With the current high fee environment, it got me thinking about the impact of on-chain fees on things like Satscards and Opendimes. Are these hardware devices going to become increasingly fixed/non-swept going into the future? What do you think?
pull down to refresh
224 sats \ 0 replies \ @POTUS 11 Dec 2023
I think these are great 2nd layer solutions!
reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsrealfake 12 Dec 2023
Opendimes need better physical properties before they could be used for this. It's a nice thought, and I don't disagree with you... but they're too fragile right now.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Zepasta 11 Dec 2023
deleted by author
reply
112 sats \ 3 replies \ @POTUS 11 Dec 2023
Basically if you sale something to someone who pays with a 500k sat open dime, instead of taking it and sweeping it to a wallet you just leave the 500k on the open dime and plan on holding or spending it somewhere else.
If fees are really high this is a way of transacting bitcoin with no transaction fees
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @KLT 1 Feb
Wish opendimes would get more love. I could completely see this scenario. Many people can reuse the same opendime over and over again. Outside of loss, they’re pretty well built so the odds of them being damaged, especially if you put them in a capsule, are low.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zepasta 11 Dec 2023
deleted by author
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @5centvalentine OP 12 Dec 2023
Yeah, sorry. I should have made that a bit more clear. Sweeping the sats from the device requires an on-chain transaction, so I was interested in people's thoughts on this paradigm that arises as fees increase.
It is a tough thing in my mind because the hardware does not have a back up, so if the funds are not swept, the card or OD can malfunction and the funds are lost. As a result, the bearer of the device is faced with the decision to sweep the funds to a wallet they control the keys to (requiring an on-chain tx) or trust the integrity of the hardware and enshrine the UTXO, risking it all.
reply