Topic: Would this add scalability? (Read 204 times)

Is that Ethereum in your Venn diagram? If yes, then you got to know that Ethereum is neither decentralized nor scalable. It is suffering a more severe case of scalability issue compared to bitcoin and it is generally considered a centralized shitcoin (with a premine and a mutable blockchain).

That has centralization written all over it. Besides if the full nodes can access it and copy the transactions to store locally, that's like complicating a simple process of just increasing the existing block size!

During each halving so far, the motivation and incentive for miners have been increased revenue despite the block reward cut. And that increased revenue happens because price goes up.

Interestingly enough after each halving people make the same exact speculation and hashrate keeps going up proving them wrong. As I said the incentive is the price not the block reward and price is on the rise due to increasing adoption which is not going to stop any time soon.

What you have suggested could indeed potentially add more scalability which would be very beneficial to us investors as we would be able to use bitcoin a lot more regularly however your suggestion clashes with other parts of bitcoin.

This move will give some sense of centralization to bitcoin which is not part of its protocol. Going through with this idea will break the decentralized system bitcoin has. Additionally there is the challenge of maintaining consistency and making sure that whatever is in the main blockchain is the same with the virtual blocks. Any difference and it would possess a very huge security risk and chances of unreliability may occur.

Sounds like you are basically proposing a single mining node run by "developers" (whatever that means, Bitcoin is open source) that has much more control over the network than any other node or miner. This goes entirely against the entire idea of Bitcoin's decentralization, and would create a central node with no oversight. TBH this is an awful idea. This is the type of thing some centralized and useless altcoin would come up with.

You are on point @Oshosondy, the need to understand that the Bitcoin miners does not have a specific fixed numbers so, if a miner get to quit probably even aside the reasons of OP craving that miners could be fed up due to insufficient incentives, there would always be other miners to fill the gaps. The mining system is not exempted to GIGO.
Just as you made it known, the miners can not be considered while undermining the price of Bitcoin because if it is cordial as the OP may say, it would compromise the Bitcoin value in the market price.


You know Oshosondy, the OP is like one living in a glass house and been throwing stones at the neighbors places.
He actually forget to realize himself as a Bitcoin investor and even if paraventurely he seems being a developer, he would definitely reject such approach of implementation.

Well, lets just assume he layed his own suggestion but insignificantly it is unfortunate that his figures wont help the way forward of Bitcoin to keep to its potential values

The idea of introducing virtual blocks is intriguing as it could potentially enhance transaction efficiency and provide more incentives for miners. However, I’m skeptical about centralizing any part of Bitcoin’s framework. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is crucial; it’s what gives the currency its strength and unique appeal. Shifting control towards developers, even if well-intentioned, could compromise the trust and security inherent in the system.
Instead, like you said, why not improve upon the scalability solutions already available, like the Lightning Network, which maintain decentralization? It seems like a safer bet for preserving Bitcoin’s core principles while still addressing growth challenges.

After the entire bitcoin blocks had been mined completely, miners will depends on the transaction fees, there is nothing still changing about the market value of this same bitcoin over time, everyone is independently entitled to sell at his or her desired rate he feels is being profitable with the market price.


Don't even try to suggest what may not work at all, bitcoin cannot be centralized, the network has protocols that guides it, everything happens openly and no need to work on assumptions.

What you are proposing is abandoning one of the pillars of Bitcoin - decentralization. Instead of it, you are proposing to centralize the mining process to a chosen entity, and introduce some type of virtual blocks which wouldn't require the usual PoW to be mined. The invested energy and hashpower is important to Bitcoin's value. Bitcoin is valuable because it's difficult to mine/produce. If you were to simplify that process, Bitcoin couldn't possibly get more expensive. And what about the mining rewards per block? Would they also be included in your virtual blocks? You would be doubling or tripling the block production.

You would have a less congested blockchain, but a more centralized network. No one will agree to it.   

Visa is secure? read https://www.startribune.com/target-settles-visa-card-issuer-claims-in-breach/322178271/

Ethereum is decentralized? read https://protos.com/ethereum-centralization-is-becoming-a-serious-problem/

Ethereum is scalable? swapping two tokens cost $60.

The center part is filled by Bitcoin in Lightning Network. It's not possible to achieve all of them in Bitcoin network because many OGs like the current network, Bitcoin need to move to else where.

As for leaving security to the developers, while it could streamline some aspects, part of Bitcoin’s charm is its decentralized nature. Relying too heavily on developers might shift this balance. It’s a delicate trade-off between control, trust, and security.

Personally, I think maintaining the decentralized aspect is crucial for the integrity and trust in Bitcoin. It’s what makes it unique and has been a foundational principle since its inception. Any changes should be approached with caution to preserve these values.



It’s true that if some miners decide to quit because it becomes less profitable for them (especially after a halving event which reduces the block reward), the remaining miners could benefit from less competition. This might stabilize the situation temporarily as the remaining miners would find it more profitable.

However, the overall network security can be impacted if too many miners drop out. Less computational power means potentially more vulnerability to attacks, though Bitcoin’s design and large network size mitigate this risk significantly.

The economics of Bitcoin ensure that there is always a balance. The difficulty of mining adjusts to make sure that it remains feasible for enough miners to continue, maintaining the network’s security and functionality. If the cost of mining outweighs the rewards, the network adjusts to bring things back into equilibrium.

In essence, it’s a self-balancing system. While some miners may indeed quit, the network is designed to adapt. Over time, as you mentioned, it’s less likely that miners would want to quit en masse because those who remain find it worthwhile to continue.

  You're going to centralize bitcoin with this kind of tactic, which is arguably even worse for bitcoin than just letting these congestions pass by, cause it's the main thing that bitcoin's got going for itself, it's the very reason why the oldheads and veterans here invested in bitcoin in the first place. Changing a fundamental characteristic of bitcoin to accommodate for more users (and a bad one at that as well cause you're giving more power to the bitcoin developers here than the users who are basically the main reason why the bitcoin network is even alive and breathing nowadays) will not spell good for the industry, I'll be very honest. Although we already have solutions laid in place to solve the scalability issues actually, we just don't use it very often. Lightning Network and other Off-chain Layer 2 Solutions are a good example of that.

Perhaps explore other options that would not relinquish the power away from the users, and something that wouldn't centralize the bitcoin network. Giving the developers more power in theory wouldn't be that bad, but it's much better if the interests of the general public are put on top priority and greater access instead of putting it to a high authority's attention.

Quoting for visibility.


Why would you give more power to bitcoin developers?

Centralization would kill bitcoin.

 Scalability is not an important issue now...

Think like this: if you just want Scalability,  cheap transactions and fast , and you don't care about decentralization,  just use visa. Visa is just like that.  Centralized and fast.

It simply means you're centralizing the main chain and letting all the other nodes run on something like pruned blocks by not having a complete history of the transactions, just the final balance. It has been proposed like a hundred times, it simply makes no difference between this and just increasing the block size by 4x.


Despite the common myth about the price to mine one coin  mining cost don't influence the price whatsoever, and this bull run clearly shows that.
Price is dictating hashrate, if the revenue per TH/s is well above running costs and a ROI plan of 12 months you will see the hashrate expanding even if the price is going down, once it hits that limit you will see the hashrate slowing down.

No what I meant is store data or run with an off chain clause and as a full node where users can gain a copy of the transactions if they need.

I may not get your idea properly.  From the words you are using however such as 'govern' and 'operated by', I understand this would Centralize Bitcoin?  If yes, then this idea falls short.  Any thing that would Centralize Bitcoin is destructive to its concept.

A virtual block :- what I meant by that is, a block that will accommodate more transactions increasing scalability which will run on a full node operated by the bitcoin.org (developers associated with the whole project) and the virtual block will be associated with its parent block which was mined prior and basically storing off chain this data of the virtual block can be copied by any node if they want, and the transactions will be secured by the miners increasing incentives for them also keeping them motivated.

And also the lightening network being added increases the transaction speed.

I don’t know if this might be just a problem, or something similar to this concept may spark one of the developers leading to increasing the required scalability.

Bitcoin mining hash rate can not be reduced in a way that more miners will quite mining in a way it will affect bitcoin price. If some miners quit, other miners will gain more and there will become a time no miner will want to quit.

When bitcoin price was falling in 2022 which was a massive bear market, bitcoin hash rate continued to increase in the year.

What do you mean by this? I do not understand but I do not think it will be helpful. If you want to have a say, you will need to be a prominent bitcoin developer.

If you are a prominent bitcoin developer, you will not propose this as you will see it not meaningful.

http://https://i.ibb.co/KyqsZc1/IMG-4368.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/Xpr4Pp1/IMG-4369.jpg


Why not add or create virtual blocks with the block that is mined and the transactions can be completed inside the virtual blocks. The data inside the virtual blocks can be stored at a full node governed by the bitcoin developers and any node on the blockchain can have access or can have a copy from this full node. During this fourth halving this can motivate the miners to have more incentives and mine the new blocks as usual. Also the transaction fees can be an incentive for the miner. I feel like after these Halvings miners who put that much work, pay a lot of revenue just to run will lose motivation, and also the mining may get reduced or something like that. This may impact bitcoins price in the future.

Just a thought that cannot be over my mind, why not leave the security to the developers.
Just in as the picture, bitcoin may slowly come into the union of three sets.