Topic: Bitcoin Scalability (Read 769 times)
In my opinion, the problem of scalability of Bitcoin will be very acute in the near future, since Bitcoin users are increasing every year, which means that the number of transactions in the Bitcoin network is also increasing, and this requires a certain amount of power. thus, specialists will need to solve the problem of scalability as soon as possible, since I believe that this problem is the next stumbling block to a large business that wants to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose.
The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.
Yeah, Nope.
Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.
I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.
Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.
Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!
Look at CMK , and figure it out for yourself.
At least we both agree that Bitcoin is a Shitcoin.
FYI:
Brain Teaser is how many coins network can continue running no matter how low or how long their price verses fiat is below the cost of production.
Hint: Bitcoin is at the bottom of that list.
The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.
Yeah, Nope.
Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.
I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.
Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
That right, according to Blockstream the solution is that Blockstream gets rich off LN Support solutions.
Never mind that it does not actually improve onchain scaling!
The store of value nonsense is for retards, btc lost over $1600 in ~ month and it is still going down.
That is the same as saying that barrel with fire in it is a store of value and throwing ~¼ your money in it.
With Confused_Fury, Stupid is as Stupid does , and well he is stupid.
FYI:
Watch how much users love Blockstream when the price of transaction are in the $21 to $100 range for even the smallest transfers.
Of course that is all if the miners don't crash BTC for BCH or BSV.
You may likewise got to investigate the way Mimblewimble should expand TX throughput ability..
What's more, only straight up Block-chain Pruning, where hubs don't got to store the entire block-chain is another..
Another a part of conceivable scaling issues is data transfer capacity necessities to run full hubs..
This is exactly what strikes a chord on behalf of me however this is not generally my material.
What's more, only straight up Block-chain Pruning, where hubs don't got to store the entire block-chain is another..
Another a part of conceivable scaling issues is data transfer capacity necessities to run full hubs..
This is exactly what strikes a chord on behalf of me however this is not generally my material.
all scaling ever was about
go
industrial
no hobby system / experiment ever scaled from its laboratory setup
get over and see how BSV does that - it works EXACTLY a Satoshi designed it
go
industrial
no hobby system / experiment ever scaled from its laboratory setup
get over and see how BSV does that - it works EXACTLY a Satoshi designed it
The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.
Yeah, Nope.
Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.
I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.
Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.
Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!
It's only partly about the price. It's which cryptocurrency truly is the most valuable, for the economic majority, and the miners. It's obvious that everyone demands Bitcoin more than Rogercoin or Craigcoin.
The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.
Yeah, Nope.
Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.
I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.
Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.
Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!
The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1. 
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone. Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer. It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.
The #NO2X movement CLEARLY showed that bigger block size had strong opposition from the community.
Quote
All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.
The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.
The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone. Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer. It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.
All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.
The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.
As the stupid one in the community, I follow who, I believe, are the most competent people in the community. I'm open, and listen, on why "some people" believe they are not the most competent, but I haven't heard anything from "them" that has changed my mind that the Core developers are the most competent group of developers in the world for cryptocurrencies.
My stance hasn't changed since this post.
I guess it's also been a while since someone posted one of these:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/acbwry/scaling_vs_increasing_the_blocksize_a_hddssd/
I guess it's also been a while since someone posted one of these:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/acbwry/scaling_vs_increasing_the_blocksize_a_hddssd/
Look at the troll. Proposing something, believing that a hard fork, that would scale the network in, IN Bitcoin would be "easy".
Troll, go use Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin.
Troll, go use Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin.
I know that LN is considered as a Off-chain , what about sidechain Pegged may it be also considered Off-chain ? I find many resources on the internet and the opinions do not match. Someone say that it is a off-chain solution but someone consider it as a third possibility : 1) On-chain 2) Off-chain 3) Sidechain
That's probably because there are multiple types of sidechains, each with different effects on scalability.
Federated sidechains have a trusted group of validators that enforces the sidechain consensus. It's basically an altcoin that can interact with Bitcoin. This would be an off-chain solution, since the sidechain consensus doesn't involve Bitcoin miners or mainchain consensus.
Drivechains or merge-mined sidechains are enforced by miners and/or full nodes. While they are not on-chain in the sense of the Bitcoin mainchain, they increase mining and full node overheads the same exact way that an on-chain block size increase would.
Hello guys,
I have just one question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding
Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?
Thank you.
They seem to fall into two broad categories. on-chain and off-chain. on-chain scaling requires the developers to change one of Bitcoin's properties such as block size limit, transaction format, transaction signature format and etc. while off-chain scaling refers to approaches that increase the utility of the network without touching the blockchain. for example batching multiple payments into one transaction, virtual payments within the system of a custodian such as Coinbase, payment channels or lightning network, sidechains and etc. Off-chain is backwards compatible while on chain scaling isn't. On chain code is simpler and easier to maintain.I have just one question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding
Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?
Thank you.
I know that LN is considered as a Off-chain , what about sidechain Pegged may it be also considered Off-chain ? I find many resources on the internet and the opinions do not match. Someone say that it is a off-chain solution but someone consider it as a third possibility : 1) On-chain 2) Off-chain 3) Sidechain
You can expand your cryptocurrency to quickly get rich by mining Bitcoin. Have you paid your Bitcoin mining tax? Bitcoin mining is very beneficial. Miners can then exchange Bitcoin for fiat currency like USD or use them to buy goods and services directly. There are countries that tax Bitcoin mining, but also countries that do not.
Maybe you have never done it. In case you didn't, do note that, asic miners are not free, and electricity for the vast majority, isn't free either. While its still barely profitable for some, it isn't something to "get rich" anymore, like it might have been years ago.
AND, there is always a chance for a price downtrend to put you out of business very fast, especially if you are close to the borderline of margin/loss, as many large miners seem to operate within (which is why they rather lose more in pool fees by going PPS just so they could have a constant income regardless of pool luck).
Taxing mining is silly, highly prone to evasion. You might as well just tax them with the power bill.
Miners are paying for the power they consume and if they collect tax for mining that would mean they are paying double.
Lightning Network they said would be a huge centralization for BTC and I think coinbase CEO had recently patented their product for sending BTC to email address, is one thing that is taking out miners of the equation. Its not going to be the same experience anymore that a transaction will have to be validated by POW.
You can expand your cryptocurrency to quickly get rich by mining Bitcoin. Have you paid your Bitcoin mining tax? Bitcoin mining is very beneficial. Miners can then exchange Bitcoin for fiat currency like USD or use them to buy goods and services directly. There are countries that tax Bitcoin mining, but also countries that do not.
Maybe you have never done it. In case you didn't, do note that, asic miners are not free, and electricity for the vast majority, isn't free either. While its still barely profitable for some, it isn't something to "get rich" anymore, like it might have been years ago.
AND, there is always a chance for a price downtrend to put you out of business very fast, especially if you are close to the borderline of margin/loss, as many large miners seem to operate within (which is why they rather lose more in pool fees by going PPS just so they could have a constant income regardless of pool luck).
Taxing mining is silly, highly prone to evasion. You might as well just tax them with the power bill.
You can expand your cryptocurrency to quickly get rich by mining Bitcoin. Have you paid your Bitcoin mining tax? Bitcoin mining is very beneficial. Miners can then exchange Bitcoin for fiat currency like USD or use them to buy goods and services directly. There are countries that tax Bitcoin mining, but also countries that do not.
I don't think we need to find it hard and get to know how to stop scalability cause crypto has been built with that scheme already. But wondering if this could help to understand how it goes https://coinrivet.com/how-blockchain-and-cryptocurrency-can-address-scalability-issues/
And I see that there is no solution for this cause as we are in a decentralized market everything has often to change. The transaction can be fast or low depending on the block size which makes people never think how it was work and say negative when they experience a delay confirmation.
Nevertheless, the scalability of Bitcoin is much lower than for example Ethereum. I have to agree with this anyway. Of course, the transaction speed for this period greatly affects the demand for Bitcoin among large companies that could become potential investors. But as for a certain user who commits transactions and receives a delay, then Anyone who wants to carry out an operation faster solves this problem by increasing the amount of payment of the price of the commission. And I see that there is no solution for this cause as we are in a decentralized market everything has often to change. The transaction can be fast or low depending on the block size which makes people never think how it was work and say negative when they experience a delay confirmation.
Jump to: