Topic: Scalability in Bitcoin (Read 159 times)
Is that article from that medium platform suggesting that Open Source is free and therefore, not sustainable? I didn't read the entire article as I don't have much time right now but at the first lines it seemed to suggest that Open Source means free work. It doesn't. Anyway scalability is already so discussed that this seems just another thread about it. If people have ideas, knowledge and skills, just put up a BIP to review! That's all.
What you need to know is on chain Bitcoin fees is still cheap nowadays unlike on 2017 back where the fees is really high and aren't affordable.
are you sure tx fees in the past were higher then now..
guess where the flatline ends(left side where prices were low and flat).. and guess where the more volatile scribbles(right side) of higher prices begins..
need i say more?
in 2012 i was transacting for under 1cent
in 2015 i was transacting for under 5cent
by 2017 people were screaming that it was 10cents and getting too high..
oh and that image above, the price at the top corner mentioned is the NOW average tx fee costs not the old prices
..
to scale BITCOIN actually means to SCALE .. wait for it BITCOIN
its not an oppertunity to advertise another network as the thing people need to jump ship across too.
telling people to stop using BITCOIN NETWORK and find another network is not the solution. its the bait and switch
..
offer sidenets and altnets as niche service networks for certain utility is ok. but NOT as the "solution" where everyone should give up the bitcoin network for, to just only then play on one/two other networks for the long term.
other networks are not the BITCOIN scaling solution,. its the bitcoin replacement bait and switch
Parts of Saito could be implemented in Bitcoin.
The network is much more likely to pick up the ATR / circular ledger mechanism than the routing work function discussed in this article.
A 20 year transient blockchain with a 100 MB blocksize cap would be an improvement, imo
lol @ BIP comment above.
Still waiting for it to be discussed with the Bitcoin community or the developers. Haven't heard any of it spreading around at the bitcoin technical support or the development discussion board. Not even on the mailing list or Github as far as I am concerned.The network is much more likely to pick up the ATR / circular ledger mechanism than the routing work function discussed in this article.
A 20 year transient blockchain with a 100 MB blocksize cap would be an improvement, imo
lol @ BIP comment above.
If you really think it is viable and give the Bitcoin community and network a greater good, as a start, why don't you give it a shot rather than babbling right here?
What you need to know is on chain Bitcoin fees is still cheap nowadays unlike on 2017 back where the fees is really high and aren't affordable. Lightning network have been founded 4-5 years ago and now there's many service already want to use it, LN is the way to solve the scalability in Bitcoin.
Now you want to run Bitcoin on different chain? that's a fork and not the real Bitcoin, similar like Bitcoin BEP20 who run in Binance chain.
Now you want to run Bitcoin on different chain? that's a fork and not the real Bitcoin, similar like Bitcoin BEP20 who run in Binance chain.
i.m.o this must be included in bitcoin discussion sector. not here
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Bitcoin has lightning network channel to fix the scalability problem and the fees required to pay the transaction. 
People often like to talk about scalability an how important it is (rightfully so) but at the same time I don't think we often see anyone acknowledging what holds scalability back.
Earlier a friend sent me this article; https://medium.com/@0xluminous/the-future-of-open-source-software-7c77592f8f24
It offers an interesting solution; actually paying for the work the network needs and the implications of this.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Earlier a friend sent me this article; https://medium.com/@0xluminous/the-future-of-open-source-software-7c77592f8f24
It offers an interesting solution; actually paying for the work the network needs and the implications of this.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
NO, I don't think that bitcoin will change its protocol or implementation, and that's why we have so many fork bitcoin. But then again, did they succeed or not? Right no one did, BSV, BCH are all dead and it shows that bitcoin will stood the test of time no matter what argument they have against it. As for the fees, way back in 2017 it was really high, but then there was Segwit and then LN.
> Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Parts of Saito could be implemented in Bitcoin.
The network is much more likely to pick up the ATR / circular ledger mechanism than the routing work function discussed in this article.
A 20 year transient blockchain with a 100 MB blocksize cap would be an improvement, imo
lol @ BIP comment above.
Parts of Saito could be implemented in Bitcoin.
The network is much more likely to pick up the ATR / circular ledger mechanism than the routing work function discussed in this article.
A 20 year transient blockchain with a 100 MB blocksize cap would be an improvement, imo
lol @ BIP comment above.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Bitcoin has lightning network channel to fix the scalability problem and the fees required to pay the transaction. Why do you need a new one for that? have you used the bitcoin lightning network before? i meant if you must also aware about the reality if it myst be gone through BIP and it's not any BIP can pass the vote to be implemented to the bitcoin network. Try to use lightning network and you will think if bitcoin is also in another level as well. The fees was also cheap and so fast like what already done by altcoins.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
No. Because the platform that you shill, Saito and the co-founder of itself did not make any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal(BIPs).If those co-founders truly comprehend something that most people don't and offer better solutions, why don't they talk about it? Maybe that's simply an unviable idea.
People often like to talk about scalability an how important it is (rightfully so) but at the same time I don't think we often see anyone acknowledging what holds scalability back.
Earlier a friend sent me this article; https://medium.com/@0xluminous/the-future-of-open-source-software-7c77592f8f24
It offers an interesting solution; actually paying for the work the network needs and the implications of this.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Earlier a friend sent me this article; https://medium.com/@0xluminous/the-future-of-open-source-software-7c77592f8f24
It offers an interesting solution; actually paying for the work the network needs and the implications of this.
Couldn't something like this be implemented in Bitcoin?
Jump to: