Topic: Bitcoin Scalability (Read 221 times)

This proposal suggests scaling Bitcoin by making transaction size proportional to verification time, with multiple blockchains operating on top of each other. This could solve transaction scalability issues, but raises questions about network security and complexity.

you are still ignoring the math and economics of bitcoin

ill make it simple
you dont need to change any algo for a side chain of less yielding transactions

people will only want to pay under 1% in fee's and so if bitcoin is a $2 fee network meaning tx's of over $200 value moved would seem fair..  a side network for smaller tx yield moved will have a $0.01 tx fee average

the network algo as it is now, will set the market for mining profitability where if there are only 2000tx a block and it takes 1 minute to confirm. then thats $20 a block meaning $1.2k an hour mining cost. meaning ~20x less hashrate meaning 20x less difficulty

if you try enforcing a new algo to "fix"/set difficulty then you will mess with the natural economics of bitcoin and markets and hashrate

I'm not a beginner.


I don't understand where this assumption comes from, but my statements refer to a proposition, not to the current state of the Bitcoin protocol. Anyway, such a proposition does not mean to supersede the current relationship between total hash rate and mining difficulty. It aims to flank it to guarantee scalability through space and time by making mining difficulty self-adjustable along both dimensions of nature. The difficulty adjustment is currently present and self-sustainable only along particle spacetime, that is, on the mass of total computational power (bitcoin's body). This automatic adjustment, or self-sustainability, is also necessary per waveform nature, regarding the frequency of transactions. For Bitcoin to be perfect, it must be a system where the right freedom distributes among all planes of perception (usage) of its monetary energy, with equal respect to all participants in the system. Satoshi has done an outstanding job in scaling Bitcoin across one nature, but it is also necessary to do it through the other.


Just change any temporal units with their respective translation into number of blocks, referencing 1 block = 10m.

I've difficulty understanding your use of words, so I cannot fully reply. I also don't want to engage in discussions conducted with hostility.

That is not what I'm trying to say. Please read other responses.

Bitcoin Scalability

Bitcoin's scalability problem has been a contentious issue for years. It's a problem that doesn't exist in other cryptocurrencies, and it's what has kept the Bitcoin network from being more widely used. There are several solutions to this problem, but they all have downsides and potential disadvantages.

The first solution is SegWit; it could be implemented as a soft fork or hard fork. The soft fork would require everyone who uses Bitcoin to upgrade their software to include SegWit; however, this would take time and require users to update their software. A hard fork would solve the problem immediately but also cause chaos within the Bitcoin community.

The second solution is Lightning Network; this could be implemented on top of both blockchains, allowing for faster transactions between parties without having to wait for confirmations on the blockchain itself. However, this hasn't been tested by anyone yet and could cause problems with consensus between separate blockchains if something goes wrong during deployment on both platforms simultaneously (such as if there was an issue with one side

again the OP forgets the basic math of bitcoin

hashrate and difficulty is not based on the value of a transaction. its based on the participants wanting to claim rewards for doing a job

if lots of people want to be miners even if blocks are doing "empty blocks"(no transactions) they are still looking to get incentive for their work. which then plays onto the market economics.

the economics of bitcoins market price and underlying value cost of that market. is not set by how much someone transacts peer to peer. its based on other factors and variables you have yet to understand
please take time to learn it all

for instance u done a 10min formulae not realising bitcoin does not miner in 10 minute rule
the actual rule is to attempt 2016 block a fortnight. which my average down in human visual articulation as average 10min. but thats not the rule itself


so while you want to throw around meaningless formulae unrelated to bitcoin economics/math and wanting to change the mining algo to not be efficient at sha256 you are missing all the points of bitcoin, its efficiencies and it economics that are already at play

actually please try to understand the math that already exists to make bitcoin work. and stop trying to break bitcoin to then think you can then apply something different.

your not solving problems. your trying to cause issues and then take things in a different direction while ruining the initial purpose.

you are too involved in showing off bad math rather then understanding existing math utility

yes there will be sidechain in the future that people can peg-off to where the pegging is more secure then the silly smart contract subnetworks currently overpromised/promoted

but your plans for the different mining factors does not fit the math of bitcoins current mechanisms, math or economics

satoshi already came upt with a simple solution for the value lock immutability risk. .. wait 6 confirms for large value wait 1 confirm for small value, and none of that disrupts any economics of the markets or mining function

Bitcoin Scalability problem is one of the problems that has been addressed with a lot of research and analysis, and you will find many articles mentioning some creative solutions.

What you are trying to say is to find several side channels or more layers of lightning networks, which is useless, because if I want to buy a car for $20,000 or transfer $5,000 to a friend somewhere else in the world, waiting half an hour is not a big problem, and I can pay higher fees, and therefore Within the waiting period of less than 10 minutes on average.


The main problem is to buy daily needs, here one layer (lightning network) is enough.

This looks like a GPT generated response. I appreciate using technology to provide neutral and respectful answers.

---

The lightning network is a layer two solution. I have a feeling that this is avoiding solving a problem by covering it with sand. Or better say, covering it with layers. In the end, if the core of the onion is rotten, the whole onion will be.

A multi-layer blockchain is different. We're not operating on top of it but directly into it; everything will be there in the first place. The genesis will not be the one submerged by everything else but the one most clear and seen as the universal reference.

There seems to be a wrong assumption. Chains should not be two. Rather, should be well thought out how to distribute transactions among the various chains, of which number appears uncertain so far in the thought process. It would be, as per intuition, impractical to assign a chain for each transaction size, for example, 0.80 BTC, 5 BTC, or 1.000053 BTC, as it would be an astronomically large number.


I'm not sure I've got your affirmations. I think they are based on the imposed assumption upon which you're developing your reasoning. Please note that for non-genesis chains, mining difficulty would adjust to transaction size and base itself on a computational power of reference, that is given by the genesis chain, the central chain of reference. The computational power (Pn) to confirm transactions of a n quantity of bitcoin, would be: Pn= P₀ * log₁₀n, where P₀ is the reference power for 10 mins.

More powerful miners would have no interest in verifying smaller transactions, as fees could depend on transaction size. The protocol could be assigning miners to their respective chains based on mining power, but it is uncertain if this could open the system to attacks as people could exploit the assignment phase. A secure solution would be to make sure that the point of best profitability for a miner is exactly where he is supposed to be based on his mining power.

Furthermore, there is no direct mention of the number of chains to be two. With the phrase "then increasing mining difficulty for transaction size > 1 BTC, and decreasing it for transaction size < 1 BTC, in a correct mathematical manner (common logarithm)", I describe a situation in which a given transaction size would be associated to its environment of difficulty. "In a correct mathematical manner" is a way to regard the relationship between transaction size and time;

for example,

1 BTC = 10 m (reference, genesis); 0.1 BTC = 1 m;  0.01 BTC = 0.1 m; and so on.

Inversely,

10 BTC = 100 m ; 100 BTC = 1,000 m; and so on.

I apologize for being ambiguous.


Transactions could still be quickened by paying higher fees, as it is now. For those big transactions that pay bigger fees to make it quicker, mining difficulty would be reduced accordingly to the entity of the fee, thus on how much the user is willing to pay. For example, 10 times quicker, 10 times more costly. These transactions would be assigned to the quicker chain thereafter. For this purpose, it seems important that the transaction size would not coincide with the data size.




Please note that this idea refers to solving the scalability problems of Bitcoin. It gives a possibility to Bitcoin to process small transactions at a faster pace, at the cost, or truly, at the proper implication of transacting bigger quantities in more time. This dynamic seems in harmony with how different quantities of mass influence the perception of time, and movement, in the universe; that is, with more mass comes more time dilation (time runs slower), and with less mass comes less time dilation (time runs faster). So, in parallel: the 10 BTC mass would see the 0.1 BTC mass transacting/moving in faster manners, i.e. at a faster pulse, while the 0.1 BTC mass would see the 10 BTC mass transacting/moving in slower manners, i.e. at a slower pulse. The pulse is the "refresh rate" of the temporal/movement perception, or in Bitcoin's context, the rate of block creation.




Such a problem is solved by having a reference computational power, which is the one related to the genesis chain. Non-genesis chains have computational power requirements that are based on the reference requirements, and according to their position, which is in turn according to the transaction size. In this way, the chains wouldn't be independent, but actually all dependent on the genesis chain, which is the one setting the reference. The reference power seems to be supposed by the total hash rate, so a change in that would signify a change in every computational power requirement across the multichain.

I agree that such a system could create problems of centralization for unpopulated chains and be more prone to attacks and for these reasons needs careful consideration. The truly difficult task would be to know how to determine this reference for computational power and how to distribute the transaction sizes among the multi-layer blockchain while preserving the strengths of Bitcoin, most importantly, the all-is-one property. In other words, while having multiple chains, or better saying, different ramifications or versions of the same chain, this remains one single entity, verifiable by everyone not by means of others’ copy but one’s copy. This would be the one task requiring great feats of mind and creativity.


This would be all a matter of the relativity of each chain. Temporal perception would be proportionate to their transaction size and computational power requirements. For example, by following previous reasonings: 1 hash of 60 minutes desired solve time would be related to transactions of 6 BTC; such chain would have its own computational power requirements, which would be 6 times the reference power. A user could still wait a few confirms, and for an attacker to attack the chain would need to adjust his computational power to the chain itself. The perception would be the same for every chain: the only things changing would be the spatial and temporal conditions.

Lightning Network is only part of solutions for Bitcoin scalability and transaction fee. With Segwit,Taproot adoption, we have other solutions for it on layer 1. Lightning Network is layer two solution and they all contribute to Bitcoin scalability and reduce transaction fees for Bitcoin users.

With those charts, you can see how Lighning Network, Segwit adoption together helps Bitcoin transaction fee to be much lower than Ethereum.
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),all,weight
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd

Any issue you could have with bitcoin scalability had been provided a solution with in bitcoin Lightning Network, the size, time and cost of performing a transaction is well simplified to be best suitability of anyone in making use of the lightning network, gone are the days when this was an issue and people complained about it, the solution arrived with the introduction of bitcoin lightning network, scalability is no more a concern to think about, you cab read more about bitcoin lightning network here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-beginners-guideline-to-bitcoin-lightning-network-5202798

The idea you're proposing is essentially a multi-layer blockchain system, with each layer having different transaction sizes and mining difficulty levels based on their size. While this approach might help to scale Bitcoin in some ways, it is not without its challenges.

One potential benefit of this approach is that it could help to reduce transaction times and fees for smaller transactions, making Bitcoin more accessible to a wider range of users. It could also help to reduce congestion on the main Bitcoin blockchain, which can sometimes lead to slow transaction times and high fees.

However, there are also several potential issues that could arise from this approach. For one, it could create confusion and complexity for users who would need to navigate multiple layers of the blockchain. It could also increase the risk of security vulnerabilities or attacks, as more layers could mean more potential points of weakness.

Additionally, this approach would require significant changes to the underlying Bitcoin protocol and would likely face resistance from some members of the Bitcoin community. It's also unclear how well this approach would work in practice, as it would need to be thoroughly tested and audited to ensure its stability and reliability.

Overall, while your proposed approach has some potential benefits, it is not without its challenges and risks. As with any significant change to the Bitcoin protocol, careful consideration and evaluation would be necessary before implementing such an approach

what you want to introduce seems to be a master chain that logs hashes of multiple chains
one chain that deals with large value transactions.. EG an IMF institutional wealth swap network.
and another chain that deals with consumer value transactions

thus the IMF institutional wealth swap blockchain has exceedingly long hash solving time and the consumer blockchain having short hash solving time

here are the problems

its not just difficulty at play. its the hash COST

a institutional chain could have just 100 asics(real cheap) but a high enough difficulty to make blocks be solved roughly once per hour but costs pennies to solve

where as a consumer blockchain can have 6000 asics.. the same difficulty of the institutional value chain. but due to the mass asics solves blocks in 1 minute but costs 60x more in mining cost

the issues are that some dont like waiting an hour for 1 confirm
they want it locked fast but then for security of establishing immutably then decide to wait X confirms

which is why bitcoin solves this problem without your idea. becasue those wanting to be confident of no block reversals wait 6 confirms for large amounts before they class it as immutable where as small spenders are happy with 1 confirm.. thus doesnt need multiple chains, multiple mining groups of differing hashing parameters of difficulty

its just simply. wait a few more confirms if your receiving mansion level value or accept 1 confirm if grocery level

,,
the problem is that with different levels of difficulty/timing/costing for mining then makes the value of bitcoin more varied. for instance the institutional level network may be centralised thus cheap mining becasue its closed network amungst the elite using protocols to reject intrusions. thus thety can mine cheap so their rewards/fees can be sold off cheap thus bringing the price of btc down. where as the consumer network open to any participant to mine will cause hash competition and price rises of costs thus want to sell coins/rewards higher to break even thus cause more economic instability..

again bitcoin avoids all that by just saying if your moving large yield wealth wait a few confirms


its actually more secure to have 6 hashes of 10 minutes desired solve time each.. rather than 1 hash of 60 minute desired solve time...  for multiple reasons

How does this give a satisfying response to the questions?

Please be focused on the questions and their core, and provide clear answers that scrutinize the idea and disclose theoretical and practical pros and cons. As usual in this forum, responses are provided on what you believe is right and wrong and are mainly constituted of cultist rhetoric on the perfectness of Bitcoin.

Please provide answers with complete neutrality and possibly strive for openness of mind and heart.

Let me take you back in time, Bitcoin has been forked multiple times, and what did they achieve with those blockchains? The only forked chain that was fair to me was Litcoin which was able to reduce transaction time and even still, it has remained a sheet coin too.

In every blockchain, there is a need for speed, decentralization, and security and Bitcoin has the three of them. When one is compromised, the chain becomes a problem and that is why till today, you don't hear bad news on the Bitcoin blockchain, right from where the transaction is been broadcasted on the Bitcoin network, speed, security and decentralization are there to the node and then to the miners and then to the node, none of this can be compromised.

If you need faster transactions of Bitcoin, Lightening network are developed for that purpose, forget the hype on altcoins that claim to have 300k transaction speed on their network, it is either it is centralized with good security and speed, or decentralized with good security and speedy transactions but full of spams transactions and attacks, or you could have decentralization with speed without security, no matter the hype around any chain on altcoins, check the chain, one of that are usually compromised.

Is it possible to scale Bitcoin by making transaction size proportional to the time needed to verify a transaction?

In other words, have Bitcoin distribute transactions on a multi-layer blockchain, with 10 min as the reference unit of time (bitcoin pulse) corresponding to the reference unit of monetary energy (1 BTC), thus having a reference unit of mining difficulty, then increasing mining difficulty for transaction size > 1 BTC, and decreasing it for transaction size < 1 BTC, in a correct mathematical manner (common logarithm). The result would be having multiple blockchains operating on top of each other and having a mother blockchain at the center, the Genesis blockchain.

What issues would appear to be solved, and what to be created?