For the moment yes. #bitcoin is still under used. and this will change with mass usage.

So yes, now, today, it is not a problem, but tomorrow can you certify it will not ?

Any vision about that, about the future ?

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqej7xe8nug4h8v3j48esuddpf87gjdvsz5y0ytyc2vwpf5trzzheqyg8wumn8ghj7cfwdehhxtnvdakz7qg3waehxw309ucngvpwvcmh5tnfduhsz9mhwden5te0vf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdshsqgpzvczm05zryynyl4a5gm0qmu6madpmeh2xjwwf8r8wk7f5rnysdcawxkst

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

What do you think the fees will be on Bitcoin in the future? High? or Low?

If and when Bitcoin becomes the neutral 'fed-wire' for the world???

a lot higher for sure, because the reward will be low.

But hope this will not avoid most legit transactions (too higher fees for low transactions amount).

That's why "spam" should be a concern for everyone.

So when a base-chain transaction is 10$... (with 99% monetary usage) will it be 'too high' or 'too low' at that point?

And *no* the fees will not be high because the 'reward is low'. The fees will be high due to block space demand because the entire world wants to transact on chain.

THAT is the future of Bitcoin and any other explanation/rationale imo about the future misses the entire point.

So for you block space could be fulfill with anything ?

i said reward will be low and it is a fact, and miner will try any options to keep the most profitable mining block.

Having higher fees because everyone want to "transact on chain" is ok.

Having a lot more higher fees because everyone want to "put extra datas on chain" is not.

As i said, this is not a problem when a block is not fulfill, you can fill it with these extra datas, they don't take the place of any other legit trasactions.

But thinking these extra datas will only be written when there is no transaction on chain is a lack of vision. If you create the opportunity of space for anything, it will be fulfill most of time and will raise fees a lot when legit transactions will be needed to be written in a block.

This was my point.