Pages:
Author

Topic: Does lightning network really solve the scalability problem? (Read 1105 times)

legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
we're waaay OT, but:

I don't think it's relevant, Satoshi's not here, or perhaps anywhere. To re-iterate, he wasn't perfect anyway, and he was happy to be wrong to make Bitcoin right.

I don't see the point in using something that no longer exists and wasn't always right as any kind of measuring stick
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable.

What satoshi said doesn't mean what satoshi knew. He may or not have known that 1 MB blocksize would eventually become yet another value which becomes immutable due protocol maturation

A remarkable fact about Satoshi (which is all too often forgotten) is recorded right here on Bitcointalk: sometimes, he got even fairly significant things wrong


Even more remarkable: Satoshi was happy to be wrong, because he wanted to get Bitcoin right. He wasn't jealously guarding the design decisions made in the original Bitcoin 0.1, it was the complete opposite. He fully welcomed and encouraged others to poke holes in Bitcoin, to make it as good as possible.

What would he think now? Who knows (we may never hear from him/them again). We've got to get this right now, not him, and that appears to be exactly what he wanted.


I believe Satoshi would say that the Core developers are on the right path. It's clearly the fee market structure that's what will make everything stick together.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
I thought segwit was a blocksize increase though. From my understanding, the witness data is still part of the blockchain and legacy nodes are provided a stripped version without the witness data. I don't see that as 1 MB being immutable.

Indeed, although it looks more and more like a very adept compromise every day. 4MB blocks are theoretically possible, but because the Bitcoin ecosystem took so long to support and use segwit addresses, the average block is only ever ~ 1.3MB


I'm sure if the developers can implement this work around to increase block size, there will be other work arounds in the future that increase blocksize.

sure, but the best limit is the smallest possible. That might mean dozens of megabytes block weight, but it's really impressive to see the work being done to make more efficient use of 4MB. The ideal to me would be if further space utilization improvements renders 4MB too much, and a cut is instituted instead (assuming of course that 4MB is too much for a fully mature Bitcoin market with highest possible adoption)
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1828
   I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable. When Garzik suggested a patch to increase block size, satoshi stated this can be phased in later. I'm not certain the segwit work around was quite what satoshi had in mind. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347


What satoshi said doesn't mean what satoshi knew. He may or not have known that 1 MB blocksize would eventually become yet another value which becomes immutable due protocol maturation, what matters is the results, and the situation is clear: Reaching wide consensus to raise the blocksize at this point is basically as controversial as raising the max cap. You can find arguments on both sides, which as a result, the status quo prevails.



    I thought segwit was a blocksize increase though. From my understanding, the witness data is still part of the blockchain and legacy nodes are provided a stripped version without the witness data. I don't see that as 1 MB being immutable. I'm sure if the developers can implement this work around to increase block size, there will be other work arounds in the future that increase blocksize.

legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable.

What satoshi said doesn't mean what satoshi knew. He may or not have known that 1 MB blocksize would eventually become yet another value which becomes immutable due protocol maturation

A remarkable fact about Satoshi (which is all too often forgotten) is recorded right here on Bitcointalk: sometimes, he got even fairly significant things wrong


Even more remarkable: Satoshi was happy to be wrong, because he wanted to get Bitcoin right. He wasn't jealously guarding the design decisions made in the original Bitcoin 0.1, it was the complete opposite. He fully welcomed and encouraged others to poke holes in Bitcoin, to make it as good as possible.

What would he think now? Who knows (we may never hear from him/them again). We've got to get this right now, not him, and that appears to be exactly what he wanted.
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
Just like 21 million coin limit is also an arbitrary limit of human imposition. The idea behind it being a simulation of gold's supply is irrelevant, what matters for all intended purposes is that it became an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, just like 1 MB blocksize has become an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, this is called protocol solidification.

At it's inception, any values would have cut it, since satoshi was calling all the shoots. Once the creature was alive, he disappeared, and im sure he was smart enough to know (either planned or in retrospect) that those values would never change. It couldn't go any other way if the project is indeed decentralized. This is the fact only for Bitcoin, no altcoin meets the criteria, which is why all altcoins are overpriced and Bitcoin is undervalued, at any rate.


