing, they'd be regulated
out of business and there would be so many angry customers complaining
about charges they did not make and the like not being able to be
reversed.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]MagicBez 31 points32 points33 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I recently had someone tell me that they opposed the ability for
credit cards to chargeback which really threw me off until it became
clear that the reason they thought this is because BTC couldn't do it
and therefore if must be better that way.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]kkchangisinPonzi Schemer 14 points15 points16 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Don't forget the whole concept of private keys/be your own bank...
I like to ask - "How many password resets/account lock outs do you
think Bank of America deals with every day?" - with 68 million
customers I bet it's at least in the six figure range, down to people
having to go down to a branch because their situation has gotten so
hopeless.
Imagine what would happen if BoA just said "Sorry you forgot your
password, all of your money is gone forever".
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]FardoBaggins 22 points23 points24 points 3 days ago (26 children)
transactions being non-reversible
this is the sad part about scam victims. they think their purchase can
be reversed or something.
once the scammer gets the crypto it's adios retirement money.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Far_Breakfast_5808[S] 14 points15 points16 points 3 days ago (1 child)
I'm talking about crypto enthusiasts/proponents saying that
non-reversibility/non-refundability is somehow a good thing. I have no
idea why, especially assuming good faith and that the people involved
aren't scammers.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]FardoBaggins 6 points7 points8 points 3 days ago (0 children)
yes, they think it's a feature.
for scammers who prey on people who don't know any better, it's really
an upgrade.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-24 points-23
points-22 points 3 days ago (23 children)
Maybe people will learn to not be retarded and not send their
retirement money to strangers
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Shiriru00 19 points20 points21 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Well, some people are especially vulnerable, especially among the
elderly. Many people have some form of dementia and unless it is
recognized by law, they still retain their ability to do financial
transactions even if they make no sense for them. It's tough when you
see one of your parents doing that, even though you can't prevent it.
Some particularly despicable scammers even go through the listings of
people who recently died in hospitals to call the widows, when they
know they are the most vulnerable.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]atomic_cattleprod 14 points15 points16 points 3 days ago (0 children)
LOL. People have been hoping this for literally decades.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]skycake10 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (16 children)
People will not, which is why crypto will never reach mainstream use
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-8 points-7
points-6 points 3 days ago (15 children)
then they can continue to use centralized services on top of a
decentralized network if they want. But at least the option to self
custody exists for the rest of us
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]skycake10 6 points7 points8 points 3 days ago (6 children)
Centralized services on top of decentralized networks will never
become popular because it doesn't make any sense and is less efficient
than fully centralized.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 days ago (5 children)
It’s more efficient, as there is less backend to manage and services
will be interoperable
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]skycake10 9 points10 points11 points 3 days ago (4 children)
A blockchain system that's efficient enough to handle what you're
describing won't be meaningfully recognizable as blockchain after all
the necessary compromises. It just fundamentally does not work.
It might be more efficient for the service running on top of the
decentralized network, but in the end it all has to be paid by the end
user somehow.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
continue this thread
[–]FardoBaggins 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (4 children)
your self custody crypto toy hobbies are enabling and upgrading
scammers' tools who prey on vulnerable demographics, as well as
consuming resources so you can make a number on a screen change.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago (3 children)
People will find ways to scam, you’re acting as scams didn’t exist
before bitcoin. At least bitcoin fixes the biggest scam of them all:
The fiat monetary system
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]FardoBaggins 7 points8 points9 points 3 days ago (2 children)
I didn't say scams didn't exist, i said it's an upgrade for scammers
(not to mention illicit trade).
fiat monetary system
yes, the whole world is being scammed by this 🙄
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
continue this thread
[–]mistahspecs 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (2 children)
You should not be commenting on people's intelligence lmao
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago* (1 child)
I’m not commenting on anyone’s intelligence. Majority of people will
be using custodial services on top of decentralized systems in 10
years time. The people that want to self custody will do that.
Meanwhile retards like you will have fun staying poor.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]mistahspecs 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (0 children)
Okay buddy haha
Nobody who is successful and confident in their decisions talks like you do 🤙🤙
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]BirthdayCookie 3 points4 points5 points 3 days ago (1 child)
Of course when you eventually Fuck up and get scammed it won't be
because you're "retarded." It'll be their fault because you're a
special case and only then should rules actually apply.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (0 children)
not really, i’ve also been scammed in the past and it was me being
retarded. You learn from it and you are more careful from then on.
Such is life. But the levels of retardation needed to lose your entire
retirement on a scam are quite high.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]FardoBaggins 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
it's a fool me once situation.
and they capitalize on it.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Coppermoore 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Nah, I want my and my grandma's money money safe, ubiquitous and idiot-proof.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]sailor_sega_saturn 23 points24 points25 points 3 days ago (11 children)
They assume someone else will figure it out and that they'll all be
millionaires despite not having any ownership in anything.
What happens if someone makes it fast and awesome and says "Sorry
kiddos, different protocol, you gotta buy your tokens fresh"?
Most butters don't even consider this. Those that do come up with
bizarre rationale for a first movers principle. As if it's
mathematically impossible for any non-bitcoin cryptocurrency to usurp
bitcoin.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]89HopperPonzi Schemer 16 points17 points18 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Those that do come up with bizarre rationale for a first movers
principle. As if it's mathematically impossible for any non-bitcoin
cryptocurrency to usurp bitcoin.
What are you talking about? The original is always the best, don't
make me drive my Benz Patent-Motorwagen to the airport to get in
Wright Flyer II (let's be honest, the first one was not great) and
shoot you with my hand culverin!
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]NotSoButFarOtherwise 1 point2 points3 points 2 days ago (0 children)
What happens if someone makes it fast and awesome and says "Sorry
kiddos, different protocol, you gotta buy your tokens fresh
I mean, the whole shitcoin circus thing should have been a red flag
about this. If it's really about Bitcoin as a technology, anyone else
can make a duplicate or knockoff. The reason the knockoffs never get
as big is that the whole thing isn't about technology, it's about
rent-seeking. And rent-seeking is bad in general, but especially bad
for something that people are actually supposed to use.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer comment score below threshold-13
points-12 points-11 points 3 days ago (8 children)
With lightning it's basically build on top of BTC so no fresh tokens.
BTC for long term storing, BTC lightning for normal transactions.
Close to no transaction fees with lightning (about 0,0002 USD)
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]belavv 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (6 children)
How long will it take for everyone in the world to open a channel so
that we can all use the lightning network?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 days
ago (5 children)
Nice thank you very much for your adequate response. I'm open to a
discussion with proper manners.
Here is my answer. Not the whole world will open an channel at the
same time. Instead I believe if BTC rises in popularity exchanges will
continue to adopt the lightning network. In this case the exchange can
serve literally thousands of customers while only opening one channel.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]belavv 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (2 children)
So if the exchange is the one serving customers then those customers
aren't really using real bitcoin. They are just exchanging numbers in
the exchanges database. What then is the point of bitcoin and/or the
lightning network?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago (1 child)
The lightning network is not a database of the exchange just because
the exchange opened the channel.
Some exchanges are already using the lightning network to withdraw
your BTC lightning. So you have full custody the moment you withdraw
your Bitcoin.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago
(0 children)
For me the point is self custody so I leave nothing on exchanges.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]stainedtopcat 1 point2 points3 points 2 days ago (1 child)
I think the popularity has come and gone
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago
(0 children)
I agree! Popularity has always come and gone. Like when popularity and
ergo price crashed from 32$ to 0.01$ from 1000$ to 200 from 20 000$ to
3200$ From 68 000$ to 16 000$ and now currently 30 000$
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]ivanoski-007I excepted the free NFT. 9 points10 points11 points 3
days ago (1 child)
12+ years later and it still hasn't matured
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago
(0 children)
Ehm sure it's just...checks notes... Blackrock the biggest financial
institution adopting Bitcoin.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]m_ninepoints 20 points21 points22 points 3 days ago (2 children)
They make this same mistake with VR devices during the metaverse
craze. "These headsets will get portable soon!" Err no, having worked
with VR hardware a bit before (albeit more from the software side),
optics don't work like that.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]james_pic 11 points12 points13 points 3 days ago (1 child)
Not sure I follow. VR hardware has improved phenomenally in the last
10 years, including the optics (pancake optics in the latest
generation of headsets). The VR hardware we've got today would be
impossible to make with 2009 technology, whereas the bitcoin we've got
today is 2009 technology.
The real problem with the metaverse craze is that nobody wants it. To
the extent that the metaverse is a good idea, it's already been done
(VR Chat, Rec Room, Fortnite, World of Warcraft, Second Life), and the
stuff that hasn't been done hasn't been done for good reason.
Having a single shared metaverse sounds like a good idea, and in
movies it's a cool plot device when the plucky band of rebels are
jumping between worlds to flee the metaverse stormtroopers. But in
reality, if you're constantly jumping between worlds it's because
you're bored, and enabling this is a massively complex undertaking
that you'd only be doing to cater for people who were bored.
WoW and Second Life have both been going for about 2 decades, and in
that time nobody had seriously proposed merging these two worlds into
a shared metaverse. Aside from anything else, https://xkcd.com/1320/.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]m_ninepoints 8 points9 points10 points 3 days ago (0 children)
There have been plenty of improvements, yes, and I'm completely on
board with all the reasons why the metaverse is a hilarious farce.
What I'm referring to is simply how the optical path length, light
indices of refraction, and other physical limits still put a hard cap
on how much we can realistically shrink components.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Voice_in_the_ether 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Very much yes. A couple of additional observations:
It seems like the majority of cyrptobros have always had
technology available their entire lives - they literally cannot
comprehend what it means not to have 24/7 connectivity, or not being
able to access always-available computing power a la 'The Cloud'. This
is most apparent in the "get $CRYPTO to be ready for the inevitable
downfall of modern society" arguments.
To your point about relying on 'someone else to make it work':
This is evident in the abysmal quality of code we've seen thrown
together, and the lack of fault-tolerance in the fundamental functions
(e.g., overly-complicated and error-prone processes end-users need to
follow just to perform basic functions). And this doesn't even begin
to address the more foundational System Engineering and Economic
issues. So much for being "I'm in it for the Tech" ...
Overall, I view what's happened/happening with $CRYPTO a being similar
to what happens with any radically new, "disruptive", technology:
A few people time things just right, and manage to make a ton of money
Some more people are able to make some level of profit
A lot of people jump on the bandwagon, and don't do so well.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]midascomplex 13 points14 points15 points 3 days ago (6 children)
This is an extremely good insight. Why do you think Crypto technology
isn’t improving despite the incentives?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]dyzo-blueIt's basically herpes... 39 points40 points41 points 3
days ago* (1 child)
I mean, there have been improvements. Ethereum was an improvement to
Bitcoin, and Ethereum POS is an improvement to Ethereum POW. Heretical
as it may be to admit in these circles, Satoshi Dundee's BitcoinSV is
a clear improvement to the OG Bitcoin.
But, fundamentally, a blockchain database is always going to be
magnitudes slower and more expensive than a centralized database. So
the question from day one has been: what do you get for those extra
costs?
And the answer, largely, is nothing. There are almost no things you
can do better on a blockchain database than on a centralized database,
and yet the blockchain version will always be slower and more
expensive.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer comment score below threshold-7
points-6 points-5 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Compare closely pow and pos eth. In one you get complete decentralized
money with functioning consensus algorithm. In POS eth not even the
founder (vitalik butterin) stakes Most his coins because it's
basically a hot wallet and not quite safe. So you got a cryptocurrency
relying on staking that doesn't even convince the founder but yeah
cool you can call it an improvement.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]nacholicious🍑🪙 34 points35 points36 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Because the incentives are wrong. Anyone who wants fast, safe and
convenient payments are using traditional payment rails, so the bar
for becoming a crypto user is that lack of fast, safe or convenient
payments isn't important enough to stop using crypto.
The node operators themselves also have wrong incentives, because
their incentives are to maintain decentralized infrastructure for
profit. Decentralized infrastructure is expensive and slow as fuck at
scale, so they can justify both outrageous transaction fees as well as
poor performance.
Essentially, wishing for decentralized transactions that can compete
with existing payment rails is like wishing for a donkey fast enough
to use on the autobahn. Even the best case scenario would involve
crimes against nature and technology.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]quesoandcats 24 points25 points26 points 3 days ago (0 children)
What incentives? Crypto is a solution in search of a problem. It
doesn’t actually do anything that can’t be done cheaper, faster, and
more reliably by already existing tech. Cryptocurrency tech hasn’t
evolved for the same reason that Segways never caught on, there’s no
reason for it to exist
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]james_pic 6 points7 points8 points 3 days ago* (0 children)
It is improving, it's just that nobody wants the improvements.
Almost every problem with bitcoin has a possible solution, and for any
given solution there's even an altcoin out there that implements it.
And that altcoin is somewhere outside the top 100 (and falling) on
CoinMarketCap, behind a few dozen dog themed meme coins and obvious
pyramid schemes, because there's nobody in the crypto space who's
interested using it to solve problems.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]powercow 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
well the transaction fees used to be pretty much nothing.
and it wasnt slow as crap.
and if you wanted to scan the entire blockchain on your own computer
it didnt take more than a day
its even more scammy and rug pully than when it all started.
Im not sure these are improvements over the old days.
the fact we know who actually are running the exchanges and online
wallets was an improvement, ill give ya that. but not exactly ground
breaking.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]posadzkaPonzi Schemer comment score below threshold-13 points-12
points-11 points 3 days ago (10 children)
But most, I assume, still think high fees and slow TPS are just
temporary growing pains until the tech finally matures. They can't
explain why or how it will get better, but like all technologies, they
assume someone else will figure it out for them
When you were using Nokia 3310, did you know why or how it will get
better? Did you see smartphones with touch-screens at the end of the
road? Do you see how will smartphone look like in ten years?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Far_Breakfast_5808[S] 12 points13 points14 points 3 days ago (4 children)
Smartphones were just a natural evolution of phones as time went on.
PDAs were already a thing for a while and it was really just a matter
of time before PDAs and phones merged. Some people act as if
smartphones didn't exist before the iPhone, but in fact they did.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]-Blue_Bull- 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
ALthough I'm not an Apple fan, I have to admit whole heartedly that
the Iphone changed the world and ushered in the smart phone age.
Of course, there were phones with big screens before the iphone, but
the iphones keyboardless design is what changed the world.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]avdgrinten 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (1 child)
That's underselling the impact of smart phones by quite a bit.
Yes, everybody expected phones to get better over time. But we
expected that phones would improve in their core functionality, i.e.,
making calls / managing contacts / SMS.
Almost nobody expected that phones would become the primary device to
consume the web (for many people) and/or that they'd replace a bunch
of other devices almost entirely.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Times_New_Viking -1 points0 points1 point 3 days ago (0 children)
I remember thinking Apple's iphone was going to bomb. They get broken
or bent and greasy fingerprint smeared screens?! Who wants that?
Then someone I knew got one and demoed it in the office with that
stupid fucking beer pour app and from the way everyone ooh'd and aah'd
I knew we were all fucked from then on.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]posadzkaPonzi Schemer comment score below threshold-16 points-15
points-14 points 3 days ago (0 children)
So everybody knew how mobile phones will look like in ten years to the
future. I assume the same is today? We know how mobile communication
will look in 2033? :D
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]james_pic 3 points4 points5 points 3 days ago (3 children)
No, and that's kinda the point. Engineers who worked with phones would
likely have had an inkling, but for most of us we probably wouldn't
have had much of a clue beyond "next year's model will probably be
better", because that's how most things work in this era.
And if you're not an engineer familiar with cryptocurrencies, you
might assume the same would be true of bitcoin, because it's true of
so much else. And your assumption would be wrong, because bitcoin
can't get better without becoming something other than bitcoin.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]posadzkaPonzi Schemer comment score below threshold-6 points-5
points-4 points 3 days ago (2 children)
And if you're not an engineer familiar with cryptocurrencies, you
might assume the same would be true of bitcoin, because it's true of
so much else. And your assumption would be wrong, because bitcoin
can't get better without becoming something other than bitcoin.
I am not an engineer and I do not know if bitcoin or smartphone can be
improved. I assume you are a programmer and you are sure that bitcoin
can't get better?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]james_pic 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I am a software developer, and I've done some blockchain work.
But weirdly, the biggest thing that prevents bitcoin getting any
better is really a cultural thing that manifests itself technically:
the insistence that the only changes to bitcoin that are legitimate
(and changes have happened - SegWit and Taproot happened this way) are
soft forks.
Soft forks are a source of all kinds of comedy GODL, since they mean
any change is inevitably accompanied by drama. A successful soft fork
is effectively a 51% attack that introduces a new form of transaction
censorship, so it's always a dick swinging move, and one that brings
drama whether it succeeds or fails.
But they're also extremely limited in the improvements they can bring.
They can't increase block size, they can't change issuance schedule,
they can't change the cryptographic primitives used, they can't change
the consensus mechanism, they can't introduce sharding, they can't
introduce chain pruning.
Basically, they can't fix any of its problems.
Hard forks can change these things, but the community has decided (as
we saw with Bitcoin Cash) that hard forks Aren't Bitcoin™.
I find it hilarious that despite the whole "code is law, you can't
argue with maths" mantra that coiners like to put out, they decide
which is the real bitcoin the same way we decide who should be
president: by bickering like children.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Deadpoint 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Not the person you replied to, but I am a programmer who's studied the
technical aspects of bitcoin. There are essentially two categories of
problems with cryptocurrencies.
The first category are inherent to the logical structure of the
blockchain. Blockchain is always going to be orders of magnitude
slower, more expensive, and less secure than a centralized solution. I
can go into why that is if you want, but we can logically prove why
that is the case. In theory someone could invent a completely new
system that handles decentralized transactions efficiently, but that
isn't improvement that's inventing something completely new, and that
wouldn't solve the other category of blockchain problems...
A lot of issues with blockchain are inherent to any system that is
hard to regulate by design. Namely, a lot of regulations exist for
very good reasons. A hypothetical efficient blockchain replacement
would still be rife with fraud and abuse.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]bbbbbbbbbblah 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I never had a 3310, because Nokia was already making smartphones with
real apps, colour screens, internet connectivity and all the rest of
it.
e.g. in 2001 Nokia were making both the 3310 and this glorious beast
and this lovely thing
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-19 points-18
points-17 points 3 days ago (24 children)
I can send bitcoin for for a fraction of a cent using the lightning
network with instant settlement. Mastercard/visa charge the business
owners 2-3%.
exactly how is this not an improvement? The bitcoin transaction is cheaper.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]atomic_cattleprod 26 points27 points28 points 3 days ago (12 children)
That's not a Bitcoin transaction until it happens on-chain. Until the
node closes and the transaction settled on-chain. it is, at best, a
fancy IOU.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-18 points-17
points-16 points 3 days ago (11 children)
Just like receiving a payment in your bank, because you entire bank
balance is an IOU, or were you under the impression you were the owner
of the funds in your bank?…
Yes lightning transactions is an IOU that can be redeemed for on-chain
bitcoin, but it is trustless. So no need to trust the bank to actually
give you your money.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]sv_ds 15 points16 points17 points 3 days ago (3 children)
So you just traded your decentralized coins to an IOU of a company,
which makes your whole crypto currency totally worthless. Good job
dude.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago (2 children)
it’s not an IOU of a company. It’s an IOU for onchain bitcoin run on
another open source decentralized network (the lightning network) I
run my own node and manage my own channels, nobody is in control over
my bitcoin except for me. Seriously if you don’t understand anything
about it perhaps stopt responding, you’re making a fool of yourself.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]sv_ds 12 points13 points14 points 3 days ago (1 child)
Lol you even run your own node, thats great, thats gonna be really
easy for the layman to do, great for adoption!
Meanwhile you are getting an IOU from a company, and you are
essentially using a less secure and much more easily overtaken chain
to do your transactions, so what you did is just downgraded from
decentralization and security to get a minimal amount of scalability
that is still a fraction of the scalability of global fiat networks.
Good job dude. 🤡
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]atomic_cattleprod 17 points18 points19 points 3 days ago (6 children)
LOL. Jesus Fuck this "trustless" shit from deluded lightning network
morons never gets old.
Thanks for the laugh dude. Keep on HODLing. Or whatever.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-9 points-8
points-7 points 3 days ago (5 children)
It’s okay to admit you are too mentally challenged to come up with a
actual response. Take your meds and try again in an hour.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]skycake10 8 points9 points10 points 3 days ago (4 children)
The entire point of crypto is that you have full control with your
private key! LN tries (and fails) to fix the transaction throughput
issue by completely breaking that entire principle.
That's how everything with crypto works. There are (dumb) ideological
principles that make it work badly in practice, and every improvement
to its functionality breaks one or several of the ideological
principles that defines the point of crypto.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -1 points0 points1 point 3 days ago (3 children)
I do have full control with no private key. As nobody but me can send
lightning transactions from my node, i control the keys.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]skycake10 7 points8 points9 points 3 days ago (2 children)
When someone sends you Bitcoin over the Lightning Network, until you
take the transaction to Layer 1 you don't control that Bitcoin.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill 0 points1 point2 points 3 days ago (1 child)
I do, since it’s on my side of the channel. Seriously, if you don’t
understand how the protocol works, why are you even debating about it.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
continue this thread
[–]FiniteStep 13 points14 points15 points 3 days ago (1 child)
Lightning doesn't scale either. If everyone in the world opened and
closed 1 connection each month, the bitcoin network cannot keep up
with 7tx/sec
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill comment score below threshold-6 points-5
points-4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
There’s already solutions in development for that. There are channel
factories that can tie multiple channel opens into 1 onchain
transaction, and there’s this other protocol (forgot the name) that
takes all of that to another layer so realistically you wouldn’t need
to touch L1 that much. So that would mean 1 onchain transaction could
open/close dozens of channels
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]dyzo-blueIt's basically herpes... 9 points10 points11 points 3 days
ago* (8 children)
Oh. Then how much do you have to pay to convert that bitcoin into
actual currency that can be spent to purchase real things or pay your
rent or pay your taxes? And how do you insure that the conversion
price doesn't radically fluctuate between the time you are paid
Buttcoins and the time you convert it into actual usable currency?
Also, who is maintaining this conversion from Buttcoin into real
dollars, and how do you insure that they will always have adequate
liquidity to make the conversion happen?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago (7 children)
We’re talking about a scenario where bitcoin would be widely accepted
and non of these things you mention would matter there. you’d already
have bitcoin and you would not have to deal with the conversion. Or
you could just look at how it works in el salvador, where you can
choose to use either bitcoin or USD. And services that auto convert
BTC/USD also exist outside of el salvador (Strike), and the fees are
lower than the 2-3%
As for fluctuation, my euros also fluctuate to the dollar, I don’t
notice it on a day to day basis as much. Many smaller local currencies
in poorer countries are actually more volatile than the dollar is. But
yes, you may have some volatility, but on the flip side you are
actually dealing with a hard asset you can save in, instead of fiat
which is just created at will by central banks and is guaranteed to
lose purchasing power over time.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]dyzo-blueIt's basically herpes... 13 points14 points15 points 3
days ago* (6 children)
We’re talking about a scenario where bitcoin would be widely
accepted and non of these things you mention would matter there.
Who is talking about this fictional world that will never exist?
Certainly not me.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago (5 children)
You’re aware the world today is not set in stone right? If i told you
100 years ago that in a couple of decades people would be using
worthless pieces of paper to save money in and pay for goods, and they
cannot even redeem those pieces of paper for gold they would call you
crazy. Yet here we are.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]dyzo-blueIt's basically herpes... 12 points13 points14 points 3
days ago* (4 children)
YES! You are perfectly embodying my point. Thank you!
Butters are so dumb that they think because some other technologies
have improved overtime, that necessarily means that their dumb-shit
blockchain tech will necessarily improve over time.
These people are too dumb to realize that history is full of techs
that have failed. Techs that started out, and then went no where,
because like Creepto, they were just inherently piss poor ideas.
If I told you 50 years ago that people would pay thousands of dollars
for beanie babies in 1998, but almost nothing for them 5 years later,
something something... crazy. Yet here we are.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago (3 children)
I think the fact that our money since 1971 is based on literally
nothing and can be created out of thin air by goverments with the
press of the button is more worrysome than some people speculating on
beany babies.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]tu_tu_tu 9 points10 points11 points 3 days ago* (1 child)
money since 1971 is based on literally nothing
You're saying like it's something bad. I don't want my income to
depend on some speculative shit. And especially I don't want a deficit
of money.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Expensive-Tap420LN shill -1 points0 points1 point 3 days ago* (0 children)
It is something bad. The increasing wealth gap is almost entirely
caused by this monetary policy. Money has been almost free for 15
years leading to the high levels of inflation we’ve seen. It allows
governments to steal from the poor, as effectively that’s what happens
when they print money. there’s nothing backing fiat governments can
just keep spending as much as they want. Where they previously would
need to issue war bonds to go to war they would need public support to
make it happen, now they just print the money and do it anyway.
Current moneys system is utterly fucked. So yes, it is a bad thing.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]nottobetakenesrslyA bit of a pillock 6 points7 points8 points 3
days ago* (0 children)
our money since 1971 is based on literally nothing
No.
created out of thin air by goverments
Also no.
Anytime I see 1971/Nixon Shock brought up, I know the level of
analysis has been shallow. Most dollars in the world are created (and
destroyed) by the commercial banking system... Not governments.
>From The International Monetary System'. Forty Years After Bretton
Woods - Proceedings of a Conference Held in May 1984 Sponsored by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
In spite of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, the United States was
not really on a gold standard. The essence of the gold standard is
that the money supply must be limited by the gold reserve. The last
time that the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy because the
gold reserve ratio fell close to the legal minimum was in March 1933.
Since then, whenever the gold reserve neared the legal minimum, the
required reserve ratio was reduced and finally eliminated entirely. A
country that loses more than half of its gold reserve, as the United
States did in 1958-71, without reducing the money supply is not on the
gold standard.
What happened in August 1971 was the abandonment of the anomaly of
dollar convertibility into gold when the United States was not on a
gold standard.
Just want to emphasize this. 1971 was a late political acknowledgement
(a leftover anomaly/artifact to be cleaned up). The US was not on a
gold standard (and arguably wasn't even before 1933).
...and now onto global monetary expansion without central bank involvement.
The pressures causing some currencies persistently to strengthen,
and others to weaken, in response to their differences in economic
performance, were exacerbated by the unusual dependence on the dollar.
For from the early sixties onward there was virtually no control over
the worldwide supply and use of dollars. The "dollar shortage" of the
fifties was becoming the "dollar glut" of the sixties.
The "eurodollar" or "shadow banking" system arose by the 1950s. It's
really just a wholesale global banking market. By the 60s, banks in
the US were increasingly borrowing from offshore vs. obtaining
"funding" from the Fed. Offshore funding allowed banks to bypass
restrictions (like reserve requirements).
It appeared impossible for the United States to maintain effective
control over the supply of dollars at home and abroad simply by
following the old rules of the gold standard game--i.e., by
maintaining a surplus in its external current accounts.
Can also be said of Fed Funds, reserve levels/QE and QT.
The urgent needs for capital expansion around the world attracted
the expertise of rapidly developing multinational companies, many of
them based in the United States, and all of them drawing on additional
dollars to finance their desired growth.
Capital outflows from the United States, spurred by direct
investment from within and substantial borrowings from without, began
to flood the world with an apparent excess of dollar liquidity-despite
the absorption of liquidity that might have been expected from the
large current account surplus of the United States. Central banks
abroad found themselves with what became an "overhang" of dollars in
their foreign exchange reserves.
There are numerous examples of Fed chairs lamenting their inability to
even measure the money supply. Other countries realized long before
that private sector generated USD funding had taken off. An "Overhang"
in exchange reserves is a mild way to put it.
One improvisation after another was attempted in order to preserve
or restore confidence in the credibility of the dollar as a reliable
standard of value and medium of exchange capable of assuring stability
in the payments relations throughout an expanding world. A ""gold
pool" among leading central banks, initiation of a "ring of swaps"
between the dollar and a dozen or more other currencies, creation of
U.S. dollar obligations denominated in foreign currencies, the
introduction of an Interest Equalization Tax and other measures to
deter capital outflows--all these were part of an effort to sustain
the dollar while also building a network of closer joint involvement
with other countries in maintaining currency arrangements that could
serve the best interests of all. But this combination of
improvisations could not cope with, and indeed may have contributed
to, the enormous expansion in markets for U.S. dollars offshore, and
the new networks of interbank relations that made possible the
creation of additional supplies of dollars outside the United States
and beyond the control of the Federal Reserve.
Why do central banks hold gold? Originally, to "back" notes, but later
just to appear to still be in charge of their denominations. The
issuance of dollars left government control long ago.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]StolenApe 32 points33 points34 points 3 days ago (13 children)
The bit I find weird is that the bros would say paying a brokerage fee
to buy shares is a scam, but then proceed to spend more than that
moving tokens from one wallet to another
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]XinlessVice 14 points15 points16 points 3 days ago (2 children)
ALOT of brokerages don't even charge that anymore, or at least ones
for everyday people. I'm sure that won't be a issue for long.
Transaction fess are ridiculous though. I still have some crypto
mainly due too the fact the transaction fee is too high too cash out
for my bank
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]DonkeyOfWallStreet 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
There's always a middle man fee. You have to pay your bank,
visa/MasterCard and everybody in the chain a fee for moving your
money.
But when you buy a share you own a piece of a corporate entity. An
entity hell bent on increasing profits and margins. Run by 10's of
thousands of people, sometimes in every corner of the planet.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Opcn 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Yeah, it's no longer a line item but they find ways to turn a profit
out of it, and in the end since you're either the only one paying or
the only other one getting paid it is invariably at your expense in
some subtle way.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 days
ago (9 children)
It's possible to move millions in BTC with fees less then 1 $. Can you
do the same with shares?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]StolenApe 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (8 children)
This comment just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days
ago (7 children)
Because it's weird to compare brokerage fees with transaction fees.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]StolenApe 3 points4 points5 points 3 days ago (6 children)
Work out whether your bullshit is a currency or an asset and get back to me
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago
(5 children)
You want to classify it in old definitions. For me it's a currency
because transfers are quite fast (10 min or instant in lightning).
Problem is it doesn't fit the old definition of a currency and it's
unlikely that it's gonna be changed. So for regulators it's just an
Asset.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]StolenApe 1 point2 points3 points 2 days ago (4 children)
Obviously you have no clue what you’re talking about. Go away and come
back to me when you know what you’re dealing with and when you
understand you’re actually in a sub full of people that know crypto
very well and most likely better than you.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago
(3 children)
Prove me wrong instead of complaining.
I've been in crypto since 2015 and started using it as a currency on
the darknet. Later as a store of value.
I'm always open to learn from other people so Go on.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]StolenApe 1 point2 points3 points 2 days ago (2 children)
See, you don’t even understand that I’m just calling you an idiot. Why
would I listen to anyone about anything when they’re too stupid to
understand they’re being called stupid
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]Admirable-Rip-5892Ponzi Schemer 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (1 child)
Because people have called me stupid before when BTC was at 500$...
and I just didn't care. I don't live in a world where you prove your
point by calling other people stupid. Instead I would love to hear
some real arguments.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
continue this thread
[–]R7F 33 points34 points35 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Of course not. They see it as an investment vehicle and get rich quick
scheme not a viable currency.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Quirky-Amoeba-4141 23 points24 points25 points 3 days ago (4 children)
No, because no one actually uses crypto to buy anything.
They use credit cards and cash like everyone else.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]BloomEPU 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (0 children)
hey, that's a lie. People use crypto to buy drugs and hitmen. And then
you don't really worry about gas fees.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]-Blue_Bull- -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 days ago (2 children)
Most crypto exchanges offer VISA debit cards that can be used anywhere
just like a normal credit card.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]niddLerzK 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (1 child)
I don't really count that as spending crypto, because you're actually
"selling" crypto for USD or EUR automatically to pay via card, they
just do it like that and it seems like you're spending crypto, while
you're just selling.
Which is a problem due to taxes as well, because you're essentially
selling crypto, which if you need to pay taxes, you'd have to. Correct
me if I'm wrong.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]-Blue_Bull- 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (0 children)
You have to pay tax. With crypto, there's software that takes all of
the transactions and calculates all of the tax liabilities for you
ready for your end of year return.
I'm not sure how it works in other countries but in the UK, there are
specific crypto accountants that are used to dealing with large
volumes of transactions.
If you use crypto, you need an accountant.
If you are just someone that invests in crypto, it's tax free until you sell.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Short_Syllabub_303 15 points16 points17 points 3 days ago (6 children)
Its illogical, but if the person that buys 1 bitcoin truly thinks
their $30k of bitcoin paying a $2k fee (no idea what the numbers are)
will turn into $600k, $2k fee is pocket change
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Hefty-Interview4460 8 points9 points10 points 3 days ago (1 child)
I dont think it s 2k USD it s more if a butter want to spend 5$ he has
to pay a 1$ fee each time and wait 10 minutes. But for very large
amount a 1$ fee is reasonable.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]propagandhi45 8 points9 points10 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Ive moved crypto once and it the gas fee was around 65$USD
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]direktor4etowarning, I am a moron -4 points-3 points-2 points 3
days ago (3 children)
LOL the fee for moving 100K USD right now would be 15 dollars.
If you gonna be hating on something, at least dont be clueless about it.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Short_Syllabub_303 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (2 children)
Got it, so to move small amounts, like actually transacting with it as
it’s intended purpose makes no sense because of fees. But if you’re
buying large amounts to hold until the next greater fool comes it’s
still economical. Cool cool cool understand now
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]direktor4etowarning, I am a moron -5 points-4 points-3 points 3
days ago (1 child)
No. You transact using lightning, layer 2 solution. Less secure, very
fast and high bandwidth.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Short_Syllabub_303 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Heard that is not scalable due to the need for 1 transaction to open 1
channel and 7 transactions per second still is a bottleneck, thoughts
on that?
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]fucknozzle 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I'd imagine it's a big part of the non-existent adoption numbers.
Oh, I can pay with Bitcoin? Sounds like fun.
[2.5 hours later they have set it up]
So, I just order this $30 gadget. click
Goto payment, yup, OK click
[$40 fees added on]
What? Oh fuck that. close page
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]AnyPortInAHurricane 7 points8 points9 points 3 days ago (0 children)
crypto in its current form is a joke. and the jokes on you , not me
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]d3arleader 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
But it’s permissionless and trustless! I still see this touted like
it’s something to be proud of.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]otherwisemilk 3 points4 points5 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Any coin that requires the user to pay a fee to run and secure the
network will encourage rent seeking and centralization. If the fees
are too low, then they risk insecurity. Bitcoin is doomed to fail.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]sisoje_bre 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Centralization to the rescue, we will just give it some fancy name
like "Lightning Network"
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]XinlessVice 3 points4 points5 points 3 days ago (0 children)
This and taxes for crypto is what will kill it for the everyday
person. That's if it ever had any use. The block chain is literally
the only semi useful thing in crypto. Everything else just needs too
go
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]sv_ds 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I just love when butters argue with the efficiency and speed of the
blockchain. Literally the things that are bad by design. When they do
that they already lost the argument.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]mikeydavison 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Freedom has a price
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Sleepy6882 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I remember wanting to cash out on some shitcoins when it was pumping.
Bought 200 worth and they pumped to 1k but all the fees to actually
cash out would have put me at a lose.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]slade991 1 point2 points3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
It depend which crypto. Litecoin and monero for example are some of
the most widely used and have close to 0$ in fees.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]officialM3DL3Ywarning, I am a moron -1 points0 points1 point 3 days
ago* (0 children)
I moved 5 figures at a $1 cost on the most secure network on earth
using an undebaseable commodity. I didnt need anyones permission. I
think that's pretty cheap. The cost of simply holding wealth in cash
right now for me is 12% PA.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Siccors -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 days ago (0 children)
In the US (but plenty of other countries too as well, EU has at least
some limits), I would not call the CC transaction fees reasonable. The
reason you have all those cashback cards is because the transaction
fees are idiotic.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]hashman2warning, I am a moron -2 points-1 points0 points 3 days ago
(0 children)
Median transaction fees today in USD equivalent, from bitinfocharts.com:
BTC $0.77
BCH $0.001
ETH $4.38
LTC $0.007
DOGE $0.001
XMR $0.05
See also cryptofees.info
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]madbirdribdamwarning, I am a moron comment score below threshold-16
points-15 points-14 points 3 days ago (2 children)
That’s why I stick to monero with its $0.003 fees
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]FlightOfThePigs 4 points5 points6 points 3 days ago (1 child)
All jokes aside, some of these shitcoins have far more utility than
Bitcoin. Bitcoin just has the largest and most delusional cult
following. If people really cared about utility and fundamentals
Bitcoin certainly wouldn't be the most favored chuckee-cheese token
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]madbirdribdamwarning, I am a moron -5 points-4 points-3 points 3
days ago (0 children)
Warning, I am a moron.
It is amazing how this sub seems to have soo much in common with
bitcoin sub, lmao)
Hated on both for shilling the common sense.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[+]PatchworkFlames comment score below threshold-16 points-15
points-14 points 3 days ago (8 children)
Transaction fees are fixed, meaning instead of being shared, say, 2%
on a purchase with credit cards or 6% with sales tax, you get charged
a straight $20.
This makes it much cheaper to use Crypto when buying a car or a house
then a credit card.
I don't know why anyone would want to use bitcoin or a credit card to
buy a house; I'm not a crypto bro.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]abatoirials 16 points17 points18 points 3 days ago (2 children)
Transaction fees are fixed
The problem is there's percentage when you want to convert said BTC to fiat
This makes it much cheaper to use Crypto when buying a car or a
house then a credit card.
this make this opinion completely untrue
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]ArchangelToast 8 points9 points10 points 3 days ago (1 child)
You can tell this person had never bought a house.
INB4 ad hominem attack comes.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]FinndBors 12 points13 points14 points 3 days ago (0 children)
The transaction costs in buying a house is the taxes, finance fees,
insurance, inspection and indirect payment of marketing of the
property (realtor fees). Crypto doesn’t do anything to solve this. The
actual movement of fiat in a house purchase isn’t the costly bit.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]harpswtf 14 points15 points16 points 3 days ago (2 children)
They’re fixed in that it’s irrelevant how much you’re transferring,
but they’re not fixed in that they vary wildly depending on the
current traffic, which you have to check before you start your
transaction. If you ask for too low of a rate, your transaction will
just hang until there’s very little traffic. Essentially this means
you have to do some research before you do any transaction, to check
the current rates expected for it to clear in a reasonable amount of
time. Oh and don’t fuck up your long decimal places on the amount or
you might end up paying magnitudes more than you meant to. And don’t
accidentally swap the amount to move and the transaction fee,
essentially burning the entire transaction, as has been seen many
times before. Sorry no refunds. It’s the future of banking though
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]ArchangelToast 5 points6 points7 points 3 days ago (1 child)
Imagine if VISA network did the same and charged you more for faster
transaction speeds lmao
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]harpswtf 9 points10 points11 points 3 days ago (0 children)
People think choosing a tip is annoying, imagine having to choose your
transaction fee at the checkout, based on a graph of expected times vs
current fee rates. And then you hold up the line for 45 minutes
because you tried to choose the middle tier fee instead of the top fee
for speed. Also people don’t seem to realize how these affect
withdrawals from exchanges, btw. Most exchanges charge a flat but
large withdrawal fee, but if the actual on chain transaction fee is
too high, they’ll often just leave your withdrawal pending for days
until the network slows down. Of course customer support will lie
about why it’s taking so long while you wait.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]Sycraft-fu 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
They are also fixed for wire transfers, which is what you do if you
want to move serious amounts of money, like if you are buying a house.
How much it costs depends on your bank, $30 in my case. That is the
way, only way really, that you are moving house-level of money
electronically. No title agency is accepting crypto for a house.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]sv_ds 2 points3 points4 points 3 days ago (0 children)
You do know that in the rest of the world transaction fees have a
limit for wire transfers.
permalink
embed
save
parent
report
give award
reply
[–]-Blue_Bull- -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 days ago (0 children)
High fees are obviously bad. But some fees are ok, remember that these
fees are going to real people and that's a good thing.
In that tradfi world, all fees go to the bank.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]nuclearmeltdown2015 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 days ago (0 children)
Transaction fees are pretty reasonable for me.
I think crypto like bitcoin specifically serves as a pretty good way
to store value independent of a 3rd party being able to interfere and
prevent you from accessing or moving that money around.
The freedom that comes from knowing your government or bank won't
suddenly go rogue and freeze everything you own including your credit
cards so money suddenly doesn't work for you anymore is worth a few
dollars in more fees.
People who think that the financial system and government is so secure
might be saying this from the perspective of living in a country like
the USA where the government is probably one of the most stable and
established but for the other 90% of people on the planet who doesn't
have the luxury of assuming they have such security with their money
and want to be sure the value they earned using their own blood and
labor doesn't get arbitrarily snatched by someone who did nothing to
earn a cent of it.
If you're talking about using bitcoin to replace transactions like a
coffee at Starbucks, I don't think it will ever happen and people who
expect it to are truly naive.
Someday, we will probably have 3rd parties which build wrappers around
the technology and try to serve as proxies to speed up the time by
moving to a type of credit system, but we already see today what a
shit storm that is with stuff like tether and terraluna. Once you add
in the wrappers, you end up full circle and rebuilding the same wild
west banking environment that was stomped out during the post-great
depression period because those groups tried to do the same thing by
being a proxy for gold i.e. the USD was the first attempt at bitcoin
and thus many of the issues that arose are also going to arise here
because they were based on human behavior and psychology which has not
changed very much in 100 years because evolution do be slow like that
sometimes.
What I am getting at is that I think bitcoin is doing great and the
technology is improving in areas that matter such as security fail
safes, stability, credibility, and organizational structure that
naturally undermines bad actors' ability to exploit.
Speed and cost is the last thing people care about right now. Do you
think the USD was established in 10 years? Or any currency? No they
are long, ugly, bloody wars because they're wrestling power from
people who have no desire to give it up and who will use thugs and
guns to prevent anyone from walking away regardless of who is right.
How about just having the freedom to walk away and not be a slave to
your country where you need their permission to leave and permission
to enter another? Where your country threatens hellfire if any other
government tries to protect a citizen that is being abused? Why should
individuals be able to hold that much power over other individuals? If
you think this is fine, then that makes sense why your biggest
complaint is about speed and Transaction cost because you're happy
living as a dog chasing a ball in a park even though there are no dogs
, it is a human throwing a ball to another human who really believes
their born role in life is to be another person's dog so this is
happiness.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Accomplished-Way3411 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 days ago (0 children)
Hey there! As a fellow crypto enthusiast, I totally get where you're
coming from. Transaction fees can sometimes feel like they're doing a
moonwalk on our hard-earned profits! But fear not, there's hope on the
horizon!When it comes to transaction fees, it's important to consider
a few factors.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]Dettol-tasting-menu -2 points-1 points0 points 2 days ago (0 children)
I can send you $200, $20, $2, $0.20, or $0.02 over the lightning
network for a fraction of a cent. I’ve been STREAMING money much like
streaming video on YouTube. Wake up Buttcoiners, time to pull your
head out of the sand. Things are moving faster than you realised.
People have been zapping bitcoins for zero fee peer to peer on Damus,
so much so that Apple has to put a halt to it because it bypasses its
in-app purchase policy. And you guys on this sub still make fun of
things you have clearly no clue about.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]Normal-Knowledge4857 comment score below threshold-8 points-7
points-6 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Bitcoin lightning network is basically free and near instantaneous.
Moving Bitcoin on the base layer can be a bit more expensive (maybe
$3-5) but so is moving physical gold around.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]Mong0saurusPonzi Schemer -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 days ago (0 children)
I'm paying the equivalent of a few cents for my transactions, both
faster and cheaper than any bank I've used. So no, I don't really see
the ridiculousness.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[+]AlexIsOnFire11 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Below are fees paid to place 3 sports bets on chain. Not ridiculously
high, not a large percentage by any means. Fees fluctuate depending on
what coin/chain you're using, but in day to day use these fees are
insignificant.
0.000029455735167656 Ether (8 cents)
0.000037953052853869 Ether (7 cents)
0.000031817964810825 Ether (6 cents)
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Mental_Platform_5680 0 points1 point2 points 3 days ago (0 children)
Buttcoiners are simply being ignorant while they hope for exit
liquidity the best they could do is like 3x or 4x their money and if
enough losers get caught up in the hype maybe 5-10x.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]theskepticalheretic 0 points1 point2 points 3 days ago (0 children)
No, they think they are akin to bank fees.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
[–]Heyitsguy1 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago (0 children)
Bitcoin is like today's mainframe. Fees are low today because
everything happens in a batch process at the end of day and what we
see is an abstraction (bank ui or visa/MasterCard) Bitcoin layer 1
transactions can be batched in the same way to avoid fees we see layer
2 solutions like lightning come out to help. I guess the idea is one
day we won't be interacting with the base layer(analogous to bank
mainframes) where fees are heavy but will have layer solutions that
will batch and we will be abstracted away from it.
permalink
embed
save
report
give award
reply
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list