Well I stumbled upon this, can you refute what they are saying? https://budget.day/
Discussion
I just did.
Do you think people are gonna want to pay high fees? Bitcoiners are not spending their sats and paying fees to miners .
Miner revenue is very near ATH despite block reward going from 50 BTC to 3.125 BTC and asymptotically approaching zero. Your fears are unfounded and the system is working perfectly in a decentralized manner just due to well-engineered incentives.
People use Bitcoin, I get paid in it often. Many others on Nostr are settling in sats daily but we’re all using Lightning. It’s taken massive pressure off base chain which is by design and an excellent development.
Before the popular FUD was: “fees are too high there isn’t enough block space!!!”. Now it’s: “fees are too low and there aren’t enough tx’s!!!” Both wrong. Both low time preference and dumb takes.
The network is developing organically and incentives are working very well. There is room for more activity on base chain and lightning right now, which is necessary for adoption to grow.
You’ve been ignoring my comments so there’s no reason to continue this conversation unless you specifically acknowledge what I am contributing.
I acknowledge what you are saying you are making valid points, my issue is that when I see BTC price go up and the mempool where the average fee is 1-3 sats/vB has me a little concerned. What this is telling me is that there isn’t a whole lot of people using on-chain Bitcoin to transact.
The block subsidy isn’t going to last forever and eventually it’s going to leave on the biggest miners standing as they have the capital to battle for the last remaining block subsidy. We should want more on-chain activity not less.
The reason lightning exists is because people want speed and low fees. Lightning is cool tech but detrimental to miners imo.
You do not want on chain activity maxxed out right now. If it was outlook for the future when adoption has done a 10x would be grim.
Lightning (and other L2 / L3 solutions) is completely necessary to scale bitcoin. The LN has shown that it’s making a major positive impact for on chain fees and congestion, enabling actually scaling for when the Networks goes through its next surges in adoption.
Imagine a skyscraper that’s mostly complete. It may take years to populate the massive building, but it’s ready for a lot of tenants. You do not want a skyscraper’s amount of tenants trying to move into a building that cannot accommodate them all. Rents would 10x and many will go elsewhere.
I think it is very obvious from the information I presented that Bitcoin is ready for increased global adoption. Miners are profitable despite a 93.75% reduction in block reward amount since halving epoch 0. The network is the most secure it’s ever been. On chain transactions are cheap and readily available. Lightning is cheaper and faster and quite reliable. Nodes are still cheap and simple to run. Ecash on the horizon.
I’m not worried at all.
Appreciate your responses!! I hope you are right my friend 🤝
Another thing I think is overlooked in the mining game theory is if a lot hash went offline, hash rigs would get cheap and many plebs would start to mine from home to secure their own funds / the Network and collect tx fees.
I think no matter what there are dynamic and functional incentives that will keep the Network functional and secure.