Bitcoin Forum

Hey fellow hodlers,

My question is in regards to bitcoins scaling. My personal belief is that a bitcoin can be any amount of money and it would move as regular since it's only integers assigned to blocks. I went to the bitcoincash sub reddit to ask questions regarding why bitcoin would collapse based on scaling and fees. Essentially I got nothing back besides $50  transactions, and what will you do when bitcoin takes to much power to mine for pow. I guess I dont fully understand why bitcoin is said to collapse and why something else such as bch or som other form will prosper. Thanks in advance!

Because, well, Bitcoin wouldn't "collapse" based on scaling and fees. It's pretty much just propaganda for shitcoin pump and dumpers. Bitcoin can and will scale through 2nd and 3rd layer solutions like Lightning[1]; it's just that it's not THAT ready currently, though there's definitely progress.

If you personally think that Lightning is still super complicated to use, you might want to check out the Phoenix[2] wallet.

---

[1] https://lightning.network/
[2] https://phoenix.acinq.co/

You seem to have fallen for a propaganda of BCH and BSV miners as mk4 correctly pointed out! Let me tell you the reality here. Please see the below link to know the trend of the bitcoin fees,

https://billfodl.com/pages/bitcoinfees

So I don't know how you are getting $50 transactions fees! If you transact in cryptos frequently, moving to Lightening Network will be hugely beneficial to you! Have you explored that ever?

it is what happened 3 years ago during the peak of the spam attack against bitcoin network performed by at least 3 different groups each trying to reach their own agenda. unfortunately this can not be prevented and it has nothing to do with scaling or whether bitcoin would collapse or not.
all the altcoins that have copied bitcoin also have inherited this flaw that has also already been seen in all of them: bcash, ether,... have experienced big fee spikes when they were spammed as a test.

Yeah,but many true Bitcoin Core supporters will stay away from the Lightning Network and other 2nd and 3rd layer solution because they are centralized.In the eyes of Bitcoin Core Fanatics and crypto enthusiasts,centralization is viewed as "evil".Yes,centralization comes with it's own risks,but such view is pretty oversimplified.
Please don't fall into the BS that is promoted around the BCH and BSV altcoins.They are projects of Roger Ver  and supported by Faketoshi Wright.Those two just want to make some money and destroy Bitcoin Core.They don't care about scaling and lowering transaction fees.
Scaling is not an issue for Bitcoin Core.

i don't know what 3rd layer solutions are but second layer networks such as lightning network are still decentralized. you seem to have fallen for the bcash FUD.

are you talking about the software design scalability for a program written in C++ language?

You probably want to type the "Bitcoin network". We never have scaling debate about core iirc.

That $50 transaction fee is old, it was way back 2017 wherein there was some entity behind spamming the network and when the price peaked in December, the network was congested.

That's why LN is here to mitigate that if, off-chain that won't add any bottlenecks to the network. I don't know how bitcoin will collapse, if it going to, then the rest of the crypto might go down as well, just saying.

We all know that the Bitcoin core is only capable of processing most like 7 - 5 transactions per second. Having another layer to the blockchain and enabling the users to create payment channels is really a good one. However, it is nearly impossible for the bitcoin to collapse because of the scaling and fees. It's just that, we cannot do anything with the fees. It really is needed to at least sustain the operation. There is a Lightning Network that capable of micropayment. Scaling is a must even in Banks though. Just IMO.

What? If anything, "Bitcoin Core" supporters actually supports 2nd/3rd layer solutions! If they didn't, they would've been shitting on Lightning, but they don't because they're actually bullish on it.

Also, a hardcore bitcoiners can dislike 2nd layer solutions like Lightning and Liquid, but it's completely fine! What's important is that these 2nd layer solutions are actually optional. Meaning, they could still use on-chain BTC without any problems at all. In contrast to BCH whereas "upgrades" like the auto mining tax are shoved down everyone's throats.

I'd like to clarify I never fell for their fud, I still own btc, eth and link only. With majority btc. I was curious about the fud they promoted, and on their subreddits they fail to answer or provide documentation (links, books) thank you btc community!


Long Live The King BTCBTC

So many blockchain solutions based on the issue of scaling to demerit bitcoin so that they can promote their own forks of bitcoin or probably a different cryptocurrency altogether. But what have we seen over the year, they all end up failing just like BSV, BCH, and all the other forks. Let's wait and see how developments of the Lighting Network will solve the scalability issue of bitcoin network.

Each transaction takes up a particular amount of memory (transaction size), and blockchain has a limited block size (the size of each block that is mined).

When you add these two together, you will find that only a limited number of transactions can be included within the next mined block, whereas all other transactions are left in the mempool.

Miners will then select transctions from the mempool to include in the next block, typically based on which ones pay the highest fees.

The block size and block discovery times are fixed, yet Bitcoin is growing and more transactions are being broadcast, hence competition for limited block space should increase.

This is why Bitcoin is stuck at 6-9tps without 2nd layer solutions.

Because you went to the wrong place asking that question, they will not answer you appropriately. They have the reason why they're telling or wherever this idea started out about bitcoin collapsing due to fees and scaling. It has been answered that it's just a propaganda by these people who hates bitcoin and that's why they started their own through forks.

Bitcoin Cash is a failed project being pushed by a sore loser Roger Ver.

As you noticed, they are all parroting the $50 transactions which happened only once before the segwit adoption because they have nothing else.

On-chain scaling can never work without giving up on the decentralization. It is just how it is. Accept it and move on.

I am not a blind supporter of any of these coins and what we should realize is we are in early stages of cryptocurrency where there's much left to improve and integrate. Scaling is surely a problem and all of the projects are trying something to solve it. Bitcoincashs increased block size hasn't really solved the problem as supposed to. So, everyone are still looking to find a proper solution.

The only problem that increased block size can solve is "the problem"  of decentralization, which makes the whole idea of scaling through this approach useless. If I want scaling and fast transactions, I will use my credit card. In this case, I don't care if my funds might be stopped, seized, inflated or debased because thats the only proper way to use fiat money - spend it before it is too late. Why do I need to care about centralization or intermediaries if I am only spending? But I do care when it comes to bitcoin. If block size is increased, then I can't run my own node, blockchain will be too big to store on my laptop plus my bandwidth less than terabyte per second thats why I am no longer able to download big blocks in order to validate them. Bitcoin is not decentralized anymore but very fast, because it is being run on centralized server like Visa does.

Bitcoin can do well in 1-5 exchanges for every second. Another approach to block chain and empower clients to make instalment channels. In any case, Bitcoin's decay is practically outlandish because of scaling and charges. The truth is out, there is nothing we can do with the charges. It needs at any rate the activity to proceed truly There is a force organise that is fit for micro payment. Despite the fact that scaling to banks is an absolute necessity.

Maybe bitcoin scaling is not so good for real mass use but for now it have margin of safety. And we have LN and other L2 solutions that will help in solving current problem

You're completely wrong, I wasn't talking about network security, you just pretended I was talking. Single full node is not important as long as there are enough of other full nodes to provide a decent level of decentralization. If every full node required huge computing power, we would have very few of them, because average users couldn't afford to run them. We would end up with couple centralized full nodes, which could be censored, manipulated, destroyed by governments. The whole thing would become useless and senseless. This is going to happen to your shitcoin cash.

All we can do is try to protect ourselves from scammers. They will always be there and there are many of them, we must not forget about this. Every time you forget they exist, they will remember you.