I think the question is important enough to revive this thread. There are some attempts in the altcoin world to solve scaling with other methods than simply rising the block size limit. I've compiled them into a list.
It should be considered incomplete still, and I'm not totally sure if Lisk includes a two-way peg or only an one-way peg - if not, then it should not appear in the list.
Topic: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem? (Read 4249 times)
Indeed. I'm trying to find a scheme where it is the owner of coins himself that is to prove that he didn't double spend, rather than having the global system showing that he didn't. That means that there mustn't be global consensus on much ; in fact only on "provided signatures for peer balances" or something of the kind. Everyone is supposed to keep his OWN transaction history to be able to prove validity of his current status.
In fact, you only need to have sufficient peers keeping your transactions sufficient long times in order to be able to verify that your actual balance is correct since your last "certified" balance ; if you don't bother keeping a past certified balance that is recent enough, then your problem that you cannot provide proof any more of right to spend.
That 'certified' balance has to be private. I'm told Monero does not have the concept of UTXO, since they don't know how much someone has spent, so there may be some clues about how to achieve such a system in that protocol.
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
It is not possible in block chain centered crypto, because block chain centered crypto is requiring a much too much severe form of consensus, needing EVERYONE to agree *perfectly* on the *single* *totally* ordered list of transactions ever done ; on top of it, with a time-spaced unique seigniorage mechanism included.
This is not needed to keep the accounts of owners of coins. Of course, it is (largely) sufficient, but this strict ordering and time spacing is making that the thing can not scale.
For instance, whether the transaction from Joe to Jack came BEFORE the transaction from Alice to Claire, or after it, *doesn't matter*. Whether you got a confirmation of the transaction from Joe to Jack in block A, and you got another confirmation in block B, doesn't matter. The fact of having to chose between block A and block B is, concerning these transactions, not necessary. It is only necessary to indicate a winner of the reward.
I'd agree that the solution is probably to take the blockchain out of crypto. Then transactions can be instant without waiting for confirms. If Joe pays Jack, Alice and Claire, it doesn't matter what order they are processed in as long as Jack has the balance to send the transactions. Blockchains are doubling the amount of traffic, firstly we have the broadcasting of transactions, and secondly we get the transaction included in a block. A PoW blockchain coin generation distribution scheme would be a very small blockchain only needed by mining nodes. So all that is needed is a mechanism where people cannot forge their own coins and double spend.
Indeed. I'm trying to find a scheme where it is the owner of coins himself that is to prove that he didn't double spend, rather than having the global system showing that he didn't. That means that there mustn't be global consensus on much ; in fact only on "provided signatures for peer balances" or something of the kind. Everyone is supposed to keep his OWN transaction history to be able to prove validity of his current status.
In fact, you only need to have sufficient peers keeping your transactions sufficient long times in order to be able to verify that your actual balance is correct since your last "certified" balance ; if you don't bother keeping a past certified balance that is recent enough, then your problem that you cannot provide proof any more of right to spend.
Graphene is capable of 100,000 TPS when we pay for the network to go with it
High performance blockchain technology is necessary for cryptocurrencies and smart contract platforms to provide a viable alternative to existing financial platforms. BitShares is designed from the ground up to process more transactions every second than VISA and MasterCard combined. With Delegated Proof of Stake, the BitShares network can confirm transactions in an average of just 1 second, limited only by the speed of light.
Designing a high-performance blockchain isn’t rocket-science, and doesn’t require complex, hard-to-understand protocols, nor does it require dividing processing among all the nodes on the network. Instead, all that is necessary to build a high-performance blockchain is to remove all calculations that are not part of the critical, order-dependent, evaluation from the core business logic, and to design a protocol that facilitates these kinds of optimizations. This is what BitShares has done.
Please see more details here:
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/
High performance blockchain technology is necessary for cryptocurrencies and smart contract platforms to provide a viable alternative to existing financial platforms. BitShares is designed from the ground up to process more transactions every second than VISA and MasterCard combined. With Delegated Proof of Stake, the BitShares network can confirm transactions in an average of just 1 second, limited only by the speed of light.
Designing a high-performance blockchain isn’t rocket-science, and doesn’t require complex, hard-to-understand protocols, nor does it require dividing processing among all the nodes on the network. Instead, all that is necessary to build a high-performance blockchain is to remove all calculations that are not part of the critical, order-dependent, evaluation from the core business logic, and to design a protocol that facilitates these kinds of optimizations. This is what BitShares has done.
Please see more details here:
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
It is not possible in block chain centered crypto, because block chain centered crypto is requiring a much too much severe form of consensus, needing EVERYONE to agree *perfectly* on the *single* *totally* ordered list of transactions ever done ; on top of it, with a time-spaced unique seigniorage mechanism included.
This is not needed to keep the accounts of owners of coins. Of course, it is (largely) sufficient, but this strict ordering and time spacing is making that the thing can not scale.
For instance, whether the transaction from Joe to Jack came BEFORE the transaction from Alice to Claire, or after it, *doesn't matter*. Whether you got a confirmation of the transaction from Joe to Jack in block A, and you got another confirmation in block B, doesn't matter. The fact of having to chose between block A and block B is, concerning these transactions, not necessary. It is only necessary to indicate a winner of the reward.
I'd agree that the solution is probably to take the blockchain out of crypto. Then transactions can be instant without waiting for confirms. If Joe pays Jack, Alice and Claire, it doesn't matter what order they are processed in as long as Jack has the balance to send the transactions. Blockchains are doubling the amount of traffic, firstly we have the broadcasting of transactions, and secondly we get the transaction included in a block. A PoW blockchain coin generation distribution scheme would be a very small blockchain only needed by mining nodes. So all that is needed is a mechanism where people cannot forge their own coins and double spend. A p2p system which delivers encrypted transactions between sender and receiver and once that transaction is delivered, nodes can forget about the transaction. If there is a direct link available between sender and receiver (both have their wallet software running), then the transaction could take the shortest path through the p2p network, without having to be broadcast to every node. I'm not going to pretend I have the cryptographic knowledge to know if and how that could be achieved.
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
I intend to prove your assumption is incorrect.
Looking forward to it. I think most of us are.
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
It is not possible in block chain centered crypto, because block chain centered crypto is requiring a much too much severe form of consensus, needing EVERYONE to agree *perfectly* on the *single* *totally* ordered list of transactions ever done ; on top of it, with a time-spaced unique seigniorage mechanism included.
This is not needed to keep the accounts of owners of coins. Of course, it is (largely) sufficient, but this strict ordering and time spacing is making that the thing can not scale.
For instance, whether the transaction from Joe to Jack came BEFORE the transaction from Alice to Claire, or after it, *doesn't matter*. Whether you got a confirmation of the transaction from Joe to Jack in block A, and you got another confirmation in block B, doesn't matter. The fact of having to chose between block A and block B is, concerning these transactions, not necessary. It is only necessary to indicate a winner of the reward.
So far there is no coin that is used as much as bitcoin, therefore we can’t know until it hits to that point.
Maybe ethereum would be that big one day but they already had hardfork and there are two ethereum coins out there today.
I think we need to wait a long time for another coin to be as big as bitcoin in marketcap, when that day comes we will see which one has a solution for it.
Maybe ethereum would be that big one day but they already had hardfork and there are two ethereum coins out there today.
I think we need to wait a long time for another coin to be as big as bitcoin in marketcap, when that day comes we will see which one has a solution for it.
Unbelievable how Fuserleer has the discipline to NOT spill the beans. Wait for it, folks!
Shhhh
@Anonymint
I am glad to hear your crypto is deflationary, unlike any other crypto that exists. Any deflationary coin that has utility will be a BIG success. People around here are so disillusioned as to what makes a coin deflationary... it is a pet peeve of mine. IE. Inflation that slowly decreases is not deflation at all, as the coin (usually) inflates for hundreds of years, or in some cases indefinitely.
I am glad to hear your crypto is deflationary, unlike any other crypto that exists. Any deflationary coin that has utility will be a BIG success. People around here are so disillusioned as to what makes a coin deflationary... it is a pet peeve of mine. IE. Inflation that slowly decreases is not deflation at all, as the coin (usually) inflates for hundreds of years, or in some cases indefinitely.
If the long term intention of crypto-currencies is to be a primary choice for people to use instead of current financial systems (which it certainly SHOULD be, not just a speculators medium) then I wouldn't consider scaling to be solved until there is technology that can sustain > 10,000 tps....all day....every day...from the outset!
