Oddbean

One of the most brilliant aspects of whirlpool is that the txo functions as an anti sybil attack and a revenue generator for the FOSS project very few FOSS projects have a clear business model let alone one that protects users as a result most are completely unaware of how powerful this tool is

Will spam make the Bitcoin system sick, like a tumor? Just like many people are willing to spend a lot of money to eat junk food, and finally lead to a higher probability of cancer in the body. Nothing bad, just a worry. 😉

Fees go exponentially down over time as issuance goes down over time. The first fees were like 1btc to move anything. The reality is 95% of people will never control a utxo. They will have shared custody of a utxo or straight non custodial btc.

Right but happens when the spammers are funded by the competition (aka the money printers)? IMO L1 should be kept as low fee as possible for as long as possible to maximize the amount of folks who can participate in the self custody revolution. This gives #bitcoin the best possible chance of breaking the #tradfi strangle hold of the fiat price of #btc and simultaneously the best chance for us to break the state and currency link. Meanwhile the mempool now sits around 1.5 GIGS! This spam has the potential to not only keep lower USD networthers barred from participating in the self custody revolution because their UTXOs are economically paralyzed by high L1 fees, but it also has the potential to make the protocol less decentralized by increasing the hardware requirements for running nodes if it keeps growing. Anyway just my 2 sats. 🫡

Think in a longer term and the discussion about that will disappear. The ordinals people have their fun now. Good thing is that they have to pay the fee in Bitcoin and not FIAT and that pushes the BTC price up because its a use case for some. And because Bitcoin supply is limited and with rising Bitcoin price, the ordinals thing gets more and more expensive until a point when even for the ordinals peoples it gets too expensive. So it will stop. Sooner than later. Another pro is that this paid Bitcoin Fee can get redistributed among other people as the miners have to sell them in the market to pay their business. So BTC hasca chance to move from "stupid" to "smart" people. And its definitely economically not smart to pay for ordinals that does not give you some kind of real value back like buying food, house or a vehicle to use for your work or whatever. Look at NFTs, they got rekked. And just because you put shit on Bitcoin, does not mean that this shit becomes something better. Its still shit. At some point the shit will get flushed down the toilet by the market. Bitcoin will regulate the use of the block space in the most efficient way by itself in the long run. So don't worry and Stay Humble & Stack Sats

I don't pay fees. @jack mallers does. Thanks Jack!! Fees go up. More hodling. More hodling? Less circulating supply, supply and demand. NGU, more incentive for good projects like liquid, fedimint, lightning, nostr etc.... EVERYTHING IS GOOD FOR BITCOIN!

Nation states with unlimited amounts of money to print don't care about fees on the Bitcoin network. If they buy Bitcoin they buy in amounts that makes the fees not event a rounding error. And they print the fee anyway. People who have been accumulating small amounts of Bitcoin at 1sat/vb might have to pay 5%, 10%, 25% or more to transact. The higher the fee the more people are pushed out of self-custody. They either choose Liquid or LN custodial providers, or use other tokens.

Nation states with unlimited amounts of money to print don't care about fees on the Bitcoin network. If they use Bitcoin, they transact in amounts that makes the fees not event a rounding error. And they print the fee anyway. The higher the fee (5%, 10%, 25% or more), the more people are pushed out of self-custody. They either choose Liquid or LN custodial providers, or use other tokens. If custodial Bitcoin is not Bitcoin, then Bitcoin is not for everyone.

I think you misunderstood my point, nation states can easily abuse the normalization of skyrocketing ordinal induced transaction fees to make it difficult for other users on Bitcoin to transact thereby pushing them into custodial hypocritical money rugging applications.

Indeed, I don't know what's your point is. My point is that saying high fees is a spam mechanism means, if you can pay, it's not spam. If you can't pay, its spam. So, if you can't afford to self-custody and transact on-chain, you are a spammer. That's why I have a problem with that.

nah you are either purposefully or ignorantly unaligned with the success of Bitcoin as a network, you are voicing the same point of view as BSV maximalists https://twitter.com/GhostofMaplHodl/status/1735700193931092190

Have you read Matt's note: "Bitcoin has a brilliant spam mechanism: transaction fees." That means, fees are a filter for undesirable transactions (spam), which could be payment for goods or services that someone can't send because the fee is too high. Is it OK to say to that person you can't pay the fee, it's spam? I don't agree with that statement. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin. If you agree with Matt, that's fine, no need to get contentious.

You are completely disregarding the base point, someone overpaying is not spam, a bunch of people overpaying out of necessity due to miner out of band bribes on unstandard transactions that are below the dust limit are very clearly spam. Average users are being censored from using the chain normally, the value proposition of Bitcoin is declining. And the solution is extremely simple. Arguing otherwise is arguing in favor of competitors like craig wright who is behind BSV ordinals and suing several BTC developers for contributing to open source projects.

So is the argument that high fee dust tractions weigh down the chain bringing about centralization of node runners and therefore Bitcoin? This weight being added faster than compression improvements?

I am being a bit paranoid and edgy to suggest this will kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin is very clearly stronger than most of us know. However I do believe complacency against these issues will hinder the market adoption due to the way it sacrifices low hanging fruit like normal l1 fee markets.

Normal fee market exists when transactions are not being centralized through mining bribery. Ordinal protocols force users to go this route to get their transaction settled at all. Limiting datacarriersize spam simply removes any ability for a market to exist around excess fee transactions. Mining pools win users lose. A normal market is where users actually are considered important for Bitcoin

Thanks ser. I’m really trying to wrap my head around this because I’m on the other side of this from a lot of people I respect. Trying to understand and appreciate your responses. Aren’t all transaction fees bribes? Aren’t we all bribing? And isn’t anyone interacting with the blockchain other than miners a user/merchant? Is the issue here they are not users of its payments value prop and are instead users of another attribute of the chain that payment users do not value?

They are introducing fiat out of band risks now though, so now ordinal kingpins can accept bribes in fiat off chain for on chain preference. this inflates the overall sat per byte and gives ordinal users a cheaper experience at the expense of people using the regular Bitcoins