Topic: Advise: Too much customers equals much problems to contend with. (Read 155 times)

If all users decide to send Bitcoin, there will not be enough space to include all transactions in one block. Since the space is small and blocks are produced in an average of 10 minutes, decentralization has limitations regarding the number of transactions per second, but Bitcoin is not originally intended to be an alternative to banks or the monetary system, and therefore It is not necessary for all people to use it.

Thier customer service will not change, but I think the problem here is scaling their system to accommodate more users, also its not always the bank system its about the third party software issues, that are the one having problem, sometimes their system had finish the transactions but the one that having problem is the system in between which they don't have control over with, when it comes to crypto currency, some issues are bugs which are fix if the issues where reported properly, on crypto network congestion are some of the issue we always encounter.

The comparison here is illogical, as competition between companies will improve their services, and without competition, the services will be poor. On the other hand, most of the cryptocurrencies are designed to buy more Bitcoin and just make their developers rich.
The problem you raise is Bitcoin's scalability problem and it has been discussed in many threads, just search for it.

I believe that the increase of Bitcoin users will not crash it's network, because I also believe that the Blockchain is designed to accommodate as many users transactions as possible. Not very knowledgeable in the field because I don't know if the Blockchain capacity can be expanded if the need arises, if not it'll affect the Bitcoin adoption in the future. Although one thing is certain as you have noted, the Bitcoin network congestion is a very big concern, because when there are lots of transactions to be confirmed, the mempool gets congested that leads to delays in confirmations and high transaction fees. This can be a clog in the wheels of it's smooth adoption.

OP I want you to understand that what makes a system stronger and more reliable is if it is experiencing high patronage or high customers being involved because that's the only way the system can be trusted by people like something that you see so many persons get involved in are normally really difficult to collapse because you can't handle the pressure of the numerous people that are involved in that system.

Inasmuch as cryptocurrencies are concerned, it is only when it is experiencing increase in the number of individuals that are interested in acquiring it that can make the system have a smooth direction towards it's adoption because when a high number of masses are involved, you know what it means as the voice of the masses are meant to be respected and obeyed so I don't see anything wrong with cryptocurrencies gaining more recognition or causing congestion in the system as those are the steps that will solidify the system and make it easy to be adopted by all.

The more users there are, the higher the demand for block space is. The more activities there are on the network, the busier it gets. There will be congestion. There will be competition in fees. Those that pay higher, of course, are most likely prioritized. You'd feel a little frustration. You'd wonder this would all end up especially in terms of adoption as real-world money. But, yes, in times when Bitcoin fees seem unbearable, there are other cryptocurrencies that serve as good alternatives.

You can take a look at two biggest cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ethereum. Those leading cryptocurrencies, with biggest market cap, got problems with their blockchains like in 2017, 2018 bull run with Segwit upgrade, Lightning Network for Bitcoin and ICO wave caused massive congestion on Ethereum blockchain and reached to a high with Crypto Kitties.

Because of sudden growth of demands, those blockchains got problems but they upgraded and became better. Again, in 2020 and 2021, some problems occurred again and with Bitcoin we see good adoption growth for Lightning Network, with Ethereum, some more upgrades.

Again in 2023 and I believe in next two bullish years 2024 and 2025, more problems will be seen on Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains but they appear to be solved by developers.

Don't trust on new blockchains, they will soon show their weakness and problems technically.

Having influx of users of customer to the BTC network simply means adoption, and people adopting BTC will only make it grow.  As far as we know BTC network process transaction automatically with the help of miners to confirm transaction.  If there is influx of users that it exceed the maximum numer of transactions that can be process by block, the only problem would be the delay of the transaction and possible high fees if they compete to be confirmed first.


I believe they can be adjusted to handle the capacity if the users are too much for the network to handle.  Remember cryptocurrency networks can be adjusted and developed if in times the network can't handle the number of users who are using the network.

Bitcoin network can definitely handle any number of users but the major problem is the scalability when transactions are made, with the size of block been 1MB (4 MB due to SegWit transactions protocol), they will be network congestion like we are seeing currently which causes high fees. But apart from this I don’t think any problem like that with traditional banking systems were the main server issue affects all transactions will cause a problem to bitcoin because it doesn’t have a central server.

I really don't know how the bitcoin network is, but one thing is certain : if a network appears to be too busy processing more transactions per second than it usually does, there will be some delay in transaction processing speed, which will be noticed by many. Could that be considered a negative effect on the network for me ? Yes.
 
It works that way in the banking sector. I have come across and experienced an almost 24-hour network downtime in one of my local banks, which I made use of. They later diagnosed and figured out it was due to an increase in traffic, and the demand to process a transaction request was really too high, which resulted in breaking down the network. They later came up with a solution, but this was after close to 24-hours of inconvenience, so I think every network has its own break limit.

