Topic: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem? - page 3. (Read 4249 times)
BTC and LTC as soon as SW and LN are in place.
isn't monero solving the scaling problem with the implementation of dynamic fee and they also have no limit in the block size? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Scalability, but monero is not as big as bitcoin, and it has not 300k transaction per day, and therefore it's easy to fix the issue for them
Simple as that. Please discuss.
As of now, none I know of. Any block chain based technology can't, because the consensus is too strict.
The question, however, is: why SHOULD it scale ? The delusion of the "world currency" is, well, delusional.
The real question is: are there things out there that can scale sufficiently to fill in comfortably their niche ? Then, the answer is most probably, yes. Because the niches of crypto are small.
The intellectual challenge to invent a scheme that can scale, is interesting. The question is whether it will find a use case.
Ardor is designed to be ~35x more scaleable than Bitcoin.
Iota is another one.
Both of them are not yet production ready, but they show a good progress.
Iota is another one.
Both of them are not yet production ready, but they show a good progress.
Quote
The answer to OP is simply: Not a single one..
In the near future you will have a shocking wake-up and realize that Bitcoin, and every other altcoin for that matter, will be de-throned - and soon also obsolete.
Current scaling numbers being aired from Bitcoin and various altcoins will be dwarfed once the new supernova enters the atmosphere.
Oh, BTW, scaling is not the only holy grail, there are so much more to it than scaling.
Things are happening in the background. You'll see
I've always wondered this about certain coins. For example, I pretty much never see congestion on DOGE, LTC, and ETH/ETC. Is it a function of being underused, or have they actually solved the traffic issue?
Most of those coins never leave the exchanges.
In other words, they have no adoption use case at all. They can be destroyed overnight by an attack on exchanges (by an inside attack, hacker, or regulatory crackdown such as from the SEC for those which sold ICOs).
I've always wondered this about certain coins. For example, I pretty much never see congestion on DOGE, LTC, and ETH/ETC. Is it a function of being underused, or have they actually solved the traffic issue?
Most of those coins never leave the exchanges.
https://live.blockcypher.com/ltc/
Here's an LTC block explorer. There are transactions happening but compared to a Bitcoin block explorer it's a very leisurely read.
Simple as that. Please discuss.
Another zero post newbie asking inflammatory questions, presumably because they don't want to use their existing account to associate themselves with their question.As for your question: "What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?"
Easy: Bitcoin.
your beloved "domains, and dapps" will come to Bitcoin in summer 2017 via Rootstock.
Sidechains are insolubly insecure and can never work. @ArticMine and I debated it a month ago.
none
others are OK because their market cap and usage is low, but if they ever grows closer to BTC usage then things won't be better with them regarding escalation and other issues
others are OK because their market cap and usage is low, but if they ever grows closer to BTC usage then things won't be better with them regarding escalation and other issues
I've always wondered this about certain coins. For example, I pretty much never see congestion on DOGE, LTC, and ETH/ETC. Is it a function of being underused, or have they actually solved the traffic issue? But from a meta perspective, I can see where no coin is really up to the task. If any one coin actually processed a real fraction of the transactions that ACH/SWIFT sees, it would pretty much have to bog down the network. But I'm no tech expert.
Before any alt claims to have comprehensively solved scaling, we need to see it in operation for a few months before endorsing it. It's dead easy to come up with some cool tricks. It's a little harder to make them cast iron when the pressure is building by the second.
So here's another question, which crypto other than BTC has come closest to maxing out its capacity?
So here's another question, which crypto other than BTC has come closest to maxing out its capacity?
Isn't there skilled programmers who can run various simulations of different scenarios or you all want to see everything and experience them all in real time and real world with real money at stakes?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Simple as that. Please discuss.
The Bitcoin scaling problem is not technical, it is political, as there are many ways we could scale.
Plenty of altcoins are scaling.
there's this : http://bitcoinist.com/dash-doubles-block-size-in-less-than-24-hours/
ethereum has a rolling average 'gas limit' which would be comparable to Bitcoin flexcap.
As as told you block-chain is expensive resurse since you have to store it forever.
You have to know limits 1MB/2Mb/....10MB,,,,1000MB (Visa tx/s lvl) the bigger blocksize is the more centralized it will be.
If you loose ability to validate blocks you will end with CENTRAL PAYPAL/MMiner system.
And guess what will happen if you give all power to miners
?It will go same way like Microsoft/Apple/Google monopoly EVERY monopol screw users.
In long run such currency will end in few datacenters and will be hijacked by governments and it will to late to change anything.
You will make snapshot of blockchain and move your BTC to another chain even POS when that will be needed POS miners instead hashing power will give you data-center disc space.
1MB with decentralized 2nd layers can be more usefull since you will be able just forget about parts of some chain.
There is no easy solution to this case. You will trade decentralization vs centralization.
Noone will force you to use centralized 2nd layer as Coinbase.
Blockchain i long run is expensive disc space overtime will be expensive.
I agree with you and i'm VERY excited about the Lightening Network.
No reason not to HF to 2-4 mb like 2 years ago though. entirely political...and stupid...and damaging.
Eth won't give a fuck they will cut blockchain when needed and move forward while BTC will hav drama 1MB vs 2MB or maybe 3MB...
Eth will add new systems on board (domains, new daps ) while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
Eth will move to POS to solve scaling problems while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
You sound like a greedy altcoin bagholder who doesn't care about the principle of peer-to-peer or decentralization. ETH is a centralized bankster backed coin. The main principles that give Bitcoin value do not exist in Ethereum. They are fundamentally different, and your beloved "domains, and dapps" will come to Bitcoin in summer 2017 via Rootstock.Eth will add new systems on board (domains, new daps ) while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
Eth will move to POS to solve scaling problems while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
I hope they will move forward with good stuff and solve that scaling drama if not ETH will win in 2-3 years.
What "winning"? Nobody in their right mind uses ETH, and surely nobody who didn't come here for a *quick get rich scheme*.The answer to OP is simply: Not a single one.. The other coins are not learning anything from Bitcoin at the moment, they are too busy with statements like "We are the best, we are going to win next".
Read this:
Quote
How likely is it that Bitcoin will be overtaken in the event of a contentious hard fork? I think this is an example of things to come. Bitcoin will be attacked through its mining, the network, legally, and every other possible way. If you don't think Bitcoin is going to be attacked, you've misunderstood what this is about. You don't go and poke a $20 trillion industry and go, "Hey, we're going to disrupt you!" You can't just wait for it to roll over. This is offensive to a lot of governments, rich institutions, and a lot of people who don't want to see Bitcoin succeed. If a fork happens, we get to learn what happens when a fork attack occurs. Anyone who thinks a fork will be unopposed is quickly going to discover that this will be a battle on all fronts. Inevitably the two sides are going to attack each other on the network, with denial-of-service attacks, with hash rate; they're going to attack each other publicly, privately, anonymously and not. Every bug in the software will get poked and poked again, so they better fix them well. The battle becomes "who has the best software development team? How quickly can they maintain that code and keep uptime?" That race is only 7 blocks wide. I don't think the people who are threatening to do a hard fork have thought clearly about the implications. This will allow Bitcoin to test all the attack vectors (nodes, relays, hashing, replay transactions, etc). And the result will be a Bitcoin that's battle-hardened, because it will have survived a fork attack and we will better understand what happens under such highly contentious conditions. It's very important to not mistake smooth sailing for good sailors. If any altcoin somehow overtakes bitcoin and gets to this scale, they will have to deal with the same scaling and governance controversies. Many of them will end up centralised or with failures in architecture. These are the rites of passage; you first have to grow up to face them. How many of the other blockchains are preparing for this? Not many, because they aren't paying attention. This is a fantastic experiment but it's not easy. This is a game with $20 billion at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZi86_ovB3Y There may be some cryptos that "scale" but chances are they're never actually going to have to test their effectiveness due to their blocks never getting filled ion the way that Bitcoin's do.
But by "chances" you admit there is a chance you could be wrong? I hope so. Because I think you will be wrong. Remember that humans are unable to comprehend exponential change. It is what you can't see coming which catches you unprepared.
Simple as that. Please discuss.
There are zero cryptos that are doing anything remotely similar to what Bitcoin is trying to solve. All other cryptos have far smaller transaction rates, and because of this they never have to make themselves larger.There may be some cryptos that "scale" but chances are they're never actually going to have to test their effectiveness due to their blocks never getting filled ion the way that Bitcoin's do.
Yea.... look at data:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc-doge.html
BTC transaction at cap 300 000 vs ETH 90 000.... when BTC hitted hard cap of ~300 000 ETH comed in and took new clients with open hands look.
So if you will stay in you bubble ETH will go after BTC.
Eth won't give a fuck they will cut blockchain when needed and move forward while BTC will hav drama 1MB vs 2MB or maybe 3MB...
Eth will add new systems on board (domains, new daps ) while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
Eth will move to POS to solve scaling problems while BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....
Don't live in illusion that whole crypto will be sleeping
whie BTC will have still drama 1MB vs 2MB vs Segwit....I hope they will move forward with good stuff and solve that scaling drama if not ETH will win in 2-3 years.
Simple as that. Please discuss.
There are zero cryptos that are doing anything remotely similar to what Bitcoin is trying to solve. All other cryptos have far smaller transaction rates, and because of this they never have to make themselves larger.There may be some cryptos that "scale" but chances are they're never actually going to have to test their effectiveness due to their blocks never getting filled ion the way that Bitcoin's do.
Simple as that. Please discuss.
The Bitcoin scaling problem is not technical, it is political, as there are many ways we could scale.
Plenty of altcoins are scaling.
there's this : http://bitcoinist.com/dash-doubles-block-size-in-less-than-24-hours/
ethereum has a rolling average 'gas limit' which would be comparable to Bitcoin flexcap.
As as told you block-chain is expensive resurse since you have to store it forever.
You have to know limits 1MB/2Mb/....10MB,,,,1000MB (Visa tx/s lvl) the bigger blocksize is the more centralized it will be.
If you loose ability to validate blocks you will end with CENTRAL PAYPAL/MMiner system.
And guess what will happen if you give all power to miners
?It will go same way like Microsoft/Apple/Google monopoly EVERY monopol screw users.
In long run such currency will end in few datacenters and will be hijacked by governments and it will to late to change anything.
You will make snapshot of blockchain and move your BTC to another chain even POS when that will be needed POS miners instead hashing power will give you data-center disc space.
1MB with decentralized 2nd layers can be more usefull since you will be able just forget about parts of some chain.
There is no easy solution to this case. You will trade decentralization vs centralization.
Noone will force you to use centralized 2nd layer as Coinbase.
Blockchain i long run is expensive disc space overtime will be expensive.
Oh yes, Evan's Masternodes had a discussion with each other and quickly found out they were in agreement (It's not been implemented, it was just about self promotion by digging at the BTC stalemate IMO). Although it has now been agreed to reduce block time to 2.5 mins instead, so dash will now be more litecoin than bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Simple as that. Please discuss.
The Bitcoin scaling problem is not technical, it is political, as there are many ways we could scale.
Plenty of altcoins are scaling.
there's this : http://bitcoinist.com/dash-doubles-block-size-in-less-than-24-hours/
ethereum has a rolling average 'gas limit' which would be comparable to Bitcoin flexcap.
Jump to: