Topic: What do you make of Bitcoin's scalability concerns? (Read 3147 times)

Hmmm....or would it?

If the 'proof of work' is truly plug-able, most of the system would not care a whit about what miners do.

I liked the 'simplicity' of just having solid equivalence in all ways between PCN and BTC.  But there may be a role for a coin which consisted of a 'basket' of crypto-currencies!  Hmmm...

It also occurred to me that it might be possible to derive nourishment from multiple sources simultaneously.  'poly-paracoin'? 

Probably not worth the extra complexity.  The end-goal would be something valuable enough to stand on it's own (and potentially support other worthwhile efforts in fact.)

Bitcoin does have scalability issues, but core devs waste their time for useless tweaks. We need someone who rewrites everything from scratch.

I thought of that when I was showering this morning.  It would just (potentially) add some other niceties that were important to some people.  So, that would be great!

Edit: bolded a highly important observation in the quoted text.  In short, it is probably doable!

I feel the need to use insecticide after reading that. There's really nothing stopping anyone that wants to write one of those. In fact, you could make a para-paracoin that leeches off of paracoin. Aw Dawg, I hear you like parasites.

Paracoin would view Bitcoin mostly as a natural resource existing in the environment which might be exploited.  The fattest and juiciest one at this point.

This is kind of like a tic on the back of a wild cow.  If the cow gets domesticated and subsidized by a farmer (like Bitcoin to corp/gov) the tic does not care...the cow's blood is that much richer for it.  Nor does the cow particularly notice or care much about the tic either since he is so tiny.  Of course the farmer could fear bubonic plague and fumigate at great cost and risk.  The tic can pack up and leave in that case.

The goal of 'paracoin' in my conception is just to explore a different block-chain path.  By happenstance it would layer on all kinds of niceties which any Bitcoin users who wish to are welcome to use (anonymity being one.)

If the cow died or the farmer injected her with so many hormones that the user's didn't like the taste of her milk, Paracoin could split and probably take a reasonable amount of hashing power with it.  Of course at that time hashing power will likely be highly monopolized by corporations.  I would be always looking for ways to either use hashing power asymmetrically, or use a different 'proof of work' altogether.  That part of the system would be designed to be 'plug-able' as much as possible.

As long as Paracoin is 'riding on the back of' Bitcoin, the whole world of economic balances and incentives is out of whack.  This is regrettable, but if one is interested in that for the academic aspects of that, there are plenty of places to study it.  The real-world impacts of various decisions regarding management of the solution would have to be dealt with using intuition and considered low precision...just as is/was the case with Bitcoin.

Sure, some governments may block non-anonymous pools, but some governments won't. Choose which one's you will use and let the market decide which stay in business.

Absolutely. Bitcoin will exist regardless, and I suspect governments have no interest in stopping Bitcoin entirely. What they do want is a regulated Bitcoin under their ultimate control.

You saw how quickly VISA blocked payments to WikiLeaks. If mining can only be done by non-anonymous pools in datacenters, Bitcoin can be regulated and coins can be blacklisted.

Eventually the majority of nodes will delete old blocks (see Satoshi's paper). So they wouldn't really need terabytes of storage, depending on how much of the chain history they want to keep/serve to other nodes.

Even if a node operator decided he wanted to serve the last few months of history you can buy multi-terabyte hard drives for <$100. It's just not a big deal.

Bitcoin will have no problem scaling. Sure, the supernodes may end up being run by VISA, WesternUnion, AliPay, etc., but they won't have governmental monopoly and will compete on an even playing field without TBTF bailouts. The Paracoin idea seems similar to the idea of creating a new crypto that allows legacy transfers from Bitcoin at a 1:1 ratio. The legacy coins would always be supported by the backbone supernodes and exchanges, but would dwindle at the consumer level as the new crypto takes hold. There has been discussion about that contingency, but no real urgency to pursue it. Again, Bitcoin will have no problem scaling to VISA levels.

It will either work or it won't, where 'work' is probably a little bit subjective.

My current best idea for mitigating against potential failures is an idea that hit me yesterday and is referenced in my sig block.  It is, or course, a work in progress.

So, based on the official wiki:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

and this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY

For the network to process VISA's transactional capabilities, full nodes would need to have 3TB in storage created every 21 days.

So of course we have SPV, which is likely going to be released as part of the official client in the next release.
But doesn't that leave us with an ecosystem made of 'supernodes' while everyone else chugs along with their SPV client, centralising the control of the block chain into the hands of a few?

Thank you for any insight.