Topic: 1mb per block and scalability - page 2. (Read 864 times)

I think that LIGHTNING NETWORK can make this possible because, for every transaction channel where can happen unlimited transaction there is only one transaction happening on the BLOCKCHAIN. why some are skeptical about Lightning network?

If bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency in existence, then yes, the 1mg thing would be a massive problem.

But if you look at the cryptocurrency space as a whole, you can see that most transactions are done outside of bitcoin - Ethereum for example usually does at least 300,000 transactions a day, and then of course there is ethereum classic, litecoin, monero, dash, doge etc.

So money is moving, it just isn't moving through bitcoin.

Can someone confirm SEGWIT is fully activated?

More frequent block generation is the only way to reduce confirmation times. Also, it goes some way to solving the scalability problems, and reduces the manipulation of the blockchain by creating empty or bloated blocks.

the issue with blocks and block size is that no matter how much you increase them, they will be filled at some point. and then you will be forced to increase it again and again,... and this will cause an issue with the total blockchain size and how nodes will eventually struggle to be a full node version and operate.

as much as i hate off chain solutions but in some cases they can reduce the pressure on the main chain so that it may lead to emptier blocks.
in any case we need to wait an see.

But SEGWIT is activated. But some information has to stay in the block for every transaction. we can't put everything in a transaction out of the blockchain. right?

correct me if im wrong, but i think if most of the miners (51%) decide to reject the transactions, the transactions will eventually be rejected by the network and either disappear (again, if im wrong correct me) or never be processed without a block being mined by a pool / miner specifically trying to confirm that transaction, rendering that transaction essentially useless without miners trying to confirm it (specifically).
the case in which a transaction might be 'deleted' is if the coins are double spent, but I doubt that'll ever happen with spam transactions.

bad idea tbh, core is slow to download the chain as is; nodes might have a lot of trouble keeping up if blocks ever get that big.

There must be a way to delete all the small "spam" transactions.This might leave some free space for all the other normal transactions in the 1mb block.The other members think that the Lighning Network will be the ultimate solution,but i`m skeptical about these offchain transactions.
Your question is already asked and answered before.It`s technically impossible to keep the 1mb block.
That`s why most of the people here are waiting for Segwit.

1GB block per 10 minutes is the best way to save the world 

It's likely possible, but it's more a question of whether it's optimal and what the potential costs and drawbacks in terms of efficiency and usage might be for persisting with an arbitrary cap that was arguably only meant to be temporary.  If demand vastly outpaces available throughput, this results in a backlog and poor service.  I assume you mean "possible, whilst still being efficient"?

The biggest question we currently face over developmental direction (in my opinion) is whether off-chain transactions are completely optional, or if they become the only viable way in which to transact because there isn't enough space on the backbone of the network to support all the participants.  There's also the all-too-apparent matter of rival implementations, possibly gaining popularity, which express no interest in maintaining a 1MB cap.  Ultimately, customers vote with their feet.

No, it's impossible to do so as far as we know. Current scalability proposals are definitely insufficient, even for short term.

Every transaction is a data, so even if you somehow compress every transaction to be just one byte (which is unrealistic), there still won't be enough space in 1mb block to handle as much transactions as Visa. The solution is second layer scaling like Lightning Network - transactions happen offchain, so they are instant, with no fees (or extremely small fees) and don't burden main chain in any way. Right now there's no alternative to this, because our technology is limiting cryptocurrency transactions to just a few transactions per second - this is how much average PC can handle without slowing down too much.

It depends on where the transactions will take place. The plan is to move majority of transactions to offchain solutions such as lightning and sidechains. Even if then the bitcoin blockchain is not able to support the transactions, there will be a hard fork by developers to increase the block size.

Hi,

currently there are on average 300 000 BTC transaction per day.

My question is : is it possible to keep 1 mb block (with technical solutions) while the transaction numbers per day increases to 1 million, 10 millions, 100 millions...?


I think that LIGHTNING NETWORK can make this possible because for every transaction channel where can happen unlimited transaction there is only one transaction happening on the BLOCKCHAIN. why some are skeptical about Lightning network?


People defending segwit2x don't understand how lightning network would work and can work with 1 mb block size with unlimited transaction per day.

People defending segwit2x and block size increasing, see it as the only way to lower fees and to scale BTC.

To those who are saying lightning network is bad :
1) Some people think that LN only lower fees for those who are doing a lot of transactions. If you stay in the lightning network a very long time, you will be able to do little transactions per unit of time and only paying once onchain transaction fee to get to the lightning network and once to get out. You will also pay for using lightning network every time you do a transaction but very little.
Even if Alice is doing one TX per month, If she stays 1 year in the channel, then, she will pay only once onchain transaction fee to get to the network and half onchain transaction fee (split between the two channel users) to get out.
2) some people think that you have to create a channel for every user you send money to. But no, you have to create only 1 channel with another user. Then you will be connected to the network and your transaction will find its way through the network to the user you want to pay. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms
3) LN will lead to centralization. why? If a LN is too centralized and make decision that make its user unhappy, then its users vote with their feet and leave the network, close their channel. They create a new network on their own. No big central entity will be capable of controlling this. Meanwhile, the blockchain remains with small size blocks enabling plenty of nodes that keep the system decentralized.

The way I see it is : Blockchain : the place where you store your value
                            LN : the place where you use your value to pay for things   

Our mission is to explain them how lightning network works for the sake of BTC in the long term because they just don't understand lightning network. This is just a question of communication but this can make BTC to the moon.



thanks