A decent number of merchants have decided to remove the option to pay via Bitcoin since the small bubble in merchant adoption back in 2014, and evidence of the lack of growth in retail payments these days can be seen directly on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Ya, I have said I think BTC is in trouble because the blocks are filling up before the price rises and people start trying to use it for trading in growing amounts. They may blame "Spam", but, the spam they used to blame may have been real TXs. Now a days there are new uses filling up the blocks:
There aren’t many signs of growth in Bitcoin payments on the horizon, as the current month of February is on pace to have fewer payments than February 2016.
CryptoOnlyRedditor for less than 6 months3 weeks ago
The vast majority of posts I see on my feed from this sub are about what bitcoin is not doing... its like a browse /r/bitcoin to see what it is doing and /r/btc to see what it’s not doing and hear criticism.
Would be good if /r/btc got back to scaling and bringing cheap payments to the world.
Of course it is. Its use as what it was created to be - peer to peer electronic cash (the title of the effing white paper) - has been deemphasized by Blockstream in favor of calling it a store of value. Which disregards the fact that a SoV is primarily stable, it's something you store value in so you know you can get it out later. Which is so far from crypto volatility it's not even funny to call it a SoV - it's obviously nothing of the sort.
For it to gain adoption, it has to be fast and dirt cheap. And with a 1MB block size that's far from the case. BTC with Segwit and RBF is a pretty crap coin, that doesn't even adhere to its original white paper.
If there was some pent up demand for crypto as a means to pay for coffee etc. I'm sure a competing project would have seen success with that. Especially considering that Bitcoin doesn't have a marketing budget like it's competitors.
Until someone strictly defines the word "payment" this discussion would nowhere. I agree with you though, transfers of wealth may have peaked in December 2017 but I don't think transactions costing $5 and more as they were back then would classify as payments anymore
> Until someone strictly defines the word "payment" this discussion would nowhere
The article defines what it means by payment and how it estimates that by assuming 1 change address if 2+ outputs and by ignoring op_returns. The data is accurate according to the calculation being used.
There will never be an accurate, reliable way to differentiate businesses' internal wallet transactions, individuals sending coin to individuals or to pay for for goods and services, or individuals just moving coin to/from an exchange. A rational discussion of the hard numbers must consider them all to be payments.
Numbers from payment processors would give us a degree of insight. If we knew what addresses they use to receive payments, we could narrow it down considerably. My guess is that coins moving to and from exchanges peaked during that time (being price sensitive), with some of the other categories dipping in number (being fee sensitive)
I can offer some payment processor data: 2018 was bitpays most successfull year with \~$1bln of revenue and 95% of usage is btc. [https://bitcoinist.com/bitpay-bitcoin-95-business-ceo/](https://bitcoinist.com/bitpay-bitcoin-95-business-ceo/)
I've taken the time to check the sources of this article. Most of them are posts that eventually base their conclusions on the fact that fees exploded between december 2017 and january 2018. They all point to mining fees increasing because of increased usage during the hype.
This is a common narrative here; bitcoin didn't scale, fees went to $50, ergo: we need bigger blocks.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't confirm the theory; if you look at the daily amount of transactions and the daily average fee in sat/byte, you would expect the fees to show some correlation. We are currently processing the same amount of transactions as june 2017 or mid-august 2017. Fees are still insignificant, while back then, they were much higher.
Fact is that in 2017, most exchanges didn't batch their transactions, with Coinbase being the biggest perp in that regard. Now, they do. Back then, wallet fee estimation wildly overshot the required amount in fees, by several orders of magnitude. These algorithms have improved, as 1 sat/byte is enough for most users to transact, since immediate inclusion is not required for most transactions. Segwit also removed much of the issue, since there is now an average of 1.3Mb per block.
It's easy. No one overpaid fees because they wanted to. Small blocks created a competitive environment where people bid over each other in fees just to get in the next block.
Ask how I know, my TX was stuck in the mempool for 12+hours in December. 1st hand experience.
>The value of BTC slid in 12 hours in December. Lost a lot of money waiting for BTC to confirm.
Huh??? You lost money because the tx wasn't confirming??? So what, if price went up you would have made money? What are you smoking?
You paid X sat/b, which you would have paid regardless of Bitcoin price. And if you selected a lower fee, you'd be completely exposed to market moves. Your previous comment is completely broken, it makes no sense at all.
it sure does. Like you mentionted due to Bitcoin being volatile and long wait times during volatile periods. Price can slide up or down until your TX finally gets accepted.
You can tell people that money isn't lost when the price dips 10% after 12 hours. I'm sure they'll agree with you.
Now I don't know anymore if you're just fucking dumb or intentionally misleading. Above I thought you just made a mistake, so I clarified, but now you're doubling down.
Read this again, and THINK before you reply:
nothing misleading about price sliding and not being able to lock in a price in a due time window. It's the same issue Steam/Dell/Microsoft had and cited when they dropped Bitcoin.
Recently Stripe dropped support for Bitcoin for the same reasons:
> Transaction confirmation times have risen substantially; this, in turn, has led to an increase in the failure rate of transactions denominated in fiat currencies. **(By the time the transaction is confirmed, fluctuations in Bitcoin price mean that it’s for the “wrong” amount.)**
They too don't agree with your arguments and they are a big merchant not a reddit commenter.
Unfortunately, this chain analysis doesn't appear to include any second layer analysis. While I take major issue with the ultimate scalability of 2nd layer "solutions," I think it's disingenuous to ignore that 2nd layer transactions do happen from time to time.
Edit - all I'm saying is this article would land much harder if they did come up with a way to count, or at least accurately estimate the number of LN transactions. Without that, it can be dismissed without consideration to anyone who firmly believes in the LN.
The article now has an update at the end addressing this and justifying it. They are using a specific metric to define a payment, which they share, and they are clear that using this method results in just an estimate, and necessarily excludes 2nd layer payments.
You're talking to [the dude that algorithmically showed how LN scales worse than the base chain](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9dx24f/a_hopefully_mathematically_neutral_comparison_of/).
All I am saying is that the author chose to analyze onchain transactions only.
While I personally doubt there are enough LN transactions to make up the difference, it's still a glaring hole in the research given the headline.
I've seen it. He opened 25BTC worth in channels with an increased default fee. Since routing currently selects routes with the lowest fee, that made his node less interesting for everyone else in the network.
He played around with fee settings, and nothing substantial happended. Anyway, feel free to come up with other numbers. If it is more attractive than having my money in a low-yield bond I might consider setting up one (LN node) myself :-)
> Well that’s why this is a “gotcha” post. It’s delegitimizing the 2nd layer by excluding it from transaction count.
Okay, add 1000 to the number of transactions.
That might be a bit generous though, and most LN transactions are tests anyway, not actual real world usage.
Though OP probably means on-chain transactions, in which case the LN could simply be ignored.
Neophyte-Crypto Expert | QC: CT 69, CC 43, BUTT 43 weeks ago
No surprises here, why use a volatile cureency that costs money to acquire and requires me being my own bank I.e securing wallet and private keys. Plus its slow, 6 confs or realisticly 3 is enough but that's 30 mins. Also even with LN it still is volatile.
If I use my credit card and pay the balance. I get rid of depreciating fiat. Merchant eats the 2% fee. If the merchant screws me or someone steals my cc I call up the bank.
Crypto has very few legit cases for gen payment. Dnm buying drugs or possibly avoiding international transaction fees with a credit card. My bank refunds International transaction fees on my card.
I've never believed in crypto for gen payment. Maybe a stable coin coin work out.
The exception is privacy or getting money out of hight inflationary countries. Better off with private coin like monero to buy ur drugs and a stable coin respectively
Uh. Get rid of depreciating fiat? If you spend your fiat on buying cryptos, you also get rid of depreciating fiat and gain... uh, currently depreciating crypto, but at least in theory it could appreciate in value.
Crypto has many use cases that are compelling. For instance, actual peer to peer transactions, as the white paper says. Private individuals can transact directly without middlemen. That's huge, and that's also why cryptos are getting lots of attention places where people are underbanked or totally unbanked.
But of course, BTC is almost useless for them. If you want to send someone a dollar and it costs you 25 cents, the whole concept falls flat. If it costs half a cent, it's perfectly feasible.
Oh, and for all you "But muh LN!" people - there are what, 5000 people and organizations trying the pre-alpha quality LN now? It's nothing but a pipe dream so far, and some doubt it can ever be made workable. The 24/7 uptime requirement alone is loony. Nothing has 24/7 uptime.