Bitcoin Forum

The recent fork in BTC has made me wonder what is the best altcoin that is set up to handle lots of transactions should it become popular?

Negativity, due to speed of blocks. They will never get full

"Writcoin corrects the dates of its genesis blocks to the start of its current Gregorian calendar month and utilizes a Proof-of-Work based on transaction tree Merkle roots and short (here, ten seconds) block times called Proof-of-Wait™" (username18333 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776426.0)), so it seems GEC would best "handle lots of transactions" (adhitthana). (Note: the blockchain would remain reasonable [at least, in size], and the PoW particularly difficult.)

You're not going to see any of the current technology able to process much more than a 1000 per second even with major advances in hardware (despite what some cryptos claim).

Vertical scaling just will not get the job done no matter how well designed and optimized your algorithms are, the only solution is to scale horizontally with a different ledger/consensus design.  This is the approach we have taken, and we'll be releasing information on topics such as this very soon.

I'm not sure there's a hard cap, but yes, it's not going to scale linearly. I personally think any main chain inevitably becomes a clearance network (note - I don't like this, but that's my analysis), but the limits on Bitcoin are too low even just for a clearance network (it currently compares with the US-only interbank-only CHIPS network).

Back to the initial topic; don't believe anything unless a coin has actually run stress tests. Anyone can drop the block target time in the code, it's having the network reach consensus in that time that's difficult.

Please checkout DigiByte. Block times are 30 seconds and with the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork we are planning to match Visa's average TPS. Here is a video explaining more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haCDqhaTqc

We also would warmly welcome you into the DigiByte community here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408268.0

BitShares 2.0 will be able to easily scale up to 100k TPS with 1 second block times. check bitshares.org / blog.bitshares.org. Here's a feature overview video: http://blog.smartcoin.pw/2015/07/bitshares-20-smartcoin-tech-overview.html

Also, the NXT framework can scale transactions.

Have had the same questions a few days ago here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg12175194#msg12175194

Got the following answer -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=364218.0

Bitshares 2.0 - releasing in September - 100,000 transactions per second. Its already popular and price is good now if you want to get in.

Bitshares is a vertical scale and it'll never be able to process 100,000 tx/s on commodity hardware let alone expensive server boxes.  Even the very fastest CPUs at the moment will struggle to validate 30,000+ signatures per second and that is before doing anything else with regard to transactions like verifying outputs, read/writes to the DB etc...

I haven't seen any evidence of stress testing that proves BitShares's claim or the claims of any other crypto, and until we do, it should be taken as false advertising.

Monero can handle 1600 tps

I recommend you CREVACOIN !
 It trades in C-CEX.com lively and launched ATM for crevacoin

so anytime , you can transacting when you want !

Yes, it's worrying that they seem to be promising something that for it to be accurate would probably break the laws of physics(1 second block times?).

This isn't the first I've had issues with Bitshares marketing and claims. I think it's very much a legit project, but they go about it in a way that often reflects poorly on themselves.

Indeed, from what information I been able to dig up, this claimed 100k tps was in a closed and controlled test environment, with a specifically constructed ledger, local LAN and almost certainly some very high powered hardware.

Kinda like when you buy a new car and the manufacturer states a 0-60 time of 6s, yet try as you might you cant get it below 7!  That's because it was controlled, super grippy tyres on a super grippy test track, a drop of fuel in the tank, spare wheel out, seats out, starved driver that weighs only 6st :)

Whoever you are, you seem to be an expert in these matters.  Aside from the stolen code, lying dev, and other FUD (well deserved) surrounding Vanillacoin, what is your opinion of their claimed zerotime protocol?  
  
They say it let's you confirm transactions in less than a second and respend them as well.  It also is supposedly very scalable.  
  
I've heard it described as everything from hogwash to interesting.  I'll be following you as we go forward; looking forward to what you have to release.

He's the lead developer of eMunie, which is a long term project with actually built from scratch code and new ideas, unlike Vanilla's fake claims of new code. Check out the links in his sig if you're curious.

A long term project that is going to need a new name for launch, but I will look into it.  I love scratch code that does new and innovative things and this sounds like genuine conversation, a refreshing change from the usual bitcointalk shilling.

I cant comment on the matter of FUD, nor the accusations of lying etc....I'm far to busy to be concerned about those kinda things.

I can comment on what I have read in the paper, I haven't looked at any code, and I only briefly got into the paper, so take these following thoughts as you will.

It seems to me though, that ZT is susceptible to Sybil attacks, which can in turn lead to a DoS of the ZT feature for most of the network.  

If there is a consensus conflict on the lock of a particular transaction, then the network goes into "defense" mode regarding that transaction and has to wait for a full confirmation before it can be spent.  This is the right thing to do, and ensures that double spends are not possible (assuming the rest of the algorithms and code are correct).  

