[jjcm]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here (I've been out of the crypto game for a couple years), but I don't think crypto holds up here. The nature of transaction fees with crypto is they scale exponentially with demand. Monero fees are low because volume is low. Bitcoin fees are high ($9.97 was the average transaction fee yesterday!) because volume is high.

Any fully decentralized crypto at the scale of use that the Web Monetization API would need would have enormous tx prices. There are ways to scale this, ie the lightning network, but those are essentially centralized solutions to scale.

[gamepsys]

The current bitcoin blocksize is limited to 1mb. This means, on average, only 1mb worth of transactions can be written to the ledger. With that 1mb we save thousands of transactions. When you pay a transaction fee you are essentially bidding on your data being written to the ledger every 10 minutes. You are correct that the more people bidding, the higher we can expect the price to be.

There is however no technical reason we should limit the blocksize to 1mb. We could have 10mb or even 100mb blocksizes easily. Realistically a 100mb block would be large enough to handle all transaction data our species currently generates.

The transaction fee is a considerable portion of miner's revenue. Miners ultimately are responsibility for making changes to the bitcoin protocol. I think it's unlikely bitcoin miners will vote for a higher blocksize because it will cause short term decreases in revenue. However, they are missing a potential boon from the Jevons paradox -- the cheaper a resource becomes to use the more of the resource we use.

So in summary, it's not really a technical limit to have a high transaction volume but we aren't likely to see it from the current big coins.

[tommica]

Does not seem to be a sustainable solution: if the amount of microtranfers increase, the blocksize is going to be an issue again

[gamepsys]

The number of real time electronic transactions is virtually guaranteed to increase. This is not only a big problem now, it's becoming a bigger problem over time. I consider the unwillingness of the bitcoin network to increase blocksize to be a critical flaw.

Edit: The problem is not 100mb is too small for the future. The problem is that just like we cannot go from 1mb to 100mb today, we would have no ability to go from 100mb to 1000mb when needed.

[epolanski]

Yet bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin were able to sway what later become to be known as Bitcoin Cash into the wrong fork.

[downWidOutaFite]

That was the reason for the fork of Bitcoin Cash, and indeed BCH blocks are bigger and fees are much smaller. But BTC is still inexplicably way more popular.

[epolanski]

Value of technology is not why people aggregate towards Bitcoin.

Otherwise it would've been long superseded by other chains.

Bitcoiners still arguing about the solidity of the network guaranteed by so much mining, yet virtually all the mining is in the hands of few specialized operations all knowing each other (so it's not really decentralized) and despite Ethereum proving new protocol to be a valid and safe alternative.

None of Bitcoin cultists at the end of the day understood that it wasn't about algorithms nor computers, but consensus among people.

And that consensus voted to have Bitcoin, the oldest and least technologically developed chain to be the "store of value" of cryptocurrencies.

[stickfigure]

> Realistically a 100mb block would be large enough to handle all transaction data our species currently generates.

Nonsense.

With the current block size and average transaction size, the bitcoin network processes ~7 transactions per second. A 100X increase in block size gets you to 700 transactions per second. A quick google says global credit card transactions currently average more than 21,000 per second.

You're still almost two orders of magnitude off, and that's just existing credit card transactions.

[gamepsys]

Maybe my global transaction number is off. I'm not sure if the blockchain algo would have other bottlenecks when at 10gb blocks which is the size it would need to grow in order to accommodate 70k/sec. Certainly storage and network transfer is sufficient enough. It seems pretty feasible to process 16.67 MBps of data even on inefficient algorithms.

[stickfigure]

With 10G blocks @ ~144 block per day, that's almost 1.5 TB per day.

The complete blockchain is currently about half a TB.

According to bitcoin technology experts, a network of Full Nodes is more secure than a network of Partial Nodes. Right now almost anyone can run a Full Node. If you make the blockchain grow by 1.5 TB per day, only big corporations will be able to run Full Nodes.

So no, existing storage and network transfer is not sufficient for large block sizes, at least not for the current way we validate BTC transactions. I assume if there was a good technology fix for the full/partial node issue, it would have been implemented already.

[cchance]

Why are you comparing this to bitcoin, bitcoin was never meant to be a fast network lol it was to be a network for cash to sit in "digital gold"...

Other networks were designed for speed and others are working on it (etherum with layer 2 networks, and more speed focused networks, for instance as was mentioned Nano was doing 1200-1500tps years ago, with plans for increases not sure if thtey eer went further.

The problem is crypto has a few solid real projects and a billion loud useless scam/spam projects that make the idea of "crypto" look like its all trash, finding the networks that actually have something to really give to the world is hard.

[acchow]

> bitcoin was never meant to be a fast network lol it was to be a network for cash to sit in "digital gold"...

Your claim is opposed to the contents of the original Bitcoin whitepaper

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[starttoaster]

That white paper was written when? 2008, give or take a couple years? "Speed," as we refer to it, is relative to the age. In 2008, the threshold for terms like "fast" was much lower than it is today.

[_heimdall]

Where are you getting "speed is relative to age" from? As far as I'm aware 100mph in 2008 is the same as 100mph today, and 10 minutes hasn't changed either.

The bitcoin white paper clearly describes the goal as a digital cash with and low fee transactions without the used of a trusted third party. We have none of those today in bitcoin.

[nradov]

In 2008 I could make instant, secure online payments with credit cards.

[bruce511]

You'll earn downvotes for the speed part, but this part is spot on;

>> The problem is crypto has a few solid real projects and a billion loud useless scam/spam projects that make the idea of "crypto" look like its all trash, finding the networks that actually have something to really give to the world is hard

Congrats to the OP who sent money to Vietnam. It's a fantastic use case. But as a non-crypto user I can't do that with crypto because I don't know which site to trust and which is a scam.

And -reputationally- they are -all scams-, some just haven't been caught yet.

(I know, I know, there are honest players, but even the -big names I recognise- get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, that taints everyone)

[BlueTemplar]

Age would seem to be a good indicator ?

Incompetents like MtGox and FTX lasted only a few years. OP claims the service they used has been operating for a decade already.

Same for the underlying tech : Bitcoin, Etherium and even Monero have also been around for a decent amount of time. (Of course you might refuse to use them for other reasons, like the wasteful power usage of Bitcoin or the money laundering enabled by Monero.)

(Note that this can generally be applied to anything money-related...)

[jamilton]

As mentioned, Nano is inherently feeless. In theory it's supposed to remain fast and reliable at high network usage, and as of right now it's very fast, but it's only doing about 26k tx/day (about the same as Monero) so it's hard to say.

[PhilippGille]

> There are ways to scale this, ie the lightning network, but those are essentially centralized solutions to scale.

Some nodes are more popular than others for open a channel to, but there are still several thousands, so calling it centralized is misleading.

[j0hnyl]

It depends on the chain. Some chains can support high throughput at low fees.

[tromp]

Sure; they can. By sacrificing the very properties Bitcoin was designed for: decentralization and censorship resistance.

[j0hnyl]

Which would mostly be fine for this usecase. Also, these properties wouldn't need to be abandoned entirely. Bitcoin in its current form isn't really a great model for this anyway.

[rglullis]

Theoretically.

[rglullis]

The worst part of lightning is not even the centralization but the capital inefficiency. By definition, any money locked in a payment channel can not be used for anything else.

[ptsd_dalmatian]

this is the point of lightning network for btc, way lower costsand nearly instantaneous transactions. I haven’t tried it so far.

[epolanski]

Because it's still theory 7 years after announcement it has been proven again and again to not be a real alternative.

[madacol]

Lightning has had lots of problems, but most of those are fixable through software or gets better and better with adoption (at least in theory).

The reason adoption has been so low is that with current hardware you cannot run a full node in a phone, so you either get a server to run a full node or you trade-off some control/security of your coins

There are still other theoretical problems, mostly things like denial-of-services, but adoption has been what has stagnated it.

The hardware/control tradeoff is a real PITA, we need a phone with like 50x more battery or efficient to be able to run lightning in a completely self-custodial manner

And there are still some people advocating for blocksize increase, which will make the problems of lightning even worse