Topic: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem? - page 2. (Read 4249 times)

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/

Bitshares just had a stress test on their testnet. Throughput got up to 3300 tx per second.

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@ash/current-bitshares-testnet-stress-test-highlight-3300tx-14000ops

I know that dpos is a centralized solution but I don't think its possible to get high tps without having some centralization.

Live Stats: http://stats.bitshares.eu/#test

Thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23829.0.html

@jonald_fyookball, you better re-read my post and make sure you understand why LN is not only never going to happen in Bitcoin, it is not viable in the knowledge age.

Don't get me started on that one!


Meh I hate it when projects use incorrect terms and contradict themselves in order to build hype.

"HEAT's unbounded vertical scalability is only limited by the performance of the hardware used."

Unbounded means its not limited by anything tangible...but wait....its limited by the performance of the hardware used.  *facepalm*  isn't EVERYTHING that operates in a vertical environment?


Meh nothing special, I (and many others no doubt) can get close to that with a well tuned MySQL server, smart commits and aggressive caching in Java let alone C++ on commodity gear.  Opt for simple NoSQL key->value store databases and it's even higher still.  Btw updates of state are NOT transactions per second!

I've seen these kind of claims now for nigh on 2 years and it really grates my gears (if you couldn't tell :-) ).   They are simply undeliverable and are at best a twisting of common terms to make it appear such that there is real innovation when really there is none.

Then what's the point of mentioning it?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-heat-30-cryptomultisig-fiata2a-hft1000tpsdsapospope2ee-chat-1543991

The product isn't currently working plus the release and the thread is a complete shambles. Anyone care to unravel the buzzwords below?

UNLIMITED SCALABILITY

HEAT's unbounded vertical scalability is only limited by the performance of the hardware used. Utilizing not a single blockchain , but a chain of blockchains - and removing embedded databases through the use of off-heap memory mapped binary files, the HEAT blockchain is able to sustain transaction throughput of at least 1000 tps 24/7. On our internal tests the HEAT server has been capable of achieving an unbelievable rate of 100,000 updates per second on commonly available consumer hardware.

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.

unless the network is artificially constrained.  But that would never happen right? 





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.
 

My 2 pence.

I wouldn't call LN banking, but I wouldn't call it a decent solution either.  I'm not quite sure what all the excitement is about as it only really works well in some limited use cases.

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.

Consider two companies, one is a supplier of raw materials, the other produces products with those raw materials and then sells them on.  Even though transactions between the two may be frequent, they are typically one way, the producer pays the supplier for raw resources, but a supplier rarely purchases back items that have been produced with the resources it provided.

Another case is mass market, I go to the grocery store pretty often and make regular payments for goods of all types of amounts.....rarely though (if at all) does the grocer send me a payment unless I'm returning something, which is maybe once for ever few hundred purchases.

Most of my consumer purchases though are NOT frequent, maybe I visit my favorite clothing store once a month and buy some new clothes...hardly frequent.

If I then as the supplier of resources or as the grocer or the clothing retailer wish to use the funds that I've received they need to be settled on-chain so that I can use them (or a complex mesh of connecting channels needs to be in place).  In many cases this settlement back on-chain will actually increase the load.

Don't get me started on the fact that LN channels may be controlled in the majority by 3rd parties off-chain who aren't auditable.

Of course, but the exact same thing goes for Bitcoin itself. You can go fully down the third party route but the option to remain on your own terms is always there.

He is somewhat right.  Anyone can build a LN on top of Bitcoin, but they can also choose how they will let users interface with that network.
The good thing is that it appears (for now) that there will be many options and choices.

But we should be careful not to allow the companies that are pioneering the technology with for-profit networks
to create future roadblocks for a larger, truly decentralized and permissionless, public LN network. 

Do you honestly think the Lightning Network concept would've received a second glance if that was provably the case?

Ripple is interesting but does not provide trustless, decentralized consensus like most cryptocurrencies.

Ripple has a 3 part scalablity approach:

On ledger
Ripple Consensus Ledger Can Sustain 1000 Transactions per Second:
https://ripple.com/xrp-portal/xrp-resources/ripple-consensus-ledger-can-sustain-1000-transactions-per-second/

Payment channels
Escrow, PayChan, and fix1368 Will Be Available in 3 Days:
https://ripple.com/dev-blog/escrow-paychan-fix1368-will-available-3-days/

Interledger's fully scalable payments are then settled with Ripple:
https://interledger.org/

Bonus features:

Transactions are typically finalized in under 4 seconds (Ledger Close Interval):
https://charts.ripple.com/#/metrics

The amendments feature allows voting for feature upgrades and upgrades the network instantly:
https://ripple.com/build/amendments/

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.

Actually, both doge and steem have come close in the past to equalling the number of transactions that bitcoin does. Both managed easily because they confirm very very quickly.

The real issue with bitcoin is it's ten minute block time, which allows thousands of transactions to build up in those ten minutes, waiting to be confirmed.

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.  Putting a banking layer on top of any crypto is not difficult, but it is not permissionless, decentralized payment.  It is banking, with the permission of your banker, the fees that your banker wants, he can ask you for justification to want to process your payment or not, grant you or deny you the right to pay someone or not.

If you do not agree, you have to settle your link on-chain, chain which doesn't have enough capacity to settle in this way.  So you are tied to your banker for ever essentially.  The settlement will never process in time (especially if your banker has agreements with miners, which he HAS TO HAVE if he has a certain size), and you will lose most of your money because the settlement will time-out.

Of all block chain tech, monero is one of the coins that will not hit a HARD WALL, but that is not the same as "scaling".
Monero would scale if all of computing was 1000 - 10000 times faster and bigger (cpu, network, disk, ...)

Monero is good enough for what it wants to be for the moment and in the near future.  Monero doesn't pretend to be the "world currency".  It is good for private payment transactions in a relatively swift and secure way. 

Ardor is meant to solve the scalability problem as far as I know:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nxtardor-platform-to-make-blockchain-cheaper-and-safer