However, it seems trivial to set up a number of nodes operating a Sybil attack that willingly cause conflicts on these locks, which means that a large portion (or even all) of transactions are forced to wait a confirmation, this of course makes ZT inoperable, and could be attacked endlessly.

As I said, I only briefly read the paper and didn't follow up on it in anyway, there could be things missing from that paper that could relieve these concerns, so take from my opinion what you will, and that it could be wrong due to lack of research on my part.


Heh, the name might be a bit 'cute' but it does what it says on the tin, and Joe public love cute names ;)

How many transactions can the plattform or Crevacoins handle per second / minute / hour / day? Could not find appropriate information.

It's worse than that:

If I control a majority of nodes*, I can confirm a transaction lock to the recipient of a double spend, then dump the transaction lock from all my nodes and double spend the coins back to myself with a new transaction lock which I hold until N blocks have been built.

"defence" mode cannot work as designed because of the nature of sybil attack.

*) there is a constant probability of success which increases with the number of nodes I own

There you go, someone that has looked at it closer than me...

I was under the impression that the double-spend would still get picked up before it could actually cause any damage, but again, I didn't spend much time digging around in it once I'd realized that DoS was possible.

Mintcoin can handle a lot of tranactions., and they are confirmed in less than 30 seconds.

Picked up by who/what? The nodes are the network, so if you control a majority of nodes, you control the majority of the network. In any case, what all of this means is that, like instant-x, zero-time has a constant probability associated with the success of a double spend.

What does it take to control a majority of the network? Not much. Unlike instant-x, no collateral is required to be locked up, so you don't need to buy a bunch of VNL, all you need is a bunch of IP addresses.

Cryptonite XCN. It has a blockchain but the blockchain doesn't store every transaction forever. Has a nice zeroconf feature that has its warts (they all do) but should be okay for buying coffee.

It uses a heavily modified Bitcoin code base and the developer has been at it for a year or something, so he does look rather serious about the project. The emission curve is super-slow (half in 10 years).

Disclosure: I mined some of this at the beginning and I have the coins around in some wallet but I have no idea if I can even retrieve them, nor how much they are worth (I suspect not much as the coin hasn't really gone anywhere price-wise, though it did experience some sort of pump a few months ago -- no idea why). $27K market cap which strikes me as low even considering the emission schedule. Trades on Poloniex, BTC38, and BTER.

Double spends are always possible with block chains if you control a majority of nodes, but from my understanding, you don't need a majority to effect a DoS on the ZT algorithm and to clarify again I ceased by investigations here

In the case of simple disruption or a DoS, it appears to me that you do not need a majority and the double spend would be resolved by the usual confirmation processes.

You  need a majority to afford a greater than 50% probability of double spend. For any lesser amount of sybil nodes, there is a constant probability of attack success, which is entirely a different situation from the worst case being no consensus, which is what the author is claiming.

Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running), secure network and 3 minute blocks does three times or more what btc does in tps - and faster - and less inflationary. I'm asking myself since ages why people don't switch to it. It's basically a faster bitcoin with lower max coins and less inflation. Unobtanium is Bitcoin on steroids.

Alternative Primecoin runs like clockwork. Fast, reliable, very good coin to sink money into. Never hardforked to my knowledge. Backed by botnet power - these lights don't go out.

Both coins huge unrealized potential imo - and i have looked at a lot of coins, man. All the rest is fucking crap.

Can you explain what you mean?

i've been told VISANET can handles a holiday peak of 30,000/sec and the ave. is 3000/sec

their website PR is higher than reality


if DGB can handle 2000 TPS
then good enough ... srsly I doubt any single crypto to hit the visa benchmark for many reasons

but the multialgos are likely the best canidates for heavy traffic networks
the only barrier is raising the capital for dev staffing and marketing
*VisaNet is 10k employees
**BTC is 10 employees

I mean: Today the blockchain of Uno takes up 586 MB on my HD, which is half a GB. The coin was launched in the end of 2013. So that's worth 2 years of txs. Half a GB. I think that's very efficient. How come it is so? Because of low and even numbers. Uno has max coins 250.000 (250k)
For ever 1 Uno, 80 Bitcoin exist. It's Bitcoin 80 to 1
Reward for blocks started with one coin per block and is halving down approximately every 206 days (1 -> 0.5 -> 0.25 -> 0.125 and so on). That means it'slow numbers of inputs with less digits.

Look at doge chain for example. It's huge. Why? Because of the high numbers. Storing the number "1000000000" takes up more space than storing the number "1" - if that makes sense to you?

I think none of the coins need visa-level capacity. All these coins together surely already have that. If people demand txs, they will get txs. We aren't running out of blockchains that's for sure.