Kicking the can down the road with "Internet connections will be faster / mining more efficient / hard drives cheaper so it's not a problem right now!" isn't a solution. That's what we did with Bitcoin and look at that shit storm now!
That 10,000 tps is the low end of the scale, and allows all the current primaries such as VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, GooglePay etc and all C2C payments to migrate. When talking mass market, ease of use is paramount, so having multiple independent solutions that do say 1000 each isn't enough, consumers will not adopt it...it needs to be one platform ideally.
That's only the start though, with the advent of IoT, and the growth in electronic payments (VISA processing quantity is rising, MC's is too), that requirement increases further to > 25,000 tps in the next 5-10 years. If you then include the Asian block with the volume of such things like Alipay, it exceeds 200,000+ tps.
Segwit is not a solution, LN is not a solution (LN isn't even a good one....off chain? centralized 3rd parties? cmon!). Ultimately no block chain can scale to anything like that level no matter how many bags of tricks you bring without some form of centralization.
Confirmation or settlement time is paramount too, no one wants to wait around for transactions to process for long periods of time. IMO the settlement time of a network poised to be a replacement of the incumbents needs to settle in 10 seconds or less and should be equivalent in security to at least 2 BTC confirms at present, at least for priority payments such as Point of Sale.
Fast confirmation is possible to a degree on a block chain if the size of the blocks is low, but once volume increases it becomes harder to maintain it.
If you're wondering why the above isn't possible on a block chain, simply its due to the architecture of a block chain requiring synchronicity of state at all times... therefore CAP theorem and speed of light are NOT a block chain's friend.
If you claim a block chain can do the above sufficiently, well....you're wrong.
Kicking the can down the road with "Internet connections will be faster / mining more efficient / hard drives cheaper so it's not a problem right now!" isn't a solution. That's what we did with Bitcoin and look at that shit storm now!
That 10,000 tps is the low end of the scale, and allows all the current primaries such as VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, GooglePay etc and all C2C payments to migrate. When talking mass market, ease of use is paramount, so having multiple independent solutions that do say 1000 each isn't enough, consumers will not adopt it...it needs to be one platform ideally.
That's only the start though, with the advent of IoT, and the growth in electronic payments (VISA processing quantity is rising, MC's is too), that requirement increases further to > 25,000 tps in the next 5-10 years. If you then include the Asian block with the volume of such things like Alipay, it exceeds 200,000+ tps.
Segwit is not a solution, LN is not a solution (LN isn't even a good one....off chain? centralized 3rd parties? cmon!). Ultimately no block chain can scale to anything like that level no matter how many bags of tricks you bring without some form of centralization.
Confirmation or settlement time is paramount too, no one wants to wait around for transactions to process for long periods of time. IMO the settlement time of a network poised to be a replacement of the incumbents needs to settle in 10 seconds or less and should be equivalent in security to at least 2 BTC confirms at present, at least for priority payments such as Point of Sale.
Fast confirmation is possible to a degree on a block chain if the size of the blocks is low, but once volume increases it becomes harder to maintain it.
If you're wondering why the above isn't possible on a block chain, simply its due to the architecture of a block chain requiring synchronicity of state at all times... therefore CAP theorem and speed of light are NOT a block chain's friend.
If you claim a block chain can do the above sufficiently, well....you're wrong.
This is the holy grail of posts on this website. No block chain will ever be able to do what people envision (as you stated so eloquently in this post).
PoW, PoS, PoW+PoS, PoI , 10 min block, 2.5 min block, 10 second block, 1 MB, 5 MB, 10 MB ... none of that matters
I have no dog in this fight, as I'm a simple observer, but check out IOTA.
www.iota.org
Check out IOTA, it scales better with more users (still in testing):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iota-1216479
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iota-1216479
snip
My understanding is that the technology allows a great deal.
I think how it will be implemented initially will look a lot more like Paypal 2.0 than people here seem to imagine because each company, for example, Blockstream, can have a channel with each customer, so if i want to send funds to you, they would go to my channel with blockstream and then to you, via your channel w Blockstream.
In the medium term future though, I can envision a world where intelligent wallets are mini hubs that can just route things for people with no centralized companies needed.
I agree that it does allow some interesting and viable use cases, but it also feels like a dangerous step that could lead backwards.
When the most prominent Bitcoin core developers are calling to restrict capacity on the main Bitcoin chain, and they are also working at Blockstream, it really raises a few eyebrows to say the least.
...and then I just get attacked and called a shill for saying "hey wait a sec..something is off with this picture".
Well I can certainly attest that picture looks like its painted with a base color of dung.
I guess I'll be a shill with you :-)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
snip
My understanding is that the technology allows a great deal.
I think how it will be implemented initially will look a lot more like Paypal 2.0 than people here seem to imagine because each company, for example, Blockstream, can have a channel with each customer, so if i want to send funds to you, they would go to my channel with blockstream and then to you, via your channel w Blockstream.
In the medium term future though, I can envision a world where intelligent wallets are mini hubs that can just route things for people with no centralized companies needed.
I agree that it does allow some interesting and viable use cases, but it also feels like a dangerous step that could lead backwards.
When the most prominent Bitcoin core developers are calling to restrict capacity on the main Bitcoin chain, and they are also working at Blockstream, it really raises a few eyebrows to say the least.
...and then I just get attacked and called a shill for saying "hey wait a sec..something is off with this picture".
snip
My understanding is that the technology allows a great deal.
I think how it will be implemented initially will look a lot more like Paypal 2.0 than people here seem to imagine because each company, for example, Blockstream, can have a channel with each customer, so if i want to send funds to you, they would go to my channel with blockstream and then to you, via your channel w Blockstream.
In the medium term future though, I can envision a world where intelligent wallets are mini hubs that can just route things for people with no centralized companies needed.
I agree that it does allow some interesting and viable use cases, but it also feels like a dangerous step that could lead backwards.
Centralization is akin to "order devolves into chaos". It's inevitable if there are no fundamental guards to protect against it...and LN doesn't seem to have any whatsoever.
Anyway, I don't wish to turn this into an LN bashing thread. I've said my piece and I respect yours. So lets get some popcorn and see where it goes :-)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
snip
My understanding is that the technology allows a great deal.
I think how it will be implemented initially will look a lot more like Paypal 2.0 than people here seem to imagine because each company, for example, Blockstream, can have a channel with each customer, so if i want to send funds to you, they would go to my channel with blockstream and then to you, via your channel w Blockstream.
In the medium term future though, I can envision a world where intelligent wallets are mini hubs that can just route things for people with no centralized companies needed.
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
I intend to prove your assumption is incorrect.
Hasn't that become both of our life goals for the immediate future? hehe
The premise of LN is that 2 (or more) parties that transact with each other frequently can just settle the difference after a round of payments have happened. Great, but that requirement severely limits its application.
That is not the entire premise. The other part is that anyone can transact with anyone else offchain even if they don't have a channel together through intermediaries. This is what people are so excited about.
Do you have an linkable citation of that?
I've read quite a bit of stuff about LN and nowhere does it seem to indicate that is possible. There always appears to be a need for an "opened channel" recorded on the block chain.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/
Ahh I know about that, I referred to it in my original post.
....or a complex mesh of connecting channels needs to be in place....
But Alice has to know that Carol also has a channel with Bob, what if Alice doesn't want Carol to know, or Carol Alice?
Even if Alice doesn't care about Carol (or some other party) knowing she has a channel with Bob what is the discovery process? And does that discovery process expose some security/privacy issues?
For example, for Alice and Carol to discover that Bob is a common intermediary, I can only imagine that one or both parties have to disclose all of their currently open channels in some form with the hope that one of them is common to both. Then Alice or Carol knows a large portion of the others channels and may be able to determine who they might be.
As you probably guessed I don't like it. It's overly complicated, doesn't solve the issue adequately, has various exposure surfaces that make me uncomfortable and could consume a lot of overhead in the linking of independent channels to fill the use case of Alice Bob and Carol.
Swiss federal Institute of Technology has with a new paper year back,offered a potential solution in the form of ByzCoin.
I explained in the Decentralization thread, that Byzcoin has a broken security model and is incentives incompatible.
I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.
I intend to prove your assumption is incorrect.
Jump to: