this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
1657 points (97.0% liked)

Memes

45663 readers
1086 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squiblet@kbin.social 68 points 1 year ago (56 children)

but how do I give someone .0045 cents for no apparent reason??

[–] AndreyAsimow@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don't forget the 40 dollar transaction fee

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only people that think this is correct are ones that learned about crypto 5 years ago and never thought to update their information. The lightning network allows for tiny bitcoin transactions with sub one cent transaction fees. In addition to that, the transactions happen in less than a second.

[–] TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As long as you have a channel with that person preconfigured and funded right? Otherwise you need to do an on chain transaction with on chain fees to set up that sub one cent transaction.

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

No. I have opened up exactly 1 channel with 1 other person years ago, and it was done automatically when I installed the app. Since then I have been able to send and receive bitcoin to anyone I've wanted to instantly and for a miniscule fraction of the amount that I have sent. I am really surprised, I had no idea that so much misinformation was being passed around amongst people who have never even decided to try it themselves or even look into it deeply at all.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shhhh, don't point out how there has to be a large pool of the currency sitting in someone's account and that the person often disappears with it all or spends it. That upsets their narrative. No regulation or oversite is GOOD.

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is absurd. It is impossible for anyone to disappear with the money, nothing like this has or even can happen. Please post any source even claiming this. I am baffled that it would even cross your mind to even make such an absurd claim. Please post a source.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's also centralized and just a bandaid over an issue that could have been solved if Bitcoin had stayed true to its original intention, i.e. digital cash, not a fake store of value.

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

This is absurd. Anyone who has the slightest idea of how it works knows that it is in no way centralized. It isn't hard to learn how it works.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everyone who believed this was true lost a lot of money betting on Bitcoin Cash.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh and show me people who bought Bitcoin in early 2021 that haven't lost cash please.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cherry picking, look at a log chart

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is saying that everyone who bought Bitcoin cash lost money considering today isn't all time low.

It's not as if I was here to defend Bitcoin cash, I'm here to point out that Bitcoin and lighting network is flawed though.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

split date != ATH

The rhetoric you're repeating is straight out of that scam. And you linked to their subreddit.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

You're the only one who talked about split date and if we go by that argument, whenever there's a hard fork the people who were there before will never be losing because they suddenly own both without having purchased one of them.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least Bitcoin cash stayed true to the goal of Bitcoin. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was also untrue. Electronic cash doesn't imply no/low transaction fees. Basically everything they told you was a lie.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Show me where in the whitepaper does it mentions storing value, please.

No/low transaction fees and ease of transaction is the main point of cash vs barter, Bitcoin abandoned that, now you have to go through the trouble of using level 2 to have small fees and quick transactions, what's the point of Bitcoin then?

[–] explodicle@local106.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. I've had this exact argument enough times that it was a relief to finally bet on it.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. **The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services.

Right in the introduction to the whitepaper.

Maybe you should start with reading it so you would see where things went wrong.

[–] ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol I think you upset a bunch of BTC fans just now 🤣

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm used to it 😁

[–] original_ish_name@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Monero transaction fees goes brrrrrrrrrrr

[–] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's less than 10 cents

load more comments (53 replies)