I think you meant to say Unobtanium is fucking crap. It's a straight clone with a few numbers changed - mainly the total number of coins and halving schedule. So it ends up that 80% of total coins are mined now, and like 50% were mined in the first month or few. So, maybe there's very transactions in the blocks because the vast majority of all total coins were ninja mined by Bryce Weiner and his ninja cohorts, and they are just sitting on their stockpile. Why would someone want to buy into that fucking crap?

Both "number" (balu2) should require eight bytes (i.e., sixty-four bits) of "space" (balu2) to store transaction values if both networks should use 64-bit computer integers therefor.

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

Such "fiber connected homes" (smooth) would achieve relevance in "[Bitcoin] mining" (TPTB_need_war) through P2Pool (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool), which is not "centralized" (TPTB_need_war).

I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.

One of the arguments for being able to withstand the government's documented moves towards controlling Bitcoin[1], is that mining can move to any jurisdiction and any means of internet connection, even low bandwidth shortwave or HAM radio.

If we are relegated to the few fiber connections well controlled by the monopolistic telcoms in the G7 or G20, then we've lost the battle.

[1]

Quote from: trollercoaster on August 19, 2015, 08:55:46 PM http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-up-for-discussion-at-commonwealth-virtual-currency-meeting/ Quote from: trollercoaster on August 23, 2015, 12:54:17 AM http://www.coindesk.com/research-federal-reserve-needs-power-over-bitcoin/ Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 22, 2015, 03:56:50 PM The government regulation of crypto-currency is on the march (https://blockstream.com/2015/07/08/blockstream-weighs-in-on-CA-bill/). Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 19, 2015, 08:35:49 PM A 51% attack can create as many Bitcoins as it wants to. I think Bitcoin investors do not really believe it can happen, because they would not invest in inflatacoin. But it is much more likely than they believe. Everyone knows that Bitcoin mining MUST become more centralized (in order to scale up transactions) and thus it will likely (almost certainly IMO) eventually become controlled by the G20 that can regulate a few 100s of mining nodes. Will be justified by the G20 doing coordination against terrorism, money laundering, and tax cheating. And the masses who use Coinbase wallets and other large providers such as the Blockstream.com (3 million wallets) CEO shaking hands with the Prime Minister of the UK upthread, won't care! They are sheep. They follow. They are preoccupied.

Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!).

I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.

I was traveling around and noticed that both Laos and Cambodia had 4G already. And this was not even that recently. There's a lot of money in the mobile market so I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the world was up to that standard soon.

I'm guessing AM is on an island which explains the poor internet.

No if you want to maximize resiliency against a bezerk totalitarianism, you need to be able to mine from any where and any connection. We don't even know if they will shut down the internet. We have to be prepared for everything.

You love to argue just to argue don't you? How about cutting to the chase? Or do you really don't want to win.


It depends on the threat environment. I'd prefer ultimate resiliency given there are no tradeoffs and it is simply better in every way.

I happen to believe you have to be realistic about improvements in technology and can't realistically assert that nothing is "decentralized" unless it works over, say, dialup (or ham radio).

It is a fact that five years ago there were very few >10 mbit connections outside data centers. Now they are commonplace and inexpensive in many (not all) locations, and 100 megabit connections are becoming common too.



Well who wouldn't?

On the matter of "no tradeoffs", does it exist? Is the implementation mature? Does it have a user base, network effect? I see tradeoffs.

But I certainly favor competing on the basis of superior technology that is not vaporware.

I just wonder if we are going to cut to the chase or continue bloviating.

Yeah there is even 4G in Philippines in about 0.01% coverage by land area. And you won't be signing up with an unregistered account.

^ this is exactly the reason for all the work on our ledger, which I hope to release some information on this coming week following from consensus.

Its pointless to have a decentralized network where to be of any use, everyone needs to have access to the best of the best....it should really be able to operate in the worst of the worst if possible and the most basic tasks should be possible with no perceivable deterioration.

The key issue in my mind is that the coin must not be hard coded to todays tecnhnology. This is the problem with Bitcoin and its 1 MB blocksize limit and even Gavin's proposal is ultimately flawed since he is proposing a hard 8GB blocksize limit. My take is that age has a lot to do with this issue. Young people have a phonomenal grasp of the current technology; however when it comes to the rate of change, or first derivative, of technology the prespective of a 50 year old or a 60 year old actually wins hands down.  

How many people on this forum have actually progammed with punch cards, used a teletype to communicate with a computer that had 2 KB of RAM, or got an error message from the mainframe of a major Canadian University because the program they wrote required over 2 MB (the total memory capacity of the mainframe)? I have. To put things into prespective a punchcard holds 80 bytes, and an 8in floppy holds 80 Kilobytes. Now today does it make any significant diffrence in the cost of sending an email that has an 80 byte or 80 kilobyte message? 50 years ago sending an 80 byte message over the telegraph network would cost around 10 USD (in todays dollars), while the other hand sending an 80 kilobyte telegram would have cost around 10,000 USD in todays dollars.  

The critical advantage that Monero has is that it does not have a hard coded (requiring a hard fork) limit that throttles the coin to today's technology. This is the critical factor in my opinion.

Now while I am writing this post my sell Bitcoin buy Monero order is being filled. In the meantime let us see if Gavin gets his way and Bitcoin is allowed to scale from the punchcard to the CD 5.25in floppy disk.

Edit: Corrected CD (640 MB) to 5.25in floppy disk (640 KB)

We've got a founder on the project that was from the same background, keeps us very grounded in terms of exactly what you are saying.  Frequently he tells stories of punch cards, tape drives and hard discs the size of a refrigerator :)

Even if he doesn't intend it, it makes me sit back after and think about things I could improve, change, remove to work on lower hardware.  Its not a bad practice either, as low end hardware these days is crazy efficient, and so is our project as a product of that thinking :)

Im working on some JavaCard stuff atm, and thats the same as what you are describing in a way.  A few kb of EEPROM, 2k of RAM, slow processor.  You have to think about every byte and clock cycle you use.  Currently writing an ECDSA signer in that environment (JavaCard 2.2 doesnt support ECDSA with SHA2 hashes natively, only SHA1) and its taxing!

The solution is a design that does not significant increase the block chain size as the transaction rate increases.

I know of no other design that solves the bandwidth scaling other than my design.

eMunie does too, but I didn't announce it yet, one document at a time is enough for me thanks :)

How does yours achieve it?

what IS your design ? Is there anything I can read or look at ? Is it already implemented ?

Digibyte :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6SxmDmUvIk

Dogecoin - simple and popular crypto coin  ;) Transactions are simple and fast, you can also change Doge to/from BTC easy  :)

Check MAPC from my sig

 
  
Actual wisdom on the nature of change and humanity doesn't go out of style!  :)  It also takes decades to earn.  Who knew?  
  
I think that the "old men" of today who have witnessed the entire rise of computers from the single-byte age to modern times are some of the most valuable resources on the planet.  Having grown up in the 80's right as computers really hit the fun part of their exponential curve I feel about half as wise as you, and I can appreciate your perspective on how things might play out in the future.  You have seen the top minds of each decade repeatedly spout off nonsense about "how things really are" only to soon be silence by the march of technology and connectivity.
  

lol this reminds me of my old college professor telling us about the IBM XXXX units he'd have to replace with like a ton of ESD protection.

He went "now in my day, hard drives literally 'crashed' " referring to the read head actually colliding with the surface of the drive every so often.

Now, there's solid state ftw.

The number of people around here who consider months of experience to be an expert is astonishing. Even more impressive is how no-one seems to learn. I see people talking about coin devs with 10-20 years experience as if that's meant to be incredible; no, it's about right, and describes (for example) the devs for Bit, Lite & Doge.

Edit: 10-20 years development experience. Obviously having more than 2-3 years of coin development experience is really difficult, and more than 5 would likely mean you're Satoshi :-D

Yeah, I have been coding since 1967, wrote some IBM assembler back then, then migrated to COBOL as it was easier to code in... My first paid job was programming via wiring pegboards in a bank.  The Bank mainframe had 256kb of iron core memory, which filled a 20 x 30 sq ft room with a raise aluminum floor.

Fairly serious question; how do you not end up fleeing into something else? I've been doing this as a job for ~15 years and I seem to spend increasingly more and more of my time despairing over the state of everything!

Dash through the use of its masternode network : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68nC5BQfuuE
Still heavy in development though, but its making nice progress....

Well you got me beat. I was born in 1965. My first programming was Apple II Basic in the summer after graduating high school in 1983. But I had read a book from Radio Shack on microprocessors in 1978 and had been doing machine code programming in my head since that time.

By the end of 1983, I owned a Commodore 64 and wrote a basic word processor in 68000 assembly language. I turned the 40 column display into 80 column by creating a font that could fit two characters into each column. I was programming the display at the bit level. I was doing this in my dorm at college, because I had this talent where I didn't need to attend class. I could just show up for tests. For example, I finished #3 out of 3 sections (300+ students) in freshman Chemistry.

By 1985, I had acquired an Atari ST and began programming WordUp in my spare time. I started with assembly language but switched to C by version 3.0 of the commercially successful product.

Yeah I guess I have about 20+ years experience, if factoring in that some years after 2001 I wasn't working.

No 6510 (essentially a 6502 plus some extra integrated functionality). 68000 assembly would be far less impressive as it was close to the pinnacle of user-friendly CISC microprocessor instruction sets. (After that ISA development went RISC or stalled.) Almost a high level language by comparison.

Correct. Its been a while (22 years) :)

The Atari ST was 68000.

1983 was 32 years ago(!). :)

Please don't, I feel old!