Topic: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now? - page 2. (Read 615 times)

taproot doesnt help scale bitcoin.
what it does is for those that produce bloaty transactions and even more so multisig transactions they can opt to put their value into a new multisig that can the reduce the 'weight' of the transaction.. thus may reduce some bloat.
but its not a thing everyone has already opted into or is on default to be a bloat reducer just by transacting normally. it involves changing the way you transact in a different transaction format, different address.

the 4mb 'weight' rule is not allowing 4x more transaction capacity. instead its a mis-count(bad math) method of ignoring certain data aspects of certain transactions to cause a block to appear as allowing more data(bytes) without breaking a 1mb rule the devs have yet to find the courage to remove.
if the rule was actually 4m of proper maxblocksize rule without the cludgy math, then more transactions could be allowed
best estimates of average blocksize is 1.3mb



bitcoin was able to do blocks with over 2500tx a block before SW, but has still not really moved up much, if any. even a 1.3x increase would be 3250tx average.. but we are not seeing a 3250tx average



these features of SW are more gateway TX formats to lock funds up to be used on altnets. TR is being more used for altnets like liquid sidechain for their privacy tools.

yep the altnet girls have been demanding features for their networks while pretending it will benefit bitcoin.

as you might notice in the 2 charts..
transactions per block has decreased over 3 years but the data per block has gone up.. not helpful at all

It isn't increased to 4MB. Best estimates in real world scenario puts it at about ~2MB, a little bit higher maybe.

Not really. Taproot does help to scale but it doesn't have as much impact as the others. Taproot is relevant in specific scenarios but doesn't bring about a scaling across all of the different uses.

---

The thing about scaling is that it won't really be solved, just alleviates the problem at a certain stage. LN is not the solution that magically solves the problem with on-chain capacity, because it merely shifts to 2nd Layer settlement which still requires on-chain transactions. If you need scaling, then you have to either increase block size or reduce the size of transactions, for which the former is easier.

Again, for the record, using it solely to scale or viewing on-chain scaling as the only solution to our problem is not correct. You will hit the wall at a certain point which makes it infeasible to scale further.

common sense, defines what scaling bitcoin looks like

taking people off the bitcoin network by advertising another is not scaling bitcoin by any sense..
telling people that bitcoin should not grow in transaction count is not scaling bitcoin
telling people not to use bitcoin for daily spends is not scaling bitcoin

scaling bitcoin is about allowing more utility on the bitcoin network

something altnet fangirls will never understand or admit to understanding. because all they care about is offramping utility away from bitcoin and getting users to use their altnet and silly promise agreements that can be broken, defrauded and scam value away from people in many ways

well yes the usual dozen fangirls do equal more then me, one person.. you can do simple maths, weldone

but to think that because you are talking to me now. means i am the only person on the planet that wants bitcoin scaling, shows that you miss the basic common sense that it is not just me reading these messages.
i have always(even when writing to fangirls). explained my thoughts not just to those fangirls. but to the wider readers of this forum. i have always kept in mind its more then just you reading this.  you however write posts towards me as if its a private message meant only for me.

you forget that its a public forum. you forget there are other people. and although your clubhouse of buddies might have made many others shy away from correcting you lot, due to your own hostile tones and then pretending to play victim when you get hostility in return (the ol' 'poke the bear, cry when bit' tactic).

just because i dont fear you, and i have no issues correcting the altnet promoters. does not mean im the only one that see's the flaws in your rhetoric

i know im ruining your PR campaign which centers around stealing bitcoin loyalty and fame and brand recognition... but recently i actually tried to help guide you fangirls in how to actually advertise your altnet honestly and actually gain proper users.. (if you cared about actually explaining the differences between the networks to show the niche). but instead you fangirls just got angry. and wanted to continue confusing other readers by remaining in your ignorant stance of pretending LN is bitcoin2.0(bitcoinL2).

this topic is about BITCOIN scaling.. emphasis BITCOIN
so yea when i see people advertising other networks that use different unit of measure, not a blockchain and not even transaction format that bitcoin will use as "payments" where it involves taking people away from bitcoins network. i will call such people out and clarify why it has nothing to do with scaling BITCOIN

Maybe one of the best definitions of Bitcoin.

Btc has a scale that is limited.

You don't get to define or dictate what scaling looks like for everyone else.  



You are welcome to your opinions, but they are only opinions.  Just because you believe that the only "true" Bitcoin scaling is purely on-chain, that does not mean everyone else has to recognise, agree with, or respect that belief.  If a majority of people decide that scaling does look like off-chain payments, then you don't have to respect our opinion either, but you will never stop us talking about it.  We clearly outnumber you.  Majorities are powerful in this space.  You find yourself in a weak bargaining position, yet you still choose to bark orders at us as though you had some sort of right.  Get over yourself.

Further, you can't achieve your goal of on-chain scaling without the agreement and cooperation of others.  Consider that you are already asking more of those who secure the network than they are willing to give you.  You don't have a valid counter-proposal.  You've painted yourself into a corner and have no other avenues open to you.  You are isolated and powerless.  You sit there and whine about losing while others get on and actually build infrastructure that people are adopting and utilising.  

Given that you clearly don't play well with others and generally come across as an unbearable jackass, how do you ever expect to get anything accomplished?  This whole concept is collaborative.  People opt in to the parts they find useful.  And the more people who do that, the more useful it becomes.  Literally nothing you do is in any way useful.  You've been at the same decidedly abrasive and unsuccessful tactic since 2016.  Perhaps it's time for you to try another approach and stop being so insufferably tedious.  Constant repetition of your mindless soundbytes is not furthering your cause.  There are more constructive paths than incessant, petulant complaining.    

Number of nodes =/= number of users. It is not mandatory for nodes to advertise themselves publicly. Mobile wallets usually run either eclair or LND and they are not included in any metrics. They are also far more easier to use, so I wouldn't be surprised if 32 thousand users was a great underestimate.

this topic is about BITCOIN scalability..(not altnet advertising as bitcoin scaling)
when altnet fangirls confuse the topic pretending LN is bitcoin.. i turn up to explain the differences

i am the one explaining that LN is a millisat thing.. and a separate network thus not to do with BITCOIN SCALING
LN is more about removing bitcoin users and utility.. taking people away from using bitcoin daily

.. so why are you, (a person that says LN is a bitcoin thing), now correcting YOURSELF that its a LN thing. but wording it as if you are correcting me.. where since the start i have been separating the 2 things all along, and you havnt.

also you would not have a funding commitment ready to broadcast. you would have a settlement commitment
again different thing

funding = lock/vault/marriage into partnership/deposit into safety deposit box (sat measure)
ln payment=iou promise (msat measure)
settlement= unlock/unvault/divorce out of partnership/withdrawal from box (sat measure)

please notice the 3 separate types of contracts/commitments/agreements/promises.. and stop confusing by pretending its all the same, and definitely then dont make a later post correcting yourself but pretend your correcting someone else as that makes you double misguided

when married and agreeing to share certain amount of each others wealth in a prenup.
whats promised and altered in private when in bed with a partner playing around, is different to the end divorce contract when you separate.
worse case scenario. if the divorce agreement is not what is fairly agreed when you decide to separate. the prenup clause in instated. voiding out whatever bedroom promises you made to each other

a divorce is more linked to the pre-num at marriage, than it is to the private promises you make under the bedsheets during the marriage.

if you cannot tell the difference between the notarised fully audited and accountable contracts of marriage and divorce papers(bitcoin) vs the playful promises in private. then you might get royally screwed if you ever end up getting divorced

Literally, every time you change the subject of the topic just to make yourself seem right about one of your claims. And you're also being rude. I'm trying to understand and justify your hate about LN, but utterly fail. There's probably something wrong with you.

Millisats is a lightning thing, but the amount is rounded down when the channel is about to get closed and the commitments are signed in BTC. So, if you had 1mBTC and 1msat in the LN, you'd have 1mBTC funding commitment transaction ready to be broadcasted in the Bitcoin network whenever you wish to.

Leave liquid out of this. We're talking about the Lightning Network now.

so need me to quote your "layer" stuff you say everytime. pretending LN is a thing fixed to bitcoin, and a solution, next gen offering of bitcoin.. sorry.. its a separate network that fits different blockchains. its not bitcoinL2 at all..

millisats are not a thing bitcoin understands.
millisats are a unit of measure signed into a "promise"(commitment) (IOU contract) on the other network that are not settled within that network, so very much an IOU . a completely different contract than the one that vaults and unvaults the real asset

but thank you for taking my post personal, its an admission you are one of the fangirls.

even the "liquid" teams are trying to untrain each other from calling liquid a bitcoinL2
here is an example of how they explain liquid
" Anyone can issue new assets on Liquid, including stablecoins and security tokens. Each asset can be traded freely within the network, taking advantage of Liquid’s privacy, speed, and secure trading features."

they even now say they transact "liquid bitcoin LBTC" rather than saying they are transacting bitcoin BTC. so they are trying to separate the differences to avoid confusion


picture it this way. you both lock up gold in a safety deposit box which has 2 keys.
add to this that the other guy can find different ways to open the box and take funds not promised to him by displaying to an auditor the wrong contract

and separately away from the safety deposit box you both sign unsettled IOU promises over who deserves what share of the box contents. requiring both to agree and each others permission..

he can also have this same setup with other partners. and so you all pass favours between each other, valued in this different unit of measure.. swapping value in the form of IOU, like pass the parcel

yes you can later create a formal request in gold value, that has rounded up-down the IOU promise value unit..  you both sign and both keep a copy as a more formal contract.
eventually to show the box auditor who deserves what using the more formal contract. but the auditor allowing you to take the contents does not know if the contract is number 5 minus 1, 10 minus 3 or 20 minus 7 and its then a fight over a punishment if one party showed the wrong formal contract to the box auditor.

not the LN payments (parcel swaps) are IOU. in every sense..
the settlement contracts are a different contract. not to be confused with the LN payment iou's

Off-topic: I get you're trying to deride us, but what's so deriding about fangirls?

Neither is bank wire. They're intermediaries which give you IOUs.

Who called Visa dollar 2.0 and who the Lightning Network bitcoin 2.0?

Here's a metric: Currently, the Lightning Network can handle 100x of what Visa can. BTW, I don't care what millions of people do. Thousands of millions of people use Facebook. I don't. Same applies for my money; I know what's better and I choose to use it.

i understand LN fangirls mindset is like saying
'we out performed bank wire transfers of dollar by introducing visa'
but remember visa is a separate payment network than bank wire and "visa" is not "dollar"

try calling LN a multi crypto fast payment network, to actually describe what it is and does (its actually good PR for you fangirls).. pretending visa is dollar2.0 is inaccurate.. as is calling LN, bitcoin2.0

oh and LN did not out perform visa by any metric
there are only under 32 thousand users on LN
(32k nodes, but multiple nodes owned by same people EG LG-BIG has over 40 nodes alone)

visa has done 188billion transactions in 2020 (transaction count not economic value)

We already did outperform VISA when we introduced the second layer solution called Lightning Network.

All the security, centralization, etc. are true but another big problem with these "options" (not solutions) is that they have no link to bitcoin and they have absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin. Just because with some market dynamics in some centralized exchanges you can dump one of these tokens for 1 bitcoin that doesn't mean they represent bitcoin. You may some day face a problem where 1 WBTC is equal to 0.1 BTC and there is nothing stopping that from happening.

In technical view you can say that a second layer like LN depends on bitcoin and what you have there is directly linked to bitcoin and its chain. If bitcoin stops working, LN dies with it too. But if bitcoin stops working WBTC will still stay alive and vice versa meaning when the token platform goes away or maybe they do another roll back WBTC will vanish while bitcoin still remains intact.

Some people still compare Bitcoin (the network) to a payment processor such as Visa. However, they don't understand that Visa is a second layer, built upon currencies. Bitcoin is the first layer; it's the hard cash. Second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network, make transacting go millions time faster.

Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact.

That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise)

Fuckin' genius I'll say.

New chains are not technologically better. They are faster ... but less secured. They achive better scalability at en extend of decentralization. BSC for instance has only 21 validators. So 500 tx/s does not require complete redesign ... it needs bitcoin to resign from current level of decentralization (I hope to never see that because we need 1 super secured chain without compromises to store wealth in it).

How long will gold narrative last? Well its not going anywhere. Inflation is going up, printers doing brrrr, cbds are about to be lauched. We never needed btc as much as we need now. Gold, as store of value narrative is here with as for millennia starting from antiquity. Now bitcoin presented more scarse, easier to transfer, simply better solution. I dont think it will change anytime soon.

More then 7 tx/s would definitely be nice. But problem is going even to 500 would probably need a complete redesign. But without a redesign new chains will technologically  get better and better and the gap will widden. Not sure how long will the gold narrative last....

Ok, but when will bitcoin be "scalable". It all depends on how we define its purpose. It will never be as scalable to outperform visa to serve as everyday payment solution for whole word (7.7B people). But if we are talking about bitcoin as "digital gold" "plan B" product ... 7tx/s may already be scalable enough at least for now (empty Mempool for last 6 months proves that). Because we need high decentralized, high secured chain for storing coins on coldwallets and to transfer them once per ... 1 moth - 10years ... depends how good hodler you are. We can use off-bitcoin-chain solutions (WBTC) for everything else. And it already started. As I pointed before. BEP-20 BTC is already offloading somewhere around 30k TX daily which is 5-10% of all transactions of bitcoin chain. Its aint much if you want btc to be as scalable as Visa, but it is enough to help BTC be <1$tx "digital gold" chain for a little bit longer.

And I agree that WBTC and other solutions that uses other, less secured, more centralized chains/products is the worse place to hodl your bitcoins, but they are perfect in some situation (one mentioned by me earlier - transfer bitcoins between exchanges) what offload traffic on main BTC chain which is ment to be used for much more serious stuff.

This question and the arguments are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You are focusing too much on a very special use case in a very short duration of time whereas the topic of discussion is bitcoin scalability and how a centralized token on a centralized platform with many different risks has nothing to do with bitcoin scalability.
Otherwise you are right, there are altcoins that serve certain purposes for traders like Tether for example even though they are very risky.

I won't answer to your post as I'm a little tired doing this constantly, but I'm going to say this:  The above works oppositely too. Didn't the miners want bigger blocks so they can increase their profit? Invalid argument.

We've said this repeatedly, increasing the block size isn't going to do anything in the long term. It can only satisfy temporarily...

---

As for WBTC:  An IOU represented into block chain. Comedown...

If you're willing to take the risk, go ahead. I simply mention risks of WBTC that you or other member might didn't know, especially those who HODL WBTC rather than actual BTC.