   I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable. When Garzik suggested a patch to increase block size, satoshi stated this can be phased in later. I'm not certain the segwit work around was quite what satoshi had in mind. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347


What satoshi said doesn't mean what satoshi knew. He may or not have known that 1 MB blocksize would eventually become yet another value which becomes immutable due protocol maturation, what matters is the results, and the situation is clear: Reaching wide consensus to raise the blocksize at this point is basically as controversial as raising the max cap. You can find arguments on both sides, which as a result, the status quo prevails.

satoshi did at least predict there would be an opposition to raising the blocksize way before the blocksize crisis happened:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.



He knew. And so, he disappeared when Bitcoin took a life of it's own (impossibility to reach consensus to change it). Contrary to the idiots that think Bitcoin is doomed because you cannot buy coffee on-chain, that realization was the fact that Bitcoin was a success.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
firstly median is just a single number in the middle of a range
1,1,1,1,1,6,7,7,7,7,7
5,5,5,5,5,6,70,70,70,70,70

Even if it's completely irrelevant, because it's an extreme case you're fabricating here - in both cases the median is nearer of the "typical" usage.


Correct, and don't be tricked into believing that you're wrong. In statistics, when there are outliers in the data-set that skew in finding the mean, then use the median.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1828
Just like 21 million coin limit is also an arbitrary limit of human imposition. The idea behind it being a simulation of gold's supply is irrelevant, what matters for all intended purposes is that it became an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, just like 1 MB blocksize has become an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, this is called protocol solidification.

At it's inception, any values would have cut it, since satoshi was calling all the shoots. Once the creature was alive, he disappeared, and im sure he was smart enough to know (either planned or in retrospect) that those values would never change. It couldn't go any other way if the project is indeed decentralized. This is the fact only for Bitcoin, no altcoin meets the criteria, which is why all altcoins are overpriced and Bitcoin is undervalued, at any rate.


    I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable. When Garzik suggested a patch to increase block size, satoshi stated this can be phased in later. I'm not certain the segwit work around was quite what satoshi had in mind. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183

actually 32mb was a technical based limit of networking related to packets. but 1mb is a arbitrary limit of human imposition
fee war is a wild west zero control human decided imposition that solves nothing but used to avoid real solutions.


Just like 21 million coin limit is also an arbitrary limit of human imposition. The idea behind it being a simulation of gold's supply is irrelevant, what matters for all intended purposes is that it became an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, just like 1 MB blocksize has become an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, this is called protocol solidification.

At it's inception, any values would have cut it, since satoshi was calling all the shoots. Once the creature was alive, he disappeared, and im sure he was smart enough to know (either planned or in retrospect) that those values would never change. It couldn't go any other way if the project is indeed decentralized. This is the fact only for Bitcoin, no altcoin meets the criteria, which is why all altcoins are overpriced and Bitcoin is undervalued, at any rate.

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 6249
Decentralization Maximalist
firstly median is just a single number in the middle of a range
1,1,1,1,1,6,7,7,7,7,7
5,5,5,5,5,6,70,70,70,70,70
Even if it's completely irrelevant, because it's an extreme case you're fabricating here - in both cases the median is nearer of the "typical" usage.

Quote
people pay rent once a week but they get a wage once a month. most live paycheque to paycheque and can only plan/budget one month at a time.
Okay, here we have distinct usage patterns in mind. If you want to use LN for a significant part of your wage/salary, then you very likely would transact more than once per week. For me, LN is more comparable with a prepaid card which you would charge once every few months and then use the credit several times a week.

Quote
having one channel to an exchange means one channel is funded with the wage. but what about the other channels.
oh and if you think everyone will just have 1 channel with an exchange. then watch that exchange get DDoS'd and
watch the exchange have to lock in a months value with every user.. bank2.0 centralisation i hear you scream.
The most "sane" way would be to avoid too big hubs.
1-channel-users (which are very likely to be connected with a hub) would be the typical PayPal/Coinbase user. Not those caring about decentralization. The risks of LN and Coinbase/PayPal are similar in these cases.

My guess is that you would have two big classes of "send-only" LN users: the "PayPal-type" users which would be only connected to an hub, and the "prepaid card-type" users, which would fill their LN channel via on-chain transactions to make online payments, but considerably less than once per month.
Then you have a smaller third class, the "sender/receiver" type, for example, freelancers that are spending money and receiving honoraries for their work. This one would be the most useful for the network, but I completely agree that it will be a relatively small class (maybe 10% of the total).
You have also the "receivers-only", which will be also a smaller class.

Quote
oh and need i forget not everyone wants their whole wage in bitcoin. because bitcoin cant buy you everything. so then throwing a whole salary into LN is not helpful
Correct, but where did I write that?

Quote
funny part of your maths there is that to avoid onchain refills each fortnight would actually require factories to re balance channels without onchain usage.
so you cant say using factories after already describing a offchain factory scenario would further 10x up the scenario.
A channel factory rebalancing would not add no transactions nor kB to the blockchain.

Quote
also even if there was a one channel user. with only a one onchain setup and one onchain settle.
the 1LN payment a day would be a ~88 deburdening of the bitcoin network.(90 payments done in ln instead of onchain. but then discounting the 2 setup/close onchain)
so not sure where you are getting the whole other random numbers you quote. especially 25-30million a day
That number was obviously a maximum number if the behavior of the one-channel user with 1 LN tx/day and 1 onchain tx/3 months was the average and the whole block space was used for LN channel openings and closings. So it's actually even more conservative than you estimation (a third of the block space/13 million LNtx per day).

In theory it could be even higher, if the typical user would use it for "micropayments" several times a day.

Quote
but if a LN user has 3-5 channels, the onchain bloat means less than the 1000 a block/144k a day.
That would only be the case if the user refills all his 3-5 channels each 90 days. You could also refill one of your 3-5 channels each 90 days.

Quote
but if a LN user sessions close sooner than 90 days, the onchain bloat means less than 13mill before ln users refresh
Yeah. That's pretty obvious, but then we would have another average "user persona" Wink

Quote
so if you think out of say ~500k transactions a day it some how will equate to 144k users moving over to LN a day.. forget it.
the amount of users desiring LN for daily use would be less.
Also pretty obvious, but that's not the point I was talking about which was a rough estimation about "maximum scalability".
But I, for example, am currently not using LN, but if fees went up again like they did in 2017, I would do that, even if I transact only roughly 5 times per month. Because LN would allow me to open the channel at a weekend or at night, when fees are almost zero, and then transact in the moment I want, even at 12 o cklock a wednesday when average fees even currently are at 100+ sat/byte.

This possibility to avoid fee volatility, combined with a faster confirmation, is actually very likely a major factor which will drive people to LN. Not massively at first, but gradually.

Quote
oh and check visa stats. even when you can buy most things with visa, even they only have their customers do less than 2 tx a day average
so cool down on thinking everyone will jump into LN.
so cool down on thinking everyone will be doing dozens/hundreds of tx a day
Haven't I wrote here in this thread that I guess that 1 tx/day per household is actually the maximum demand I estimate for Bitcoin? It may have been at another LN thread, but I never wrote about hundreds or dozens per day per person.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
6) and yes a future HF to increase the blocksize beyond the current 4MB of weight

From a technical/scalability perspective, I am more open to this than I was years ago. But when I consider the social/political issues around it, I'm skeptical a non-emergency hard fork would ever be easy to pull off at this point. You think broad consensus is possible? What kind of timeline and activation process are we talking about, and how would we gauge the risks of a network split?
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
There is a false narrative that is always presented about lightning that it is intended to be the only solution to scaling which is false.

Bitcoin must scale in many ways -

1) Onchain with efficiency improvements like MAST and Schnorr sig aggregation

2) Lightning and other payment channels

3) Eltoo

4) statechains

5) sidechains like liquid / bakkt

6) and yes a future HF to increase the blocksize beyond the current 4MB of weight
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
blocksize: transaction count increase onchain = more users. = less fee per user but the total combined fee of block adds up to MORE

That sounds nice, but can you explain the economics behind it?

