pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 2 Jan \ parent \ on: Have You Ever Bought an Inscription/BRC20? bitcoin
Be careful what you wish for. $100 in fiat per transaction makes an L2 Lightning Network less viable under this macro.
Why would anyone risk capital in channels if a stray HTLC could burn $100+?
Minimum channel sizes would need to increase.
Suddenly, to protect nodes, the minimum HTLC size > $100.
Then we need a L3+ for coffee payments again?
L1 - $100k/1M min fee
L2 - $100 min fee
L3 - $1? min fee?
L4 - 1 sat min fee?
All so a bunch of barbarians can graffiti some ugly jpegs?
Why are we burning down everything we have built in this space for the last few years because a few hundred ignorant jpeg and shitcoin enthusiasts can rip each other off?
Priorities are way off.
Channels are going to increase in size dramatically. That’s a good thing - channels work way better and defeat LN’s disadvantages when large channels are at play.
1 LN node - even channel - per person doesn’t scale to what it needs to operate at. JPEGs are not the issue here but rather scaling. Ordinals and Taproot Assets work far differently. Even without their existence, we can’t scale to the needed capacity with only 2 layers. Relatively, the JPEGs and shitcoiners take up a very small amount of capacity. Onchain fees being forced higher is a guarantee, so things like ordinals etc just won’t work. More efficient solutions are needed. Not that they should be prioritised though
reply
Take a look at the visor on mempool -- ordispam is currently 60% of predicted mempool next block.
Agreed that JPEG is only a minor part, the biggest problem is people with an incentive to burn the entire UTXO on fees writing an out of protocol json blobs.
How can UTXO spender compete? How can the LN channel creator compete?
If we want to push for more layers, we need to ensure those base layers are able to handle the metatraffic of the upper layers.
Maybe its time to modify the transaction weightings (increase the maximum possible block size). The best argument put forward by the spammers is that a fee market must exist to reward miners. I agree with this part. We can reward the miners by increasing the number of transactions included. But this calculus is contentious and difficult to nail down.
reply
reply
Possibly in the short term.
I think there are many magnitudes more Bitcoiners who value sats as fungible units, wish to hold UTXOs for time and savings, and benefit from the open nature of Bitcoin. "Sats aren't real" is bullshit to Bitcoiners. Sats are the only real thing in this space.
However, if the shittokeners are given an incentive to create those transactions in the first place, they can overwhelm the Bitcoiners. A 100ksat UTXO will only ever be worth <100ksats (minus fees) to spend, but if you can convince an idiot that your transaction with a 100ksat fee (handed to miners) is worth >1M sats+, and people give a marketplace and credence to such fantasies, the system cannot function to process <100k UTXOs. It barely functions to process 1M UTXOs, as this would be a 10% loss of funds to tx fees, totally unsustainable.
This kind of bullshit wall street alchemy is antithesis of Bitcoin!
reply
Agreed. There are valid use cases, but ordinals are just ruining the chain capacity. That said, I imagine this is more of a short term concern than a long term one - bitcoin's usecase as money will push ordinals out the market at some point in the future.
There are usecases for custom fungible and non fungible assets. Those should be handled by highly efficient protocols like Taproot Assets. TA and Ordinals work in far different ways. TA can settle any number of custom asset transactions onchain in a single small Taproot transaction. One UTXO. If Ordinals move to this more efficient mechanism, either by choice or being forced to by the market, their small usecase would have a representative footprint on chain as well. But then a lot of the current users are grifters who are likely lazy and won't actually move until the fee market forces them to.
I would recommend moving smaller UTXOs to higher layers however, as fees will continue to increase and your 100ksat UTXO will become dust in that practically guaranteed future environment.
reply