I'm going to disagree with you. The fact that Bitcoin is currently useless for small transactions, and very expensive for large transactions is a serious problem. I'm now teaching my kids to use Monero, simply because Bitcoin fees take up an entire year of their allowance. Bitcoin has lost out on so many potential users and transactions over the years, just because it can't handle more. I don't like it.
LN isn't going to solve this if opening and closing a channel costs a week worth of food.

Reinstating the "coin days destroyed" priority mechanism can help. Spammers can't destroy unlimited coin days, but this isn't in the interest of miners. And that's a fundamental problem: the ones who earn from high fees benefit from the flaws in the fee system.

Yep. It sucks. What's left: all Bitcoin users keeping their coins on large centralized exchanges and ETFs? That destroys the concept of "electronic cash".

Hey, I get to complain about transaction fees! At least let me have this
I just hate seeing Bitcoin lose market share to shitcoins, because Bitcoin can't handle the transaction volume that comes with it's popularity.

Bitcoin continues to do exactly what its supposed to do, without fail. Although the debate goes back all the way to 2011 or so, and we're just rehashing a 13-year-old argument, any transaction that is valid and picked up by a miner is a legitimate bitcoin transaction. So stalwarts who stay mad have two choices:

1) Continue to cry about how jpeggers and/or devs have "broken bitcoin," or
2) Embrace the evolution of what bitcoin can be used for.

PS: staying mad isn't going to change anything.

I never said it isn't a serious problem. What I said is "it's a feature". Here's another feature: 21 million cap. "But this might not sustain the miners' income". I know. It might not. But, it's a feature nonetheless. Same applies to a fixed-sized block limit. It's inevitable that rich people will outweigh the poor sometimes, in terms of confirmation priority.

You're a father figure! I wish I had a father who taught me about Bitcoin and Monero. Congratulations.  

Agreed.

Doesn't prevent the problem, perhaps discourages it by a little bit. What if they mint these tokens through centralized platforms with enormous amounts of UTXOs? I also don't like coins days destroyed, because it's anti-fungibility. A coin with value 100 days is more valuable than one that was just created.

The sooner we accept that Bitcoin cannot handle the entire populace on-chain, the better. Free markets are trial-and-error based. If Bitcoin has erred as electronic cash, then it's down to us to see which change in a crypto-protocol would make it look more like cash. Maybe there is none. Maybe it's dynamical block size. Maybe it's tail emission. Or even a compression method we haven't even thought of. In practice, we can see which is more recognized as cash.

---

A lot of Monero proponents on Twitter are bragging about Monero, and how it's better cash. Do they have any idea how bad the system works if the network was clogged up with gigabytes of monkeys every once in a while? I know, it'd still be cheap, but to finish syncing you'd have to verify like a million of monkey-ring signatures, which would slow down it by orders of magnitude.

I think that in times like these, where we have multiple sides siding against different opinions, it is important to remember the very first words that stood the foundation of what Bitcoin is today:

By simply existing the feature to implement such protocols doesn't actually mean that they should be created/implemented in the first place. Sure, adaptability and flexibility are great in the technological era but I believe that there has to be a core idea that would have to be followed in making sure that each ramification of the technology stood the ground against their foundations. Otherwise, what would it stand for?
I'm not against progress and improvements to the concept of Bitcoin, don't take me wrong, but I can't seem to find a reason to believe that adding NFT imprints in the blockchain is something that would allow the technology to remain faithfully to something it stood to reach (someday).

That is an astonishing feat, congratulations to you in introducing them to both concepts. I wonder if they realize the main differences between those and fiat and what were their first opinions about them?

This is an acceptable discussion and one that has been going on for some time and I easily see more this as acceptable regarding what can be made than Ordinals/Rune implementation and is totally understandable that Bitcoin simply cannot answer with efficiency when nothing could prepare us for these new NFT concepts when Bitcoin was first created. I wonder what more can/will be created that we  haven't imagined regarding Bitcoin - ~ 14 years to create "fungible NFT" on the blockchain, I wonder what it may come next. As an additional perspective, not one of my friends in real life, those who just want to hold bitcoin, is aware of what is going on regarding high fees, fungible tokens, Ordinals, Runes.

But then again, like BHC said, the free market is the concept that dictates this behaviour - if people didn't care about NFT, these implementations wouldn't have any kind of relevance. Problem is, I don't see NFT going away any time soon and with the amount of bridges being made for the Rune implementation, I fear that this may just be the beginning of a troubled period in Bitcoin existence. At least for a while.

But don't forget there are ways to discourage those spammer. Even if it's limited to make Ordinals TX become non-standard, it would force them to use Runes instead where they only can store 80 bytes of arbitrary data on OP_RETURN on each TX.


