Bitcoin transaction fees limit network abuse by making usage expensive.
There is a cost to every transaction, set by a dynamic free market based on demand.
It is an incredibly robust way to prevent spam without relying on centralized entities that can be corrupted or pressured.
Are you arguing that the current situation just sorts itself out over the long term due to the transaction fee free market on the network?
We've always known that the base layer demand would inevitably lead to higher fees. We just thought we had time for the global south to get up and running on bitcoin before it happened. We thought the traditional value transfer use case would bring that load, but degens chasing monke jpegs caught us flat footed
It’s a fee market đŸ™ƒ
I would love to hear a Citadel Dispatch episode on the Liquid network. I think it could be a good alternative in a high fee environment. In particular I'm curious to hear what Wiz thinks about the usefulness of Liquid these days.
I have very much enjoyed using the SideSwap app. Problem is, I have yet to see a merchant that accepts liquid bitcoin. Peg ins & peg outs are 0.1%, which imo is not too much for occasional on chain transactions. Minimum on chain payment (peg out) amount is currently 100,000 sats, but with current on chain fees, probably best to use lightning if possible for those smaller amounts anyway. Blinded transaction amounts on the liquid blockchain are nice too!
Of all the problems you listed, the fact that merchants don't use it seems to be the most important, and that can be addressed. Let's get more merchants using it!
And it's not just merchants but also peer-to-peer exchange: not enough people use it. So let's start using it.
nostr:npub12z5nym0qkxhdrvmyhup2llzp98lryr38gw8ywxktkps9eqdts7asjj9k9c Would you be interested in accepting liquid-BTC payments?
Also it guarantees service to those that need it by pricing out those that dont. Same argument for why price hikes in times of emergency are necessary. I ensures that supply or service remains available to those that need it the most, those that will pay the most for it.
If everything else is a test net for bitcoin then shitcoins on bitcoin is a logical end state. They play by bitcoins rules, and they pay like all the rest.
The free market will always find the most efficient way.
Read "The Bitcoin Standard"
Resistance to censorship is a consequence of transaction fees.
The State is the adversary in the Bitcoin security model. We are now exiting the honeymoon period where nobody cares about Bitcoin. We haven't yet entered a criminalization phase but it's coming. When that fails, they State will deploy hashpower to censor "illegal" transactions, and they can also introduce seignorage through the fee structure (long story).
The cost of the adversary (the State) to attack the network is subsidized by the block reward and "legal" transaction fees.
The only advantage that the free market has is that it can mine "illegal" transactions in addition to this. Censorship resistance exists in the differential between "legal" transactions and block reward, and "illegal" transactions.
The Cantillion Pyramid has a powerful military, nuclear power plants, asic fabs (ask the NSA and NIST), etc. Honest actors must rely on "illegal" transactions providing enough fees for more hashpower than the Cantillion Pyramid, or Bitcoin is no longer an escape hatch.
And now they have people like Jason Lowery starting to manufacture consent to build up enough hashpower for the Cantillion Pyramid to 51% attack Bitcoin, and half of the Bitcoin community falls for it.
The higher fees go, the more likely it is that the free market can out-hash the Cantillion pyramid.
i think i understand…But too complex.. can you reduce it down for normies?
I'll come back to this, but in the meantime, watch this for a quick breakdown of the security model https://youtu.be/X_xgmVLyB94
Woops, tagged wrong event, here
#[3]