You are trying to compare a centralised platform with a decentralized coin. The pitfalls of banks is the strength of Bitcoin because you don't have an intermediary to engage in the Bitcoin transaction so the problems that are faced in banks will not surface.

Don't forget that Bitcoin has a limited cap and mining Bitcoin was well designed to accommodate transactions at a certain period. Bitcoin is currently going through an attack by Bitcoin Ordinals which has led to high transaction fees due to mempool congestion. The system will not crash but it will slow transactions and increase tx fees. However, increasing the block size could help reduce the delay in transactions, but doing that also has disadvantages.


I don't know much about altcoins because my focus is Bitcoin. I know that Bitcoin can handle its customers because it is capped.

No, traffic or massive adoption is not what will crash the network and cannot, it will rather make it more stronger and trusted by many, what can only crash the bitcoin network is when everything about it protocols cease to exist or work in consensus, however, we should know that the chances for that is very very low or impossible to say the fact, it's population growth with adoption will only contribute to it's becomi a mainstream digital currency o er fiat with time.


I think there's always a provision for an increase in adoption over most cryptocurrency projects, what causes some to fail is lack of Investors or when they go bankrupt.

It always happens this way, that is why most times you see the online banks go off for some hours and they do notify every user about carrying out maintenance and upgrade. The more customers begin to patronize each financial institution the more they have problems of traffic jam because of too much transactions per what they can carry. Being observable enough you can tell that transactions go faster than usual late at night than the day period because by then the amount of transactions being done is less than the capacity that the network can contain.

Same with the blockchains, the more transactions the lesser the speed do it is often required for the financial institutions to always carry out maintenance and upgrades just as the customers keep growing

when many banking customers use the server at the same time, it will make the banking system slow and unresponsive, which will make many users unable to access their accounts, have difficulty making transactions and various other problems. that's why banks often carry out maintenance on their servers to make them more responsive and not slow.

while an increase in users on the bitcoin network will not cause the network to crash, it will cause the network to become congested and make transactions take longer to process. it will make fees higher and this will discourage users from making transactions because of the high fees and this will also have implications for decreasing user experience and adoption of bitcoin.

from these two things we can see that there are similarities, namely the need for a good system to maintain the sustainability of the ecosystem. that's why the bitcoin network has developers and miners who keep the network running well. usually developers will evaluate increasing block times, block sizes, etc., in order to keep the bitcoin network usable by more people globally.

Every system is always designed to have maximum capacity in terms of how much transaction and traffic they can carry over a given period of time, and when they see the number of users and the amount of transaction that is being performed is growing more than they expected, the best they can do if they have the interest of their customers is to upgrade. That's for a system that permits such an upgrade.
 
In blockchain transactions, the increase in usage usually makes the network kind of busy, and that's one thing that keeps transactions delayed and all of that, so if the system permits an upgrade, which can increase the limit of transactions per second, whatever it's being programmed for, then the best thing is to run the upgrade, and if it will affect the network, the best is to live with it until everything becomes normal.
 
For the banking sector, unless they don't care about their customers, if not with the competition currently in the banking sector, every bank will be doing anything within their power to retain their customers and even increase their numbers, which they can only achieve by offering quality service. Sometimes network downtime happens; it's normal; that's technology, but how fast they fix this matters a lot.
 
Due to the reoccurrence of several banks having unannounced network issues, there is enough reason for someone to have multiple means of payment, which could be either having your funds you care to spend split on different banks in order not to get stranded some day or trying to make a payment that's required urgency.

I may say this post belongs in the economics board, but to all newbies and oldbies it is very applicable.

What am talking about is simply the subject of patronizing or being a customer to many of the online banking services or crypto services currently available.

While it is a good option to stick to the best yet, one thing I have come to notice is that many of these companies after having gotten enough customers, would begin to decline in their service and network provision mostly when it regards a customers asset or funds in their holding.

Am going to site an example of a fiat bank in my country that has been known to fulfil customers desires of transportation, but currently they are the ones that fail to fulfil their part from the service channels like USSD, BANK APPs, and even go as far as debiting accounts without crediting the receiver or reversing the funds.

I think it is because of the influx of much customers that lead to service disruption and the incapacity to handle the growing customer base.

I fear this might be a case with cryptocurrencies mostly BTC, incase of more individuals joining the network or buying assets and hoping to make quick gain.

My question is this, do you think that the influx of more users or customers to the BTC network or Crypto currency network would crash the system or help it grow more?

Also, does emerging cryptocurrencies have the capacity to handle so much more customers than anticipated incase there is a sudden influx of crypto currency users?