Topic: Bitcoin Scalability - page 2. (Read 769 times)

It could very well be that he emptied his dust wallet adding up a lot of byte size. That's not Bitcoin's fault. Even on BCash's network such transactions don't make it through right away if the fee isn't appropriate, and that while they have +99% of free block space almost every single block.

People expect way too much from decentralized networks. In no shape or form will they ever be able to compete with centralized networks on their main network. In order to get your network to scale up you need layers on top of the main network, which Bitcoin is currently working towards with Lightning already usable today.

Who knows what other layers we will see in the forthcoming years. Lightning will probably be one of the many in 5-10 years.

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.

1 satoshi/byte transactions are being confirmed every few hours. What more could you ask for? Fees are the cheapest they've been in years. Not to mention, the consistently increasing hash rate pushes average block times below 10 minutes.

People (and wallet software) need to get smarter about fee rates. If a payment is urgent, send a higher fee. If there is congestion due to a period of long block times, use RBF to bump the fee up.

Last night I received a payment from one of my client in the form of bitcoin and it took quite a while to confirm the transaction. I was thinking if bitcoin remain like this, only people like me who are a fan of bitcoin will use it. No one will prefer to use bitcoin if settlement time for bitcoin remains like this.
Some experts say that blockchain trilemma can never be solved and it will remain like this forever.

His definition of scalability would make it OK to centralize, scale the network down towards the miners, "as long as it scales".

Scalabilty for Bitcoin should be to increase transaction throughput, without giving up node decentralization on the base layer.

You're just trying to confuse people by appealing to authority and making this about semantics. If we're playing that game, I can just as easily point to Wikipedia's definition:


But this isn't about proving which definition is correct. That doesn't matter. The issue is the distinction between throughput and the system's ability to handle throughput -- and how we can improve the latter. I'm not interested in adding throughput without regard for the costs.

Trolls want you to believe that centralizing the network for transaction throughput is OK, and they call that "scaling a decentralized network"?

Centralizing Bitcoin towards a cartel of miners to increase transaction throughput is NOT scaling. Scaling should be looking for ways to increase transaction throughput WITHOUT sacrificing decentralzation on the base layer.

Simply increasing the block size, does NOT scale the network. Bigger blocks > more costs of running a node > fewer nodes > not scaling the network.

when a block is solved the propogation around the network is much faster now than in the past. meaning when the past could cope the future can definetly cope with more

same with the transaction relay

saying that transaction throughput in blocks should not scale with FALSE alarms about centralisation. and then offering locking up transactions to tether peoples value to a different token which is hosted by hubs.. and get people to use hubs as the server/watchtower of their litewallet is more of a real centralising concern

after all who wants to be a fullnode if they only ever use the blockchain once every 6 months

blocksizes can scale up. using false alarms of "big blocks" "gigabytes by midnight" is not scaling thats LEAPING
i find it funny how the rebuttal of scaling ends up with leaping armageddon stories
also scaling bitcoin is not pushing people to other networks 12 decimal tokens that have no blockchain of their own
also scaling bitcoin is not to falsely name those networks as bitcoin to hide the shifting usage away from bitcoin

scaling is increasing utility progressively onchain as that is the real bitcoin
bitcoin can scale its transaction throughput. all stats show that more transactions per second can occur.

the only hold out is not technical. its political

scaling is about transaction throughput because thats bitcoins whole purpose and function. to make transactions for people to move value

but lets hear all those political excuses one more time about how some particular users love certain devs wielding the power to make the rules
(i was being satirical, i dont actually need to hear their excuses, as those excuses are out of date)

This^^^

If the word "scaling" is misused to mean the same thing as "throughput", it's easy to pose as a helpful person recommending throughput increases as "the" solution. The problem being, that only increasing the throughput actually hurts the strength (i.e. the decntralized nature) of the Bitcoin network, and so mysteriously helpful people are always hanging around the Bitcoin community incessantly suggesting this bad idea


@squatter gets it exactly right here:

The first two options only increase throughput. They don't address the system's ability to handle that throughput.


Optimizing transaction size actually improves scalability. The next such major upgrade will probably be the addition of Schnorr signatures, which will drastically lower multi-signature transaction size.

Improving validation and initial sync speed or reducing bandwidth, latency and storage usage also improves scalability because they reduce the costs of increased throughput. Enough improvement in these areas can justify additional block size increases, especially as improving technology makes high speed internet and cheap storage more widely available.

I think that the Bitcoin scalability topic has been well-covered already, but in case you want to broaden the horizon and learn as well as share some other info, please consider DAG technology which is used by some cryptocurrencies instead of a blockchain. DAG solves the scaling problem in a long-term perspective, but has another flaw that's been pushing it down for years: if Bitcoin is great at first and problematic as more people join, DAG has the opposite issue. But because DAG has transaction confirmation issues at the early stages, it did not get a chance to show what it's capable of if we get behind this stage. The most famous DAG crypto is IOTA, you can find out more info online if you're interested. Good luck!

sharding is only supposed to fool people into thinking they are running a full node. as i said before it is somewhat similar to telling Electrum users that they are running a full node!
if you are not downloading, verifying and storing the entire blockchain then you are not running a full node. you are running a light client.

the only thing that altcoins solve is more money in pockets of the whales and less money in the pockets of newbies when they pump and dump them.

Define "scaling" in Bitcoin. I believe the word is used around the forum without the proper context. Is simply increasing the transaction throughput in Bitcoin, scaling?

BSV is solution of BTC scalability problem.

UX needs work in my opinion. But you can use BlueWallet with hosted Lightning channels.


I believe no. Ethereum is selling an idea, sharding, that's supposed to scale the network, but does the opposite. It's centralizing.

well since it is a new signature scheme with a new OP code that probably requires a new witness version, it takes a lot of time to implement it, test it, optimize it and test it some more before adding it as a part of bitcoin consensus. consensus related changes must take a lot of time because they are security critical.
then it requires a soft fork that would also take some time to get the network to get on board and accept it.

the specifications of the proposal can be found here: https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
although things are moving forward but i haven't seen any dates.

Well since this is as good opportunity as any, the question is: When Schnorr?

What is holding back this proposal, what are the cons (if any?) for it to be delayed? Is it a security risk?

So far its the lightning that is working well for BTC and makes it better because of low fees.
Lets say sharding is successfully deployed in ethereum and has improved their TPS, would it be possible for it to be with BTC as well without it being complex as creating channel like the LN?

Achieving VISA-level scale was never a realistic goal for the base protocol. The costs of global decentralized consensus are simply too high. Bitcoin is robust as a P2P protocol because of its redundancy -- every node processes every transaction. Adding endless throughput to the base network would make it impossible to run a node, destroying that redundancy. Not to mention the increased costs for miners due to block orphaning, which would encourage mining centralization.

That's why developers and the community have opted to minimally increase throughput on the base network while building interoperable networks (like Lightning) that can deliver exponential scale with minimal added costs.