Topic: How scalable is Blockchain in terms of size/speed? - page 2. (Read 559 times)
Newbies should start reading/learning about what's important about Bitcoin, its blockchain, and learn why the decisions taken by the Core developers is the better path. Security, decentralization, censorship-resistance, and finality.
I wonder, how scalable is the Blockchain in terms of size of data. It grows every day and the speed of data processing on the server side must inevitably go down. Am I right? Where can I read about this? I'm sure there was some analysis done already. Thanks!
The size of the blockchain itself has no effect on the future transaction processing speed.
With p2p databases (no matter if blockchain, distributed hash tables or dynamo) one generally distinguishes between vertical and horizontal scaling.
Horizontal scaling means adding more nodes. Since in a blockchain network every transaction has to be processed by every node, there is no added value.
Vertical scaling means a larger maximum block size. This would increase the throughput, but at the same time the blockchain would quickly increase in size.
(and a larger blockchain usually implies a more centralized system)
Scalability has a capacity to change in size and scale by measuring the ability of a process, network, software, or organization to grow and manage increased demand. Blockchain is a potential technology that disrupts and improvises industries and traditionally centralized systems. Blockchain technology scale and processes transactions at speed, way above its alternatives with enhanced capabilities.
Blockchains do not scale on-chain globally, decentralized ones at least (and that is, the Bitcoin blockchain, the rest aren't decentralized). In order to keep the whole thing from collapsing upon itself, there's a fee market. If you want prioritize your transaction, pay an higher fee.
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
Segwit is a joke, and secondary solutions are just that secondary,
if the primary onchain jams up the secondary will also fail.
The Future will require a larger blocksize or a faster blocktime, deny it all you like.
When transactions fees start exceeding $20 and it takes days to complete a transaction,
there will be an outrage demanding a hard fork or everyone will just move to another coin that provides onchain scaling.
Precisely, the reason you guarantee the primary doesn't fall is by protocol solidification, derived from a de-facto reached decentralization which Only Bitcoin has reached, organically (no other way). You build on top of this, so if what you build falls, you have a place to fall back. Granted, the impact on price and hashrate would be felt, however, Bitcoin would outlive a fatal second layer error/exploit, as well as a fatal segwit error/exploit. This requires many years of studying Bitcoin and understanding the fine layers of game theory around it. By the time you reach this point, you may have lost half of your BTC stack in a variety of shitcoins which promised you to solve whatever you considered to be problem but proven to be a solution in practice.
I wonder, how scalable is the Blockchain in terms of size of data.
A blockchain that's merely a chain of blocks running in a datacenter might be very scalable, and very fast. Like Paypal.
Quote
It grows every day and the speed of data processing on the server side must inevitably go down.
That's the cost the server should bear.
Quote
Am I right? Where can I read about this? I'm sure there was some analysis done already. Thanks!
If asking about Bitcoin, I believe the question should be, "what's the maximum block size can the network bear today, without centralizing the network? - If a hard fork was a non-issue."
Blockchains do not scale on-chain globally, decentralized ones at least (and that is, the Bitcoin blockchain, the rest aren't decentralized). In order to keep the whole thing from collapsing upon itself, there's a fee market. If you want prioritize your transaction, pay an higher fee.
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
Why do you believe that the increase in size of Blockchain can cut down its data processing speed? It has been witnessed that whenever the size has increased, the community have always come up with some solution every time and dealt with the issues. Those were the times when it was possible that the speed of data processing may have gone down due to blockage in mempool, but this is not the case any more. People are using different nature of technology i.e.; SegWit and helping the network save both energy and data consumption whereas going up with the speeds it is achieving at a daily pace.
I wonder, how scalable is the Blockchain in terms of size of data. It grows every day and the speed of data processing on the server side must inevitably go down. Am I right? Where can I read about this? I'm sure there was some analysis done already. Thanks!
Jump to: