Topic: Was Bitcoin scalability ever an issue? (Read 186 times)

Some of the issues here span from the fact say, we tend to be more traditional especially, when the old covers a wide range of both users and customers.
The bases for most be say, may people don Dey used to the regular Bitcoin network and this goes for the exchanges as well.
That being said, you go always like use watin your existing and prospective users dey use and that means, sticking to be more traditional especially with the difficulty in the Lightening network set up and the fact say, the issue with Bitcoin network congestion is more temporal. The validity of the alternative network no too dey worry person.

Bitcoin's scalability has been a major issue since its inception. Bitcoin's design limits the number of transactions that can be processed in a given period of time, and this has caused significant bottlenecks as the network has grown. There are a number of potential solutions to this problem, such as increasing the block size limit or implementing off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network. However, these solutions have faced challenges, such as the risk of centralization and the need for consensus among the Bitcoin community. As a result, Bitcoin's scalability remains a significant challenge.


Another scalability challenge facing Bitcoin is the issue of mining centralization. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work system, which means that the network relies on miners to validate transactions and add them to the blockchain. However, as the Bitcoin network has grown, mining has become increasingly centralized, with a small number of large mining pools controlling the majority of the hash power. This centralization has led to concerns that the Bitcoin network could be controlled by a small group of entities, and it has also raised questions about the network's long-term sustainability.

Perhaps you need to check this chart to see how segwit bitcoin wallet address has been adopted many times. Since the soft fork, not one day has that chart fac decline for once, it has been on its all time high and still growing. To backup my argument, check mempool.space explorer for the pending transactions and comfirm transaction, it contains almost all segwit transaction with address that start with bc1q, don't forget that we also have another segwit in adoption but that one is taproot it start with bc1p

The adoption should have passed this level but some wallets and exchange are very lazy to adopt this despite the fact that it's compatible in a way that they can wrapped their previous addresses as nested segwit but they prefer previous type of wallet addresses.

As LN network I think the reason why it hasn't getting that massive attention is because bitcoin legal tender is very low, how many people use bitcoin for day to day transaction, only few, the rest are happening onchain transaction that is why it hasn't gotten that kind of widely adoption. But people still use it, it will get better with time.

Scalability has been a major issue for Bitcoin since its inception. The number of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process is limited by its block size, which is currently 1 MB. This has led to long transaction times and high fees. Some people have proposed solutions, such as SegWit and Lightning Network, but these have not been widely adopted. Scalability remains a major challenge for Bitcoin.

The Koko be say the lightening network dey complicate things and although we dey look am like say e no matter, we have some OGs rejecting to accept it and you no go blame them because they have very valid reason not to do so.  So for the same Bitcoin now we get choice to accept am or not, isn't that disrupting the whole concept of Bitcoin not been censored. Why introduced a layer 2 solution that give option to denied accepting Bitcoin just because e no come from your own lightening node. I see why people are even entertaining the idea of lightening network, na because him no come with e own coins as Bitcoincash do because Bitcoin maximalist no dey like use eye hear another coin.

The main Bitcoin is the mainnet, lightening network is a sidechain (layer 2) solution and although it uses the same real Bitcoin still it can be censored by wallets, exchanges or a business owner not accepting it because it isn't their own lightening node (you see wetin I do there) but any Bitcoin coming directly from the Bitcoin mainnet can't be rejected. Lightening network takes Bitcoin out of the mainnet which make it's not a permanent solution to the scalability problem. Dem be dun talk say make dem increase the Bitcoin block size so more transaction can be included but I no just dey understand why we no go with dat solution, e for better pass all this lightening network wahala.

I must tok di truth, me I never know how to use di lighting network. I dey see am for inside Electrum Wallet but I never know how to use am so I just shun am keep for won corner but as op and Oda people tok am sae e gud well well for transaction matter dem. Di transactions fee wey come high dis days affect me well well for my trading account. I no fit do anything transactions because di fee dey high. And I was planning to use di lighting network but I come know how to use am so I come leave. But di transaction fee issue set is going down now.

I see that people often tackle on things they don't seems to admit or have a take on, to me i see bitcoin lightning network as being developed to help institutions with the ease of performing a bulky transactions at the same time with lesser see and more faster, just like a company will always want to make his staffs monthly payment using the channel, so i don't see it more applicable for an individual use than a collective one for organizations, which means using a layer 2 transaction is by choice if you think it pays but not to now discourage others from the use of bitcoin lightning network.

Bitcoin mempool has not been congested except certain time, especially during a very massive bull run, there can be high mempool congestion. But most of the time, the mempool is not congested and low fee transaction fee can be enough to get transactions confirmed in the next block or few blocks away.

Ordinals and Inscriptions is beyond NFTs, it was also the start of what people called bitcoin tokens like BRC-20. No nodes can be affected by Ordinals.

Although some exchanges are supporting it too, not that it is so bad to the extent that few exchanges are not supporting it. About your questions, it is likely because those exchanges are making huge profit from bitcoin. They also have their side chains, like the Binance BNB Beacon Chian and the Binance Smart Chain for bitcoin which are actually not bitcoin, but altcoins.

I saw it too and I perfectly understood you correctly, but you do not have to agree with everything you see on the news, while you need to read some news in details before not leading to rumour or misunderstanding. Some news are also just of false information.

The real bitcoin are the mainet and lightning network. All other networks are altcoins and some people referred to them as side chains. Lighting network is layer 2 like you meant, but not side chain because it is actually bitcoin sent to offchain layer to be used for lower and faster transactions. Which can be sent back onchain.

Most wallets are not supporting it. Some exchanges are not supporting it. If it is not your lightning node, it is not your coin. Some people are afraid of attack. Also not good for huge transactions amount.

But some wallets are making lightning network easier to use as they are only generating payment invoice for users, but this is centralization.

Yes, not as serious as this. But it is worth knowing that this is not an attack. It only makes bitcoin to have more usefulness. Something useful should not be called an attack, but I noticed that almost all established bitcointalk members that posted about it all against it except one that I know among them that is a miner. Some coins like litecoin and doge have their own tokens now which their community well accepted and not a problem because they are not have scaling issue. I do not mean bitcoin is not superior and better, but why want to fight what makes transaction fee to be more replacing mining reward.

This na issue way bitcoin dey face since day one, I agree with wetin CryptopreneurBrainboss talk, no be every bitcoiner accept lightning network as bitcoin, franky1 na one of the people way get that strong opinion of lightning network. The guy dey always talk about am for him posts, you fit follow their argument for technical discussion sha make you know the full gist.

Oh, so is just trust issues from the fact that it's not in the Bitcoin mainnet, I was surprised at first when I read an article about Bitcoin moving more to centralisation because in the basic of mining pool and lightning network, they are centralise. But those who didn't adopt lightning network before, have been able to cope with the scaling problem before this recent attack on Bitcoin, with this can I say the scaling problem was not too serious before this recent attack?

Scalability of Bitcoin na problem wey to my knowledge start since 2017 infact e ever cause major folk for Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin cash come out in 2017 and they plan to solve the Bitcoin scalability problem but the community no gree accept Bitcoin cash because of many other reasons wey I no go discuss today since nobi wetin we dey discuss. The matter be say many solutions dun come out to solve this issue of high fee but them never succeed fully and na because adoption never too come for the solutions them. No be every Bitcoiner at first support lightening network when e come out, some dey dey say no be Bitcoin self because transaction aren't done on the mainnet of Bitcoin blockchain.

Na just recently like few years back people and companies begin dey accept the lightening network well and segwit address integration too as no better options dun come out. I hope you understand how Bitcoin lightening network works, the transaction dey confirm for another layer like dem polygon dem wey be layer 2. Lightening network na layer 2 e be the transaction no dey happen on the Bitcoin mainnet and na why people been dey get second thought about the whole solution. Lightening network na the best solution we dun get so far but I believe in future better solution go come out wey go dey the Bitcoin mainnet directly but for now for faster confirmation na lightening network be baba.

But why are the big exchange and non custodian exchange not supporting it though binance is planning to.


This is what they said in the link on my post

Before the introduction of the bitcoin lightning network, scalability was a big problem that causes delay in transactions and higher fee and also has a limit to some certain extent, an expressway was made and channeled through the bitcoin lightning network under the protocol for layer 2 protocols for transactions, and ever since this, it has been permanently solved, ordinals that we recently experience is not as a result of scalability, but something that seems a bug on the bitcoin blockspace on the blockchain, NFTs inscriptions could place dager on the network later in future by some developers launchi attacks on bitcoin nodes through this.

Lightning network is not easy to setup. But some wallets and exchanges are getting to support it. Most well known noncustodial wallets are not supporting it is another issue. There are some big exchanges that are not still supporting it, exchanges like Binance and Coinbase, Bybit, Kucoin, Huobi and many others are not yet supporting lightning network.

Newest? Check this 13 September, 2022 article from paxful: Paxful and the Lightning Network commemorate their first anniversary

Paxful has been supporting lightning network for more than one and a half year.

Lightning network and other means of making bitcoin transaction were not helpful against naira cash shortage. You use bitcoin online, you can use naira too online. I understand that bitcoin is superior because it is an appreciative asset, unlike naira that is a depreciating asset, but to what extent can you spend bitcoin in Nigeria. Nearly all transactions are naira transactions.

Before, the recent spamming of Bitcoin that leads to the hike of the transaction fee, bitcoin was already having a scaling problem but that didn't move most people to use the Lightning network and this has been base on the fact that the technical aspect of setting up a lightning network is complex for a basic user and so this has affected the growth of Lightning network, but the recent spamming of Bitcoin has lead to many exchanges, implementing lightning network and this makes it easier for a basic bitcoin user to use the Lightning network.

So I have been thinking, was bitcoin scalability really an issue in the first place and what have really been affecting the growth of Lightning network.

Even paxful, is among the exchange implementing lightning network for bitcoin (one of their reasons was because of the cash shortage in Nigeria)