You can downvote this because you're mad that blockchain exists, for those who don't know the actual real life use case: Bitcoin has been around for 15 years, it is a blockchain. It has a real life use case.

I can send money, with my android phone, from my couch, in my underwear, to anybody else on planet earth who also has a phone and a halfway reliable internet connection. The transaction is not only sent, but actually settles, in under a second with Bitcoin lightning. And I pay pennies in fees. No going to the bank, no bank holidays, no paying wire fees or making sure their bank can talk to my bank. It's just simple and instant and it works. It doesn't matter if they are a dissident or if their country doesn't allow women to own bank accounts, the transaction goes through anyways. In many countries, their app can also instantly convert that BTC into the currency of their choice and deposit it to their bank account. That's assuming they have access to stable banking infrastructure, which billions of people do not.

Bitcoin has delivered on its promise of being a currency with a capped supply (21 million coins) and transaction system consistently for 15 years without a single hack, without a single hour of downtime, without a single hiccup. It just works.

You can argue that Bitcoin isn't better than . You can argue that there are "better" solutions. But it has a clear use case. I use it on a daily basis and it has a fifteen year trend of continued growth whether you are looking at total market cap (bigger than Sweden's GDP), number of nodes, number of transactions, whatever.

Most everything negative you've heard about Bitcoin is either hyperbolic or about other crypto. FTX wasn't Bitcoin. Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin. For more information, FAQs, and myth-busting, check out http://bitcoin.rocks

[–] Deflaktor@beehaw.org 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not even sure why I'm bothering replying to this bot, but guess misinformation should not be left alone

It's not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It's not even clear how many confirmations are enough.
It's only instant if you use the lightning network. Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin. If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?
fees are huge and will only increase in the future.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not a bot, I'm just an idiot.

It’s not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It’s not even clear how many confirmations are enough.

You're thinking of main chain (which takes 10 minutes for the next block), though I would take a zero-conf transaction in any situation that isn't moving more money than a day's labor. A single confirmation means it made it into the next block which should be plenty for 99% of situations. If you're selling your house, maybe a wait a 2-3 blocks to be sure. Lightning is instant and uses main chain for security but does settlement/transaction data off-chain.

Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin.

It's not, you don't need a bank to use it. Banks don't settle instantly, banks have chargebacks, banks required six forms of ID, banks can't reach some places, banks may discriminate. Lightning is Bitcoin. You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning, and when you close your channel, you get the appropriate amount of BTC back. You can run a lightning node on a phone, a "routing" node on a raspberry pi, it's just as decentralized and trustless as the main chain is. You can open a channel directly w the person you're transacting with or you can forward the transaction through other channels/nodes, all trustlessly, all instantly, all automatically. Nobody ever has custody of the funds aside from you and your intended recipient. There's no central custodian (like a bank) you have to trust.

If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?

Main chain and lightning have different use cases. Use main chain for long-term storage of funds or large transactions. Use lightning for everyday spending. Main chain secures lightning transactions. Main chain is layer one, lightning is layer two, it's possible there will be more layers, just like SMTP is built on TCP which is built on Ethernet or whatever.

fees are huge and will only increase in the future.

Main chain fees are around $1.50 for the next block, which is still cheaper than a bank wire or other equivalent payment methods in many situations. You're right though, they are expected to increase as adoption increases, but lightning has scaled that available blockspace several orders of magnitude. Lightning fees are <1% in almost all instances and aren't expected to increase since they are not tied directly to main chain fees and no mining is required. A lightning transaction uses about as much CPU power as sending an e-mail. A single main chain transaction can open a lightning channel. You can have billions of transactions inside a lightning channel.

[–] Deflaktor@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I apologize, it looked like copy pasta.

You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning,

You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's fair, I assume a lot of people are bots too, but I like lemmy because it's mostly not bots :).

You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.

You are right, if you want to send directly from your wallet to another user's wallet with no middlemen, you need to have a channel open with that user, which you totally can and will save you on fees in the long-term if you transact with that person frequently. But I don't do this because it's un-necessary, you can also send funds to any other person on lightning via these middlemen. The middlemen don't have custody of the funds, they can't block/reverse/do anything with the transaction aside from just forward it along. You can choose who those "middlemen" are, they are usually selected based on the lowest expected fee. They route data around, if they are banks, then so are other Bitcoin nodes you connect to on main chain. But we don't think of them as banks right? They just relay data around and they're decentralized. You are right that they share a similar function of routing payments, the difference is in how they do that and who controls what parts of that process. Banks have immense power over your funds. Lightning nodes you route a payment through have none and anybody can run one.

[–] khorak@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The last time I had to send 30 Euro to someone, I had to pay 5 Euro for gas fees. It used to be even worse. Your statements are bullshit, we all know what the usual use cases are (other than speculation)

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

5 Euros seems like a pretty standard fee for a Bitcoin transfer, which is insanely cheap for large transfers. Your 30 Euro transaction is more suitable for the lightning network, which handles off-chain transactions for much lower fees. The person you were responding to was specifically talking about the lightning network.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has collapsed like three times in the last like 7 years dawg.

But it has a clear use case.

Sure, I suppose, if you count things like "destroying the environment" and "lining Nvidia's pockets" as "use cases".

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hey, you forgot being the world's slowest payment processor

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

and one of the world's most scammer-friendly and least-anonymous

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

Bitcoin has collapsed like three times in the last like 7 years dawg.

If you bought 1 BTC 15 years ago, you still have 1 BTC. It has not collapsed. The price relative to USD has collapsed a few times, but the average trend is growth. Bitcoin does not guarantee any price relative to any other currency, because it can't, all it can guarantee is a stable supply of currency. The USD, in that time period, has lost >20% of its purchasing power as well, so the USD also "crashed".

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it would be nice if the price of bitcoin was stable enough that when I sent $100 to somebody it wouldn't be a gamble whether what they actually received was double or half that

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is. Lightning transactions confirm in under a second, you can sell those instantly via an exchange. The price is not that unstable and already more stable than many national currencies. You can guarantee that they receive the same amount of BTC.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't care about amount of BTC, I care about amount of dollars. It may also surprise you to learn that I don't care about countries where the currency is so unstable that a currency that can double in value in the space of a few months has it beat.

If bitcoin is going to become usable as a currency, even in niche circles, it has two problems to solve: energy use (three quarters of a megawatt hour per transaction, according to Forbes!) and conversion stability. I don't want keeping money in my wallet to be a high risk investment.