Unchained has an article that should help you. I found the first table under fee protection goes beyond dust section very usfull to decide on the UTXO size.
Hope this help.
Yeah I get you. I think what nostr:npub12gu8c6uee3p243gez6cgk76362admlqe72aq3kp2fppjsjwmm7eqj9fle6 said about having a utxos in varying sizes makes sense. I suppose consolation is probably more pertinent to those daily DCAs. I'm more of a lump sum every 2 weeks guy.
Unchained has an article that should help you. I found the first table under fee protection goes beyond dust section very usfull to decide on the UTXO size.
Hope this help.
Unchained has an article that should help you. I found the first table under fee protection goes beyond dust section very usfull to decide on the UTXO size.
Hope this help.
Unchained has an article that should help you. I found the first table under fee protection goes beyond dust section very usfull to decide on the UTXO size.
Hope this help.
Unchained has an article that should help you. I found the first table under fee protection goes beyond dust section very usfull to decide on the UTXO size.
Hope this help.
Why chose single custody on Lightning over federated custody on Liquid?
2024: ordinals, ETF, halving, change in accounting rules for Bitcoin held in treasury, countries starting to mine and hold Bitcoin,...
The demand for block space will increase.
I do agree that as fees go up, less and less people will be able to self-custody. Over 99% won't eventually.
Poor use of liquidity. The higher the fees onchain, the less liquidity in the Lightning network. And fees will keep going up.
And we are early! This is just starting.
What do you when on chain is to expensive? At 1 sat/VB, you are right. But at 500 sat/vb, 1,000 sat/vb?
Don't think one exist. For Lighting to happen on Liquid you would need for a lot more users to justify the need and investment.
No. It's the nodes that are affected as they are the one retaining the data. Transactions won't be slow down.
When what you call spam becomes uneconomically, that will mean fees are higher than they are currently. Which means less people will be able to afford onchain transactions.
There is no spam at the protocol level. Only valid transactions. Individual users might consider certain transactions as spam. But that's personal.
That's because transaction fees is not a spam mechanism.
"Bitcoin has a brilliant spam mechanism: transaction fees."
For example:
The transaction fee is $25, Bitcoin spam filter is set at $25 dollars. Can't pay the fee, spam. Can pay the fee, not spam.
$40 to close a channel. Yikes!
I'm disagreeing with the choice of words. I never said overpaying was spam. I agree with you overpaying is not spam.