That mechanism was never part of Bitcoin protocol. It's just default behavior on Bitcoin Core (previously called "Bitcoin-Qt" and "Bitcoin") which used by miner until they prioritize profit.

I totally agree with this, people forget when they preach about how the decreasing supply will raise the price, how scarcity drives prices, how the space in the chain also acts the same, and you have too little, you need to pay more. Bitcoin was never a charity, was never a quick money scheme, it was made to obey only the law of economics and free trade, and here you have it!


It can make them more expensive, not completely get rid of them but diminishing the quantity.
But, with "good" censorship you're opening Pandora's box.


But without enough space on the L1 you can't make a good transition to L2.
You can have the best innercity transport system working at 10% capacity and still have 2 million waiting on the outer ring for hours since they can't get in an use that transport.
The exchange between L1 and L2 must be cheap and easy, otherwise...well you can see the results.


I heard that in '89, unfortunately, we didn't shoot our guy like the Romanians did.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1bak3to/monero_spam_recap/
"dynamic block size" 

What's currently happening might be a feature, but it's a feature of spam that's abusing the network for its selfish reasons.

I heard a good comparison between Ordinals/Runes and telemarketing spam. Telemarketers are also using telecommunication networks the way they were intended. They pay their bills and purchase the needed hardware to make calls. But what happens then? They spam. You get a call to talk about Jesus, saving the planet, investing in this or that, or they inform you of a lottery you won or can participate in. Most people don't like them. You hang up the phone, you block their numbers.. you censor them. If this trend doesn't end, that's what needs to happen. You find a way to put them in the garbage bin. That's where garbage goes.

Why? Because Bitcoin's purpose is to be a
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

If blocks are only filled by 10%, 20% or 30% with P2P online payments of digital cash, then something has seriously gone wrong. I have no problem with a free and competing fees market. That's how it's supposed to be. If you are willing to pay more than me to make an online P2P payment of electronic cash, then all the power to you my brother. I will have to wait my turn or reach deeper inside my own pockets to offer a competitive fee rate. What I don't believe anyone should have to do is to compete with spammers who are not making P2P online payments with electronic cash, and are taking away many of the features that normal people love. With those, I mean a cheap, fast, and borderless way of sending payments in any amounts you want.   

I've participated in such threads many times before last year but at the end of the day where the solution, haha it's quite funny that we cant solve it, many people offer the L2s as a solution but people don't want to move on, many of them support this solution and many oppose on the same time.

Now the closing wordic on the high tx fee on the Bitcoin network is really a concern for the day-to-day Bitcoin network users, if you can't afford it just stop using the Bitcoin network and move on to other solutions which are much cheaper obviously you won't be able to enjoy that reliability. Now you won't be able to use the Bitcoin network if you cant afford its a bitter reality.

ignoring all of blackhatcoiners BS


bitcoin is code, code can make rules for whats expected. and yes we can denounce the core roadmap and fight against/prevent new exploits and clean up the code and create rules via code which dont just allow junk..

we can close off majority of opcodes that have no conditions(no validation requirements thus anyjunk is allowed)
we can close off the miscounting and the 'assume valid' and 'is-valid' exceptions that just let junk through

code can clean up the network.  idiots and bullsh!tters just dont know it or dont want to admit its possible

we actually can get back to a system where every byte is accounted for, has purpose and conditions which nodes have set rules for.. we can harden consensus again and add new validity checks for any active opcode.

the issue is not a physics problem... its a social/political problem of dev control..

instead of being sheep to one master reference client(core) we can have multiple brands of different teams making reference clients where they all are allowed to propose new features whereby the best feature gets adopted by all brands and then the feature activates..
this hardened consensus then ensures proposers actually think more about their feature, develop its idea better, display the benefit better and actually unite the community around good beneficial features to then get activated via true network consensus of network readiness.
.. instead of the last few years of softened consensus of centralised trojans rolling in bad crap unchecked because the gate keeper wants a blind/softened system of lax gatekeeping

and dont pretend its "censorship"
there are many buzz words used by core themselves
'depreciate','evict','orphan','reject','ban','prune','strip' (list goes on)
where by bitcoin always HAD and HAS decided on which transactions are relevant
but the softening of the rules has now allowed more irrelevant unchecked junk.. and that junk can be cleaned up..

One genuine user abandoning Bitcoin is greater damage than 100 shitcoiners going away because they can no longer upload their bananas to Bitcoin's blockchain. 

So your suggestion is joining the shitwagon? There are no benefits. Even the profits you might earn aren't worth destroying the best chance of an uncontrollable way of sending money that we have. 

How does that help anyone? We should all upload bananas and enjoy the high transaction fees? That's what you are saying.