Topic: Bitcoin and scaling (Read 377 times)

go no tc

The bookmaker writes that he has a lot of clients, and therefore he does not have time to quickly refute everyone - that is a lie! When you make a request on the site, you are given the request number (like # 231). There are no more than 10 requests on the Adkinsbet website per week (like # 239)! There are almost no clients there!
2. the bookmaker allows registration from prohibited countries and allows them to place bets and even allows you to withdraw money - while you are losing a lot! The last example showed that the client was refused payment because he was from a forbidden country. Then I want to ask adkinsbet - how did you check the account for 72 hours and pay him money twice !? you didn't want to pay only for the 3rd time! when the client won £ 2000
3. I read how you refused to pay the client because of using the VPN service. But it says on your site that vpn is allowed if the client doesn't try to hide their location. From the answers of the client it is written that He did not hide his location and honestly indicated it during registration! The dispute is now open, you can all read it!
4. The client got tired of waiting for him to be paid a little money and started writing about it on the forum. Adkenbet paid nothing because "he didn't like the call, you can't write so badly"

5. Adkinsbet deliberately credits more money to the client's account. Then he blames the client for using a bug in the system to deceive them. Cancels all bets and pays the deposit!

6. my version - on my part there are no violations at all! What Adkinsbet says - you have the same IP address with another client - LIE. I do not use any methods to change the IP address - matches with other users are not possible!

All we can do is try to protect ourselves from scammers. They will always be there and there are many of them, we must not forget about this. Every time you forget they exist, they will remember you.

You're completely wrong, I wasn't talking about network security, you just pretended I was talking. Single full node is not important as long as there are enough of other full nodes to provide a decent level of decentralization. If every full node required huge computing power, we would have very few of them, because average users couldn't afford to run them. We would end up with couple centralized full nodes, which could be censored, manipulated, destroyed by governments. The whole thing would become useless and senseless. This is going to happen to your shitcoin cash.

Maybe bitcoin scaling is not so good for real mass use but for now it have margin of safety. And we have LN and other L2 solutions that will help in solving current problem

Bitcoin can do well in 1-5 exchanges for every second. Another approach to block chain and empower clients to make instalment channels. In any case, Bitcoin's decay is practically outlandish because of scaling and charges. The truth is out, there is nothing we can do with the charges. It needs at any rate the activity to proceed truly There is a force organise that is fit for micro payment. Despite the fact that scaling to banks is an absolute necessity.

The only problem that increased block size can solve is "the problem"  of decentralization, which makes the whole idea of scaling through this approach useless. If I want scaling and fast transactions, I will use my credit card. In this case, I don't care if my funds might be stopped, seized, inflated or debased because thats the only proper way to use fiat money - spend it before it is too late. Why do I need to care about centralization or intermediaries if I am only spending? But I do care when it comes to bitcoin. If block size is increased, then I can't run my own node, blockchain will be too big to store on my laptop plus my bandwidth less than terabyte per second thats why I am no longer able to download big blocks in order to validate them. Bitcoin is not decentralized anymore but very fast, because it is being run on centralized server like Visa does.

I am not a blind supporter of any of these coins and what we should realize is we are in early stages of cryptocurrency where there's much left to improve and integrate. Scaling is surely a problem and all of the projects are trying something to solve it. Bitcoincashs increased block size hasn't really solved the problem as supposed to. So, everyone are still looking to find a proper solution.

Bitcoin Cash is a failed project being pushed by a sore loser Roger Ver.

As you noticed, they are all parroting the $50 transactions which happened only once before the segwit adoption because they have nothing else.

On-chain scaling can never work without giving up on the decentralization. It is just how it is. Accept it and move on.

Because you went to the wrong place asking that question, they will not answer you appropriately. They have the reason why they're telling or wherever this idea started out about bitcoin collapsing due to fees and scaling. It has been answered that it's just a propaganda by these people who hates bitcoin and that's why they started their own through forks.

Each transaction takes up a particular amount of memory (transaction size), and blockchain has a limited block size (the size of each block that is mined).

When you add these two together, you will find that only a limited number of transactions can be included within the next mined block, whereas all other transactions are left in the mempool.

Miners will then select transctions from the mempool to include in the next block, typically based on which ones pay the highest fees.

The block size and block discovery times are fixed, yet Bitcoin is growing and more transactions are being broadcast, hence competition for limited block space should increase.

This is why Bitcoin is stuck at 6-9tps without 2nd layer solutions.

So many blockchain solutions based on the issue of scaling to demerit bitcoin so that they can promote their own forks of bitcoin or probably a different cryptocurrency altogether. But what have we seen over the year, they all end up failing just like BSV, BCH, and all the other forks. Let's wait and see how developments of the Lighting Network will solve the scalability issue of bitcoin network.

I'd like to clarify I never fell for their fud, I still own btc, eth and link only. With majority btc. I was curious about the fud they promoted, and on their subreddits they fail to answer or provide documentation (links, books) thank you btc community!


Long Live The King BTCBTC

What? If anything, "Bitcoin Core" supporters actually supports 2nd/3rd layer solutions! If they didn't, they would've been shitting on Lightning, but they don't because they're actually bullish on it.

Also, a hardcore bitcoiners can dislike 2nd layer solutions like Lightning and Liquid, but it's completely fine! What's important is that these 2nd layer solutions are actually optional. Meaning, they could still use on-chain BTC without any problems at all. In contrast to BCH whereas "upgrades" like the auto mining tax are shoved down everyone's throats.

We all know that the Bitcoin core is only capable of processing most like 7 - 5 transactions per second. Having another layer to the blockchain and enabling the users to create payment channels is really a good one. However, it is nearly impossible for the bitcoin to collapse because of the scaling and fees. It's just that, we cannot do anything with the fees. It really is needed to at least sustain the operation. There is a Lightning Network that capable of micropayment. Scaling is a must even in Banks though. Just IMO.

That $50 transaction fee is old, it was way back 2017 wherein there was some entity behind spamming the network and when the price peaked in December, the network was congested.

That's why LN is here to mitigate that if, off-chain that won't add any bottlenecks to the network. I don't know how bitcoin will collapse, if it going to, then the rest of the crypto might go down as well, just saying.

You probably want to type the "Bitcoin network". We never have scaling debate about core iirc.

i don't know what 3rd layer solutions are but second layer networks such as lightning network are still decentralized. you seem to have fallen for the bcash FUD.

are you talking about the software design scalability for a program written in C++ language?

Yeah,but many true Bitcoin Core supporters will stay away from the Lightning Network and other 2nd and 3rd layer solution because they are centralized.In the eyes of Bitcoin Core Fanatics and crypto enthusiasts,centralization is viewed as "evil".Yes,centralization comes with it's own risks,but such view is pretty oversimplified.
Please don't fall into the BS that is promoted around the BCH and BSV altcoins.They are projects of Roger Ver  and supported by Faketoshi Wright.Those two just want to make some money and destroy Bitcoin Core.They don't care about scaling and lowering transaction fees.
Scaling is not an issue for Bitcoin Core.

it is what happened 3 years ago during the peak of the spam attack against bitcoin network performed by at least 3 different groups each trying to reach their own agenda. unfortunately this can not be prevented and it has nothing to do with scaling or whether bitcoin would collapse or not.
all the altcoins that have copied bitcoin also have inherited this flaw that has also already been seen in all of them: bcash, ether,... have experienced big fee spikes when they were spammed as a test.