Users aren't paying a fixed fee, so we can't simply assume that more transactions = more fees.

If block size limits > demand for block space, then fees will drop close to 0 -- why would anyone pay when there is free space? Miners will include your transaction anyways.

Without fixed fees or a fee market based on full blocks, there is no basis for you to say that increased adoption alone will increase fee revenue for miners. You've suggested keeping a "buffer" between block size limit and observed usage, meaning no one would ever need to pay fees at all. With inflation dropping to nothing and fees dropping to nothing, you must expect miners to secure the network out of charity!


Plus there are externalities. The costs to keep the network going would transfer to the miners, instead of from the users. The people demanding "big blocks" either never considered it, or know about it but wanted their hard fork anyway because "Satoshi said P2P cash". Roll Eyes
member
Activity: 200
Merit: 73
Flag Day ☺
Bitcoin Blocks can hold a Maximum of ~1.7MB [~7200 transactions] so ~12 transactions per second

Wrong, check those blocks :
1. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/566575

Size (bytes)2,377,364
Weight (weight units)3,993,179
Stripped size538,605

2. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/367853

Transaction count12,239

My Bad,  Cheesy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/59408/with-100-segwit-transactions-what-would-be-the-max-number-of-transaction-confi

Quote
A corresponding non-segwit transaction would have a size of 192 bytes,
which, together with the 1MB size limit brings us to 5208 transactions per block,
compared to 12195 max segwit transaction per block.


@ETFbitcoin,
Interesting enough your reference block exceeded the max of even all segwit only transactions in the above quote and according to the block height was years before segwit was even activated.  Wink
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ail257/interesting_fact_the_most_number_of_transactions/
Quote
Most of these transactions were tiny. The average transaction size in that block was 81.7 bytes. Many (like this one) were 62 bytes. These were unsigned transactions. The scriptsig for these transactions was just "1". A single byte. No ECDSA, no pubkey hash. No security. The output scripts that these transactions were spending were literally empty.

Also interesting , is this block was useless in clearing the backlog.  2015-08-01 01:06 (4 years ago)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fd2a9/f2pool_setting_a_new_record_most_transactions/
Quote
This is a bit complicated...but they are cleaning up zero-valued UTXOs that F2Pool themselves created in their last spam cleanup.

To elaborate: See this Example. Notice the input is 0.0BTC from a F2Pool UTXO created on Jul 10th. During the last spam cleanup F2Pool attempted to save a byte by sending 0.0BTC to the empty script, rather than OP_RETURN'ing it. However, this creates a spendable zero-valued UTXO which bloats the UTXO-set. It appears that F2Pool are now clearing aways these UTXOs.
This does nothing to help the current backlog.
 Cheesy

FYI:
@Bob123,
You're still Stupid.  Kiss


FYI2:
https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all
*Average Number Of Transactions Per Block has always been below 3000 transactions per block,
so the max is no where near the average.*  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
blocksize: transaction count increase onchain = more users. = less fee per user but the total combined fee of block adds up to MORE

That sounds nice, but can you explain the economics behind it?

Users aren't paying a fixed fee, so we can't simply assume that more transactions = more fees.

If block size limits > demand for block space, then fees will drop close to 0 -- why would anyone pay when there is free space? Miners will include your transaction anyways.

Without fixed fees or a fee market based on full blocks, there is no basis for you to say that increased adoption alone will increase fee revenue for miners. You've suggested keeping a "buffer" between block size limit and observed usage, meaning no one would ever need to pay fees at all. With inflation dropping to nothing and fees dropping to nothing, you must expect miners to secure the network out of charity!
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
Bitcoin Blocks can hold a Maximum of ~1.7MB [~7200 transactions] so ~12 transactions per second

Wrong, check those blocks :
1. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/566575

Size (bytes)2,377,364
Weight (weight units)3,993,179
Stripped size538,605

2. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/367853

Transaction count12,239

making 6 meaningless statistical error. its just some single use case sat amungst more meaningful data
median does not actually provide anything meaningful. as 6 has no relevance to the other numbers. the number 6 has not been derived from calculations nor from analysing other stats. its just a number that exists

