
Paying $15 to Send $25 Has Bitcoin Users Rethinking Practicality - mbgaxyz
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/paying-15-to-send-25-has-bitcoin-users-rethinking-practicality
======
freech
You know how much I'm justified to spend to protect myself from loosing 2% of
my money in one year, due to the central bank adding 2% to the money supply?

If my time horizon is 1 year?

That's right: 2%

If my time horizon is x years?

-0.98^x + 1

15$ in transaction fees is nothing.

Also, props for the title, which mentions the money sent as if that were
relevant for the transaction fee, as if the transaction were a percentage of
that.

~~~
ramblerman
For a lot of people Bitcoin was what was going to disrupt the online payments
market, removing the monopoly of the credit cards. Ridiculous transaction fees
and slow payments don't help that goal.

The digital gold narrative is newer and perhaps more powerful but I wouldn't
call the transaction fees irrelevant.

~~~
CyberDildonics
> The digital gold narrative is newer and perhaps more powerful but I wouldn't
> call the transaction fees irrelevant.

The digital gold narrative comes from the blockstream|core|/r/bitcoin
narrative that is desperate to keep the block size limit from expanding
because their entire business plan is based around it. Anyone with common
sense can see that a currency without fluid transactions is not very valuable,
but with the constant and excessive censorship on /r/bitcoin and bitcoin talk
some people have bought into thinking this somehow makes sense.

------
Rallerbabs
Baloney. Transactions have been very cheap for the past few months.

Fees only go high when big blockholes are logjamming the mempool with spammy 1
satoshi transactions, in a misguided attempt to further their big block
agenda.

