Nostr Web Client

honest question - how would xmr (or ltc, or whatever) deal with a similar situation to what btc is dealing with right now?

essentially, there are entities paying more in fees relative to the value that they are sending (no matter the why, that’s essentially the network outcome)

so, if a protocol doesn’t restrict this behaviour (i.e. it allows people to pay excess fees relative to value sent) then this will always be possible, no matter the network, right?

if i had a bucket of money and i just wanted to waste it, i could continue to send fractions of xmr or ltc back and forth

i’d have no incentives to “mint tokens” on these networks, but it seems like the same process is possible on other networks, it just maybe lacks the incentives of “minting coins”

am i missing something?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Donafello 2y ago

Think you got it man. All layer one blockchains developed before 2020 all have scalability issues. XMR, lite, btc, eth. All of them. If you spam the network you prevent other transactions from going through and cause fees to get assure for normal user. In the first dao hack that led to eth classic Vitalik did something similar. When he realized the hacker was slowly draining the Dow him and eth team just spammed the network to try and slow him down. I think vitamin threw 5 eth at the problem. Anyway look what that caused. I was always against bigger block but seeing this constantly repeat itself it just getting crazy. New money is coming in and saying wtf is this shit. I’m out. And you never see them again for a long time if any. So I really think a small size jump in block to 2-4mb is fine. Andressen one of the first devs for btc said he had 16mb blocks running on a test net without a single issue.

yort 2y ago

personally disagree that a block size increase would constitute a solution, the problem would still exist that someone with money to burn could fill blocks (just 4MB or 15MB instead of closer to 2MB)

i think the fee market should solve this problem naturally (hopefully) - you’d think on-chain token folks will eventually run out of money to burn on fees, and they’ll run out of buyers for their hot potatoes

time will tell if that’s the correct take

but, assuming the “storm passes” it’s still a very great example of what technically needs to be thought about and solved creatively - i’m naive in this space, but i saw something the other day about excess fees for transactions where transaction costs are some amount larger than the value being transferred

not saying that’s the solution, because i’m sure there are a bucket of unintended consequences with that (and i probably didn’t even understand it properly) - but, my point is more that once this hopefully passes it’s definitely something we should all be thinking about from all the possible angles

and, my point with my original post, is i think this is a problem that plagues xmr and ltc too (even if it hasn’t shown itself yet, it seems like it’s something to think about at least)

Donafello 2y ago

Great reply. What ends up happening is totally up to devs but I doubt will see a block increase. I remember fees being $50 to send $10 worth of bitcoin back in the day. If that did not make them change I don’t think this will. And this is happening with daily volume a lot lower then last fee run