We could use Box plot in this case
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755
average of 7 channels per active node.[...] so if your funding 7 channels (onchain data minimum 1 in 7 out) then the close sessions needed at the end of 2in 2out X7(14in 14out)[...]
so if someone is only transacting once a week. they are not really benefiting if they are using monthly channels(4 a month)
First, the median value would be more relevant for an analysis, because big hubs may be distorting the picture (the last time I checked the network structure it was a mix of the hub-and-spoke and the decentralized model, and there were definitively some big nodes with hundreds of channels).
firstly median is just a single number in the middle of a range
1,1,1,1,1,6,7,7,7,7,7
5,5,5,5,5,6,70,70,70,70,70
median is 6. yet using your own analysis of separating users vs hubs.
users only have 1 connections and hubs have 7.
users only have 5 connections and hubs have 70.

making 6 meaningless statistical error. its just some single use case sat amungst more meaningful data
median does not actually provide anything meaningful. as 6 has no relevance to the other numbers. the number 6 has not been derived from calculations nor from analysing other stats. its just a number that exists


when you say hubs have hundreds of channels. who do you think that those hubs are connecting to.....
when you say users have few of channels. who do you think that those users are connecting to.....
hint for each channel there are 2 sides. meaning for every 2 nodes with active channel between them thats a channel.
so adding up the nodes and adding upthe channels and averaging it out is fairer than your 'median'

I don't think that the average person needs more than 2 or 3 channels, often one alone will be sufficient.

Second, why should you open channels monthly if you only transact once a week? Remember that also average persons can receive money via LN, and that's where the potential lies. People would be most likely directly be connected with an exchange so they can "refill" easily, e.g. with their salary.
people pay rent once a week but they get a wage once a month. most live paycheque to paycheque and can only plan/budget one month at a time.
having one channel to an exchange means one channel is funded with the wage. but what about the other channels.
oh and if you think everyone will just have 1 channel with an exchange. then watch that exchange get DDoS'd and
watch the exchange have to lock in a months value with every user.. bank2.0 centralisation i hear you scream.
oh and need i forget not everyone wants their whole wage in bitcoin. because bitcoin cant buy you everything. so then throwing a whole salary into LN is not helpful
oh and if people are locking to one channel with an exchange. watch the exchange ramp up their fee, because they only have the exchange as the only route.

think about scenarios. not the one time utopian perfect experience.
EG did you know when they done the LN pizza promotion, there was only a 10% success rate. not due to any pizza or delivery or settling fiat issues. but the channel issues of LN
Quote
the fee war is not some technology limit.
It is actually if you want to keep the network decentralized and secure
actually 32mb was a technical based limit of networking related to packets. but 1mb is a arbitrary limit of human imposition
fee war is a wild west zero control human decided imposition that solves nothing but used to avoid real solutions.

It will scale the Bitcoin Network, but I believe no one knows by how much. 100x? 1000x? Or maybe less?
It depends on "usage patterns", but we can at least do a basic estimation.

Let's say we define an "user persona" that wants to transact one time per day. He normally refills his channel via LN one or two times per month, but each 3 months he needs a "refunding" via an on-chain channel opening transaction.

This would give us approximately x50 scaling (up to roughly about 300-500 tx/s or 25-30 million tx/day): we have about 100 LN transactions each 3 months (3 x 30-31 plus LN refills) and need a new channel opening, whose size approximately doubles a "normal" 1-in-2-out transaction.

With channel factories and taking into account the same "usage pattern", we could reach about ten times more, so we get a potential of hundreds of millions of transactions per day.

