Aren't big spikes in bitcoin fees a thing of the past? Some might like a subscription model, but I hope those with more optimism or risk tolerance don't get forced into it. If it can be lucrative for relays, why shouldn't users weather the spikes on their own and save long term?
-
-
-
They can if they want, but I don't think most will want to.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
So you're suggesting attaching a "fee subscription" model to address or companies that want stable fees? Isn't that going to complicate things? (Correct me if I misunderstood the response)
-
Yes it will likely complicate things for the relay while simplifying them for the user, but I expect relays will be able to make large profit margins by taking on this risk and complexity.
-
yup the cost of optimal dynamic program solution gonna be <= to the optimal static solution. 1) to sell this insurance you need to get both solutions and that's gonna be costly 2) the dynamic solution going to be observable from the blockchain making model theft trivial.
-
some more relevant reading: fee vs. block reward stability, http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf … and https://projectchicago.io/ which proposed gastoken for etth. iirc they are also studying possibilities bitcoin fee futures, but haven't published about that yet
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
I'd argue that reducing overall fees and constraining them to a smaller range also reduces uncertainty about fees. So while not perfect, it's a step in the right direction

-
In the future,the on-chain will be only supported for open and close LN channels tx
-
I have to disagree, while off-chain payments are a very useful tool, we shouldn't discard the tool we already have. There are use-cases that are better served on-chain (large bill transfers, low-priority payments, ...). Use the tool that is most appropriate for the job

-
That's also why I object to making special provisions in the on-chain protocol for off-chain systems, like reserving blockspace for channel creation and teardown.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
100% agree $5 / year superior to $0.01 per pay. “That will be $125 AND A PENNY...please. You end up with a lot of lost time debating over Stanley Nickels, by allowing pennies to complicate a transaction. Inefficient.
-
How many Stanley Nickels for a Schrute Buck?
-
Same number as unicorns to leprechauns I believe.
-



fk yeah
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
The issue is that the real world does in fact revolve around menu pricing in fiat currency. As a developer and business owner, I can't build a product that costs 20% more to operate tomorrow than today.
-
Furthermore, software engineers (especially the really smart ones) carry a certain fetishism for "perfect" solutions where all equations are balanced. Reality rarely allows this state. A fetish for perfection keep blockchain as a "toy". Iteratative solutions > perfect ideals.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
Fees are a local policy. Some nodes will adopt your idea.
ধন্যবাদ। আপনার সময়রেখাকে আরো ভালো করে তুলতে টুইটার এটিকে ব্যবহার করবে। পূর্বাবস্থায়পূর্বাবস্থায়
-
-
-
Not only are fees/gas unpredictable, they are measurably more volatile than the price of the coin itself.
ধন্যবাদ। আপনার সময়রেখাকে আরো ভালো করে তুলতে টুইটার এটিকে ব্যবহার করবে। পূর্বাবস্থায়পূর্বাবস্থায়
-
-
-
BRILLIANT as always Nick, right on the mastery of human nature, we crave for stability, not cheap.
ধন্যবাদ। আপনার সময়রেখাকে আরো ভালো করে তুলতে টুইটার এটিকে ব্যবহার করবে। পূর্বাবস্থায়পূর্বাবস্থায়
-
লোড হতে বেশ কিছুক্ষণ সময় নিচ্ছে।
টুইটার তার ক্ষমতার বাইরে চলে গেছে বা কোনো সাময়িক সমস্যার সম্মুখীন হয়েছে আবার চেষ্টা করুন বা আরও তথ্যের জন্য টুইটারের স্থিতি দেখুন।