Do you think you're being reasonable in saying that? I think micropayments are desperately needed, and I don't see modern payment networks doing anything to get there
"We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it"
"Micropayments are desperately needed" - this is true.
"I don't see modern payment networks doing anything to get there" - this is also true.
Neither of those imply we must solve this problem with Bitcoin, and neither of them contradict OP's statement. Bitcoin is slow, energy inefficient, and a shit transaction currency because of philosophies built into the creation of the coin. It's a fine speculative asset, but by this point in its existence, it should be pretty obvious it's not an actually useful currency for this kind of exchange.
> "Micropayments are desperately needed" - this is true.
Probably not. They've been proposed all the way back to Chaum's DigiCash, but no micropayment system has ever really taken off. Not just crypto schemes. Schemes to put micropayments on your cellular phone bill were a flop. Even 976 numbers never got traction outside of dial-a-porn and have mostly died out.
All the enthusiasm for micropayments comes from people who want to collect them. Not from consumers wanting to send them.
The commenter has constructed a strawman argument by misrepresenting the original position on L402 and Lightning Network payments. They conflate issues with the base Bitcoin network with the Lightning Network, which L402 actually uses.
Strawman arguments against Bitcoin often stem from a combination of factors: the complexity and rapid evolution of the technology, widespread misunderstandings fueled by media simplification, resistance to financial system changes, and a lack of technical knowledge among critics. These issues are compounded by confirmation bias, lingering associations with Bitcoin's controversial past, and sometimes vested interests in traditional systems. Overcoming these strawman arguments requires ongoing education and clear communication about Bitcoin's current capabilities and limitations.
Also, Lighting is capable of using other blockchains.
If you really want micropayments, then use one of the newer, better base systems that do the same things better on every metric, including not ripping through half a percent of the electricity generated in the world.
Even if Bitcoin were the only choice available, micropayments aren't needed desperately enough to justify the climate impact. But in fact it's not.
If censorship resistance and reliability are your metrics, there really isn't a serious competitor. There is huge incentive to claim to be so, however!
But if you're trying to build something for decades, as you should be for internet infrastructure, there isn't much option.
Micropayments, especially when coupled with authentication for APIs, are desperately needed for AI calls (think tokens). And, mining costs have nothing to do with validating payments, so it doesn't cost more to run transactions over Lightning.
> including not ripping through half a percent of the electricity generated in the world.
Lightning network consumes half of the energy on the planet?
Because L402 pretty clearly states that it uses Lightning and not plain Bitcoin. Using the power consumption of all Bitcoin would be deceptive and dishonest.
Bitcoin Cash works for small payments as Bitcoin was originally designed to do.
Artificially limiting the block size to try and push fees up as high as possible is simply not a good designe choice that was added long after Satoshi left.
roughly|1 year ago
"Micropayments are desperately needed" - this is true.
"I don't see modern payment networks doing anything to get there" - this is also true.
Neither of those imply we must solve this problem with Bitcoin, and neither of them contradict OP's statement. Bitcoin is slow, energy inefficient, and a shit transaction currency because of philosophies built into the creation of the coin. It's a fine speculative asset, but by this point in its existence, it should be pretty obvious it's not an actually useful currency for this kind of exchange.
Animats|1 year ago
Probably not. They've been proposed all the way back to Chaum's DigiCash, but no micropayment system has ever really taken off. Not just crypto schemes. Schemes to put micropayments on your cellular phone bill were a flop. Even 976 numbers never got traction outside of dial-a-porn and have mostly died out.
All the enthusiasm for micropayments comes from people who want to collect them. Not from consumers wanting to send them.
clarkmoody|1 year ago
kordlessagain|1 year ago
Strawman arguments against Bitcoin often stem from a combination of factors: the complexity and rapid evolution of the technology, widespread misunderstandings fueled by media simplification, resistance to financial system changes, and a lack of technical knowledge among critics. These issues are compounded by confirmation bias, lingering associations with Bitcoin's controversial past, and sometimes vested interests in traditional systems. Overcoming these strawman arguments requires ongoing education and clear communication about Bitcoin's current capabilities and limitations.
Also, Lighting is capable of using other blockchains.
Hizonner|1 year ago
If you really want micropayments, then use one of the newer, better base systems that do the same things better on every metric, including not ripping through half a percent of the electricity generated in the world.
Even if Bitcoin were the only choice available, micropayments aren't needed desperately enough to justify the climate impact. But in fact it's not.
ballofrubber|1 year ago
RustyRussell|1 year ago
But if you're trying to build something for decades, as you should be for internet infrastructure, there isn't much option.
kordlessagain|1 year ago
throw10920|1 year ago
Lightning network consumes half of the energy on the planet?
Because L402 pretty clearly states that it uses Lightning and not plain Bitcoin. Using the power consumption of all Bitcoin would be deceptive and dishonest.
kylebenzle|1 year ago
Artificially limiting the block size to try and push fees up as high as possible is simply not a good designe choice that was added long after Satoshi left.
RustyRussell|1 year ago