Topic: Is any crypto truly scalable to a global scale? BTC, ETH, IOTA, DCR, PIVX...? - page 2. (Read 4257 times)

Sure:

1. How To Enable On-Chain Scaling (Dash)
2. OFFICIAL DASH ROADMAP

v16 - 512TX/S
v17 - 1024TX/S
v18 - 2048TX/S
v19 - 4096TX/S

Its enough to know you are BCNext, your previous scam coin, how much is it worth now, Nxt? Typical pump-and-dump scam-coin, you have done it before, you're doing it again with iota.

You are good at making scam coins, get your profits, dump, then starting another one. Greedy people are your victims, when they buy in they cant handle pain of being fooled so they too push your scam-coin further attempting to lure more victims in. 

If I am wrong in critique of Iota, there would be no need for you, Developer and founder of Iota, to follow me around in every btctalk thread, like a bad fart, and question my reputation, like I give a shit about my rep or status on an internet forum  .

I googled for "artificial convergence" and got https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp lol.

It's enough to check your posts history to see how much these words are worth.  

Man you are full of it, you are damaging yourself and byteball by continuously trolling like you've done.
I also praise byteball with it's own Pros, and Tony definitely is a coding machine, but you need to stop this bullshit.

Why don't you put both side of the stories out and let people compare themselves.
what about the current situation with the witness counts? they majority mostly belongs to someone?
and what about all the current non-distributed coins??? someone is holding them still???

Your an ass, crypto is new and it needs some guidance and bootstrapping in the beginning,
sometimes centralized nurture is the most efficient way. iota has done it as decentralised(probably the most decentralized) manner as possible.
before you go bashing others, provide your own flaws to not end up sounding like a hypocrite.

That sounds like a long-winded mental gymnastics version of the word "convergence" while trying to avoid implying it's artificial convergence lol.

I think you have no clue what the coordinator does. It does not create TX, does no POW, and does not confirm TX. It decides the growth direction of the DAG.

Without the coordinator being active on the IOTA network today, it is not secured by the PoW done by the nodes.

Simple reason why nobody is deactivating that optional feature. Nobody wants to be the first to loose their money.

Buy some more snake oil, for sure.

I see new upcoming projects always mention about other infrastructures like IOTA and aeternity because of ether's scalability problem. BTC and ETH are not truly scalable and this has been proved. As long IOATA and others are used more often, we'll understand this better.

IOTA has an interesting whitepaper, i don't know if it proven... Time will tell if is worth the long shot.
I think bitcoin is the only one to invest time into

It's enough to check your posts history to see how much these words are worth. 

With EVERY blockchain you need either to increase the block size, or drecrease the block time to ram through more TX/sec. But doing it will hit a propagation limit at some time. When you calculate the next block hash you will have only very little time to distribute this block. A hardcap will be reached no matter what.

In answer to question 7. Supporters of Xtrabytes believe it  is infinitely scalable. Firstly the blockchain is built on a rock solid secure foundation unlike any other chain. On top is a virtual layer that cant be hacked and as its virtual the understanding is there is no friction and has no scalability issues.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blast%20Processing

This is not true. The coordinator is an optional compotent. You can configure your node to be part of the network without the coordinator. At the moment nobody is doing it, but it would be possible at any time. If done the network would work without the coordinator, but be suspensible to a 34% attack, just like BTC and ETH are today (51% is an urban legend).

I don't think Byteball is promising. Byteball is basically a clone of IOTA (the author says IOTA inspired him) with added fees, minus the coordinator, minus oracles, minus trinary math, minus the JINN processor, minus a scientific nonprofit foundation.

Also remember IOTA is not a decentralized cryptocurrency.

Currently, and since 2 years back, the PoW done on the permissioned network is for illusion of security and marketing. It is the central authority called Coordinator node, which determines the state and consensus.

To be on topic: No coin can do what you ask of today, the most promising is Byteball.

This is how I feel about the two DAG coins:

>1. Can blockchain-based currencies really work with billions of users?

No, they do barely work now.

>2. Will it become a choice between impractically expensive fees or impractically slow transaction confirmations?

Both has happened already.

>3. Are the proposed plans for BTC and ETH scalability just short-term fixes that will eventually run into the same problems later on?

Aye. At first they will increase block sizes. They may also reduce block time. But at some point network propagation will be a big problem.

The new buzzword is "Lighting Networks". This is why Litecoin was pumped to over 2 billion. Lighting networks means the introduction of banks as a part of a blockchain. The customers of a lighting bank, or lighting network as they call them, will be able to instantly exchange tokens with another customer of that bank. Just the same way like transfering BTC within the same BTC exchange. The bank will then at a later time generate blockchain TX if necessary.

>4. Are DAGs the solution?

To an extent. They can replace blockchains, but have their own problems.

>5. How much time will IOTA transactions take if each user has to process their own share of the "tangle"?

That depends on the number of users in the network. Fast transaction are only possible when there is a lot of activity in the DAG.

>Can tiny IOT devices even handle such processing requirements?

Currently they can't. From IOTA #tanglemath channel I've received an answer similar to this:

Tiny IOT devices like temperature sensors will connect to a proxy node and send the data. The proxy node will take the data and create a TX by doing the POW.
At a later time the sensors will be able to generate the POW themselves by using the JINN processor. This will be a trinary processor with extremely low power usage. Apparently they work since 2 years on that hardware, with CFB/BCNext as the chief architect.

>6. Others have suggested that currencies such as DCR, PIVX or BURST solve the problem in different ways. If so, how?

From these 3 I know only PIVX, which is Proof of Stake. It's nothing new, basically a copy of NXT with some modifications. POS coins have way faster TX time than blockchains, but they suffer from centralization.

>7. Are there any other solutions?

I'm biased about this, but the only endgame solution, meaning one that will still work without problems 30 years from now is Radix. You will see it in action soon.

When you say all nodes, do you mean solo miners and pools? Being a solo miner (that doesn't go bankrupt in the first week) in a coin that has enough transactions to require 1GB blocks is a multi-million (or perhaps even multi-billion) dollar business. They can afford faster internet connections. Pools can afford faster connections as well.