However, we have to take into account that we need some space on the blockchain for 1) normal non-LN transactions, and 2) channel closing transactions in the case of scams. I would estimate roughly that this would takes to a capacity of a third to half of the number I wrote above.

funny part of your maths there is that to avoid onchain refills each fortnight would actually require factories to re balance channels without onchain usage.
so you cant say using factories after already describing a offchain factory scenario would further 10x up the scenario.

also even if there was a one channel user. with only a one onchain setup and one onchain settle.
the 1LN payment a day would be a ~88 deburdening of the bitcoin network.(90 payments done in ln instead of onchain. but then discounting the 2 setup/close onchain)
so not sure where you are getting the whole other random numbers you quote. especially 25-30million a day

but lets take a guess and say that a 3rd of a block is LN reserved. as your scenario suggests
average block ~3k tx so call it 1k LN users a block = 144k a day
but because those users are not transacting onchain on day 2 a fresh set of LN users can use the 1k = another 144k a day,
same for day 3-90=  ~13mill users a quarter before they repeat

where as the 144k a day transactors if doing 1 tx a day onchain. is just 144k which again is ~90x

so based on 1 tx a day with LN sessions of 3 months using only onchain bytes of lean measure (not that many channels)
LN

but if a LN user has 3-5 channels, the onchain bloat means less than the 1000 a block/144k a day.
but if a LN user sessions close sooner than 90 days, the onchain bloat means less than 13mill before ln users refresh

now. to get to the point of transaction numbers.
UTXO stats do not any large percentage of spends happening daily. most bitcoin users are once a week-every couple years
the percentage of daily spenders is low percentile.
so until / unless LN provides access to merchants where people can buy absolutely everything (toilet roll, car fuel, bread)
dont expect many to take advantage of daily activity.
apart from day traders/mixers/spammers

so if you think out of say ~500k transactions a day it some how will equate to 144k users moving over to LN a day.. forget it.
the amount of users desiring LN for daily use would be less.

oh and check visa stats. even when you can buy most things with visa, even they only have their customers do less than 2 tx a day average
so cool down on thinking everyone will jump into LN.
so cool down on thinking everyone will be doing dozens/hundreds of tx a day
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
You are confusing scaling with offloading.

Bob123 is stupid ?  Roll Eyes


FTFY,
 Smiley

I explain it to you why you are wrong , but you're are too stupid,
so there is no need to waste either of our time due to your lack of understanding.
Ask Wind_Fury, maybe he would share his crayons with you.


Your explanation is a disingenuous way to make it look that Lightning is an IOU system, it's not. Plus we don't know if Lightning will scale Bitcoin to the amount in your example.

I can accept that LN is a software experiment that can fail, but there are no IOUs in Lightning. Stop eating those crayons. Hahaha. Cool
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
FYI: This info is for others , Bob123 is too stupid to understand it.
Bitcoin Blocks can hold a Maximum of ~1.7MB[~7200 transactions]
https://www.svpool.com/tag/segwit-fork/
Quote
However, Segwit’s true capacity increase which is only expected to provide a mere 1.7-1.8MB on average effective blocksize
Before Segwit , BTC 1MB blocks topped out at ~7 transactions per second.
After Segwit , increase was only 1.7 X 7 tps = 11.9 tps, which I rounded up to 12
12tps *60 seconds = 720transactions per minute
720 transactions per minute *10 minutes = 7200 transaction per Block, since 1 block is due ~ every 10 minutes.
Too Bad Bob123 is too stupid to understand it.  Tongue

You are still wrong.

I don't care what a random site says.

You were talking about the MAXIMUM amount of transactions a block can hold.
Bitcoin Blocks can hold a Maximum of ~1.7MB[~7200 transactions]

Now, since you obvoiusly can't calculate it yourself.. let me help you:

The maximum amount is reached if the transactions are the smallest (Is very obvious to everybody, just not for you).
A smallest transaction has the properties:
  • being SegWit
  • having 1 input and 1 output

A SegWit transaction with 1 input and 1 output has a size of 85 bytes (non-witness part).
With 1.000.000 Bytes per block, we have 1.000.000 / 85  transactions at a maximum. That's 12.195.


Wasn't that hard, was it ?


In the future you might want to stop posting nonsense / superficial knowledge which you got from somewhere without even thinking about it.


You can, of course, now start arguing like "bla bla a block never has only 1 input 1 output segwit transactions bla bla".. But it doesn't matter..
YOU started talking about the maximum a block can hold. And your statement was wrong.

And instead of accepting it and calculating it yourself, you started justifying yourself. Which obviously just backfired, because you are simply wrong.

And this is not the only statement of you which is plain wrong. Most of the stuff you are mentioning is nonsense.
I don't know whether it is because you misunderstood things, or because you are not capable of understanding it.. and it doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.




Just saw this:
Not thinking that would work.
I think the generated private keys would be different.

How would the private key be the exact same, between the BTC & LTC network for the public address?

How do you even dare to talk about LN if you don't understand the very basics of cryptography / cryptocurrencies / BTC  Roll Eyes

Now, do yourself a favor and first learn the basics. Then educate yourself about the advanced stuff.
THEN start discussing LN and its pros/cons.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
You are confusing scaling with offloading.

Troll or stupid ?  Roll Eyes



Bitcoin Blocks can hold a Maximum of ~1.7MB [~7200 transactions]

No, you can't even calculate your numbers correctly.

A maximum of 12.195 transactions fit into one block.


Go and get some math lessons.



As you can see the 8mb block bitcoin achieves greater scaling than the 1.7mb block bitcoin.

Yes, absolutely.

Doubling something is called scaling..  Roll Eyes

You guys amaze me each time, how narrow-minded people can be. That's hilarious.



If Bitcoin was a Bus and could hold 100 passengers,
and the bus was near capacity , and some of the passengers decided to get off at the bus terminal and take a cab for the majority of the trips, and then returned to the bus terminal for the final trip home.
All they are doing is not using the Bitcoin Bus as it was unsatisfactory and paying the cab operators additional fares. Which the Cab operators don't always go the full distance like the bus does, but require multiple cabs and multiple small fares to reach your destination.

A cab has nothing to do with the bus.

So.. you are saying the LN has absolutely nothing to do with BTC ?  Please just agree on that and everyone will instantly see that you don't have ANY clue at all.



Bitcoin Scaling was not increased (as it is exactly the same number of seats either way),

You can not 'increase scaling'.
Do you even know what scaling means ?

Or do you just use it as a buzzword ?



Offloading transactions to LN , or even Altcoins by using Litecoin , Doge or Ethereum are the same thing.

Absolutely.

LN is protected by bitcoins security mechanisms and some shitty altcoin is not protected at all.

Absolutely the same.


Same question as above:
Troll or stupid ?



Kind of makes you wonder how stupid people are to believe that nonsense.

That's EXACTLY what everyone (except for your franky troll) is thinking about you.



Scaling can only be done Onchain

If that's what you really believe, you are beyond help.



FYI:
To increase scaling on a Bitcoin Bus with 100 seats.
Either add 100 extra seats so the Bus has 200 seats
or
Drive the Bus twice as fast , so you can get people to their destination in half the time.

Calling Taxis because you refuse to upgrade your Bus capacity ,
is a sure sign that one day all anyone will do is call the taxis and ignore the Bus.


That's really the most retarded comparison i have ever seen.


LN to BTC is not like a cab to a bus, but more like teleporting to a bus.
You can drive each route with the bus.. or you drive once to a teleporter, teleport as much as you want for nearly no money in nearly no time.
And at the end, you drive back with the bus.


You are delusional if you compare BTC/LN with a bus/cab. This literally makes 0 sense.



I understand why you got red trust for shittalking.
Your account here is worthless, and so is your opinion.

Instead of complaining "bla bla bla Lauda is abusing DT bla bla bla" and "omf omf omf forum giving red trust for truth omf omf omf", you should at least TRY to understand that everything you say and think is completely wrong.
Work on yourself. Work on your understanding of BTC / LN.




BTW, regarding your signature:

Quote
Lauda is an Idiot abusing the DT System because she is too stupid to actually win an argument based on Logic. Beware Lauda & anyone supporting her.

I had quite a big argument with Lauda regarding security of operating systems.
We had completely different opinions. And we didn't find a common ground.. but somehow.. i didn't receive red trust  Shocked

So, instead of blaming everyone else, start looking for the reasons in yourself  Wink
Pages:
Jump to: