Topic: Article about the blockchain and Bitcoin scaling. - page 2. (Read 819 times)

That's my contention too. Some people believe that as technological improvements mitigate the technical reasons not to increase block size, that it will become easier politically to accomplish a hard fork. However, I think the fee market will just become the central political issue at that point. The question of whether fees alone can sustain adequate mining incentives (at 4MB block weight limit) could keep everyone debating for another decade.

LN will never be solution, Satoshi said that onchain transactions will support miners in the future, with LN there is no fees for the real miners that support blockchain, with time the fee of one ON-CHAIN transaction will be huge.

LN will have low fees but On-Chain will have a impossible fee to pay and who will rule the LN chanels will be the same as banks, we are not in control of our money!

We need to think about a scalling solution that splits the blocks in blockchain groups, like group A, B, C and so on, that number of groups will be bigger with the number of nodes running, that way the size of block will be always 1MB by node, node type A, node type B and so on, they could be splitted in many 1 MB parts of a block an tested online like SPV wallets.

If bitcoin was used by all the people of the world they will not to be all nodes, so, we can have one node for some % of people, the same way we dont need to have 100% full node information by each node, so, we can split like prunned nodes, some have some blocks, some have other blocks, that way we can scale blocksize and if we scale blocksize we can have some pruned nodes registering 1st 1 MB of the block and other nodes registering 2nd 1MB and others registering 3rd 1MB of the blocks, why not?

If we make this auto-scalling by the number of existing nodes and transactions we can do it without Lightning Network bullshit that its even worst as banks!

To solve the huge number o information in all network there is another solution, we start to delete 1st blocks of blockchain after some number of blocks, example GENESIS block can be deleted and the money still in that address can be reward for miners, this is the best solution for any database, all databases in the world cant grow up infinitely, that is fisically impossible and will waste a lot of resources, so we need to start do delete blocks sooner or later, why dont do the perfect machine now and dont let problems for future generations solve like Y2K in year 2000 ?

Say YES to sub-second zero-confirmation transactions and say NO to instant transactions.

The Sub-Zero Protocol permits Scroda to achieve Sub-Second Zero-Confirmation Transactions all due to two chains coming together and becoming one, Yin and Yang.

https://medium.com/@scroda/scrodas-sub-zero-protocol-walkthrough-c1677f3d60fa

Take a look at our discussion https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51868770

We will be releasing testnet soon.

We basically know what all the existing options are for scaling (barring any new technological leaps or discoveries) and, for me at least, I'm comfortable in the knowledge there are people working on each option and that they're being implemented in order of preference with the aim of preserving decentralisation.  People can get fixated on the options they can easily understand, but it doesn't mean that's the best option right now.  There's a pretty clear order of priority in terms of where we can increase throughput without centralising the network, so it's only natural we're pursuing those ones first.  People just need to take a step back, look at the bigger picture and chill out a bit.  

You can say "but, but blocksize", "but, but faster block speed", etc, but it's not like we're hearing anything new.  We know those things exist.  The cost/benefit ratio has already been evaluated and wasn't deemed a priority.  Hence other options taking precedence and being actively developed first.  If we need to resort to those options with a higher cost, we can consider that later.

I believe that if a proposal requires a hard fork, and the network isn't in a life-or-death situation, then it will never gain enough support. It's not as easy as saying that "a hard fork will eventually be needed".

Before you talk, and call everyone names, understand how the network works Mr. Zeitcoin lover. Hahaha! Zeitcoin.

Mining is cartelized, I accept that. I was talking about node-centralization. Bitcoin is not decentralized? Let me remind you of the UASF. Go eat your crayons.


Then what? When will the block size increases stop? What bigger block size would be the best size to hard fork to?

That will be setting up a dangerous precedent.

Just a small stupid question but, since SEGWIT is enabling a variable size of blocks and so far it never happen that the Bitcoin transaction had to scale up over 2500 bytes, why people are still talking about the size of the blocks?
Isn't SEGWIT the solution of this problem?

"As of 2017, the average transaction make-up would lead to blocks with 4M weight units being about 2.3MB in size if all transactions were segwit transactions."
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units

Scaling would be meaningless in Bitcoin if it gives up decentralization. Plus scaling Bitcoin is not exclusively about utility, it's about improving latency/data propagation of a DECENTRALIZED NETWORK. Actual improvements that would help grow the network, not constrict it. Real scaling.

If you believe bigger blocks is the solution, go ahead.

There are other solutions, and it doesn't have to be on-chain. In Bitcoin that's better because there's no need for a hard fork, that would bring its own problems.


I'm talking about scaling, but without giving up node-decentralization. Increasing on-chain TPS would be increasing the block size, that would centralizing. Then what's the use of sharding? It's only slowing down the problem, but still centralizing.

Then my question is, if it increases blockchain size, speed, and transactions per second, then wouldn't it still be bloated, scale the network ininstead of out, and centralize the network?

It's still debatable if it was fixed by Segwit, or if even if it needed fixing in my opinion. Segwit wasn't a "scalability fix", it was a malleability fix.


What would an on-chain scaling solution, that doesn't centralize the network, look like? Sharding? Where's the Github link, where's the testnet?

Op.

Forget about my previous post, I used another device to fool Medium a bit more  

Now, back to the article:
I do agree it has some educational material but I can't see anything new or important mentioned in this article. The author, puts a little bit more than adequate emphasis on relay network optimization role in scaling. Although he is right about 2nd layer protocols (like LN) not being an ultimate solution for scaling, like most authors in the field, he has no clue about what an on-chain scaling solution would look like. He is absolutely wrong. as i said. when he reduces the problem to relay network and bandwidth optimization.

P.S.
@ETFbitcoin: The way I understand it, credit card payments are a form of KYC. I don't and won't use such a payment device, never ever.

op,

Stupid Medium corporation expects me to sign up and pay for premium membershit, I won't do that unless they accept bitcoin, and forget about KYC. It is not the case for now, so, copy/paste the text here please.

hahaha, the endless block size issue, still debated even after SEGWIT fixed it.. true

That's a good blog. Real scaling, share it around the forum. I admit that I was expecting something stupid, like "bigger blocks". Haha.

https://medium.com/scalar-capital/bandwidth-and-the-blockchain-2ad35c57dbdf

This article about how Bitcoin and in general the blockchain is scaling is very interesting.

I am not the author but I though it was very educational, and should belong here.