Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/scalar-capital/bandwidth-and-the-blockchain-2ad35c57dbdf

This article about how Bitcoin and in general the blockchain is scaling is very interesting.

I am not the author but I though it was very educational, and should belong here.

That's a good blog. Real scaling, share it around the forum. I admit that I was expecting something stupid, like "bigger blocks". Haha.

hahaha, the endless block size issue, still debated even after SEGWIT fixed it.. true

op,

Stupid Medium corporation expects me to sign up and pay for premium membershit, I won't do that unless they accept bitcoin, and forget about KYC. It is not the case for now, so, copy/paste the text here please.

Op.

Forget about my previous post, I used another device to fool Medium a bit more  :D

Now, back to the article:
I do agree it has some educational material but I can't see anything new or important mentioned in this article. The author, puts a little bit more than adequate emphasis on relay network optimization role in scaling. Although he is right about 2nd layer protocols (like LN) not being an ultimate solution for scaling, like most authors in the field, he has no clue about what an on-chain scaling solution would look like. He is absolutely wrong. as i said. when he reduces the problem to relay network and bandwidth optimization.

P.S.
@ETFbitcoin: The way I understand it, credit card payments are a form of KYC. I don't and won't use such a payment device, never ever.

It's still debatable if it was fixed by Segwit, or if even if it needed fixing in my opinion. Segwit wasn't a "scalability fix", it was a malleability fix.


What would an on-chain scaling solution, that doesn't centralize the network, look like? Sharding? Where's the Github link, where's the testnet?

Then my question is, if it increases blockchain size, speed, and transactions per second, then wouldn't it still be bloated, scale the network ininstead of out, and centralize the network?

There are other solutions, and it doesn't have to be on-chain. In Bitcoin that's better because there's no need for a hard fork, that would bring its own problems.


I'm talking about scaling, but without giving up node-decentralization. Increasing on-chain TPS would be increasing the block size, that would centralizing. Then what's the use of sharding? It's only slowing down the problem, but still centralizing.

Scaling would be meaningless in Bitcoin if it gives up decentralization. Plus scaling Bitcoin is not exclusively about utility, it's about improving latency/data propagation of a DECENTRALIZED NETWORK. Actual improvements that would help grow the network, not constrict it. Real scaling.

If you believe bigger blocks is the solution, go ahead.

Just a small stupid question but, since SEGWIT is enabling a variable size of blocks and so far it never happen that the Bitcoin transaction had to scale up over 2500 bytes, why people are still talking about the size of the blocks?
Isn't SEGWIT the solution of this problem?

"As of 2017, the average transaction make-up would lead to blocks with 4M weight units being about 2.3MB in size if all transactions were segwit transactions."
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units

Before you talk, and call everyone names, understand how the network works Mr. Zeitcoin lover. Hahaha! Zeitcoin. ::)

Mining is cartelized, I accept that. I was talking about node-centralization. Bitcoin is not decentralized? Let me remind you of the UASF. Go eat your crayons.


Your post proves that you don't understand anything. Go back to your crayon eating. 8)


Then what? When will the block size increases stop? What bigger block size would be the best size to hard fork to?

That will be setting up a dangerous precedent.

I believe that if a proposal requires a hard fork, and the network isn't in a life-or-death situation, then it will never gain enough support. It's not as easy as saying that "a hard fork will eventually be needed".

We basically know what all the existing options are for scaling (barring any new technological leaps or discoveries) and, for me at least, I'm comfortable in the knowledge there are people working on each option and that they're being implemented in order of preference with the aim of preserving decentralisation.  People can get fixated on the options they can easily understand, but it doesn't mean that's the best option right now.  There's a pretty clear order of priority in terms of where we can increase throughput without centralising the network, so it's only natural we're pursuing those ones first.  People just need to take a step back, look at the bigger picture and chill out a bit.  

You can say "but, but blocksize", "but, but faster block speed", etc, but it's not like we're hearing anything new.  We know those things exist.  The cost/benefit ratio has already been evaluated and wasn't deemed a priority.  Hence other options taking precedence and being actively developed first.  If we need to resort to those options with a higher cost, we can consider that later.

Say YES to sub-second zero-confirmation transactions and say NO to instant transactions.

The Sub-Zero Protocol permits Scroda to achieve Sub-Second Zero-Confirmation Transactions all due to two chains coming together and becoming one, Yin and Yang.

https://medium.com/@scroda/scrodas-sub-zero-protocol-walkthrough-c1677f3d60fa

Take a look at our discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5160269.msg51868770#msg51868770

We will be releasing testnet soon.

LN will never be solution, Satoshi said that onchain transactions will support miners in the future, with LN there is no fees for the real miners that support blockchain, with time the fee of one ON-CHAIN transaction will be huge.

LN will have low fees but On-Chain will have a impossible fee to pay and who will rule the LN chanels will be the same as banks, we are not in control of our money!

We need to think about a scalling solution that splits the blocks in blockchain groups, like group A, B, C and so on, that number of groups will be bigger with the number of nodes running, that way the size of block will be always 1MB by node, node type A, node type B and so on, they could be splitted in many 1 MB parts of a block an tested online like SPV wallets.

If bitcoin was used by all the people of the world they will not to be all nodes, so, we can have one node for some % of people, the same way we dont need to have 100% full node information by each node, so, we can split like prunned nodes, some have some blocks, some have other blocks, that way we can scale blocksize and if we scale blocksize we can have some pruned nodes registering 1st 1 MB of the block and other nodes registering 2nd 1MB and others registering 3rd 1MB of the blocks, why not?

If we make this auto-scalling by the number of existing nodes and transactions we can do it without Lightning Network bullshit that its even worst as banks!

To solve the huge number o information in all network there is another solution, we start to delete 1st blocks of blockchain after some number of blocks, example GENESIS block can be deleted and the money still in that address can be reward for miners, this is the best solution for any database, all databases in the world cant grow up infinitely, that is fisically impossible and will waste a lot of resources, so we need to start do delete blocks sooner or later, why dont do the perfect machine now and dont let problems for future generations solve like Y2K in year 2000 ?

That's my contention too. Some people believe that as technological improvements mitigate the technical reasons not to increase block size, that it will become easier politically to accomplish a hard fork. However, I think the fee market will just become the central political issue at that point. The question of whether fees alone can sustain adequate mining incentives (at 4MB block weight limit) could keep everyone debating for another decade.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561

Just don't erase the genesis block please.

That's why it's not the only avenue being explored.  No one is saying that Lightning is going to magically solve all our problems and we don't need to look at anything else.



If you can find support for it, go right ahead.  Count me out, though.  I've seen enough iterations of "hey, let's steal old coins and put them back into circulation" threads to know that only a few well-intentioned-but-ultimately-misinformed fools want that.

Only fools who say LN will solve all scaling problem, besides LN still need on-chain transaction to open & close channel.

IMO LN only useful for those who often make micro-transaction.


LN basically bunch of un-broadcasted transaction with timelock, we have control over our money. The real problem is when other party is unresponsive or non-cooperative where we're forced until timelock expired.


It's called Sharding & already exist for years. The hard part is convincing the community to use sharding.


Irrelevant, regular people don't bother run full nodes, they will always rely on SPV or custodial wallet.


To verify total of full nodes, a node must connect to all full nodes where :
1. Most device can't connect to thousand nodes at once
2. De-anonymization because all nodes who broadcast a transaction/block
3. Full nodes have low default incoming connection limit (AFAIK it's 125)


Pruned mode already realize your idea, user just need to store set of UTXO, recent blocks & all blocks header (which is only 80 bytes/block).

@Wind_FURY did you have a chance to read the article I posted?

No, when I saw "sub-second confirmations", then I already have assumed that it's centralized. Sorry, but that's the nature of a decentralized system like Bitcoin. Data propagation takes time.

Haha yes an obvious assumption still the beauty in our system is that we obtain salability while still being fully decentralized we utilize two chains on our system one solely establishes an order of event through a rotating leader in which leaves a paper trail to follow in which the other chain is utilized to reach consensus in which all the time that is needed for data propagation will be taken.  

Say YES to sub-second zero-confirmation transactions and say NO to instant transactions.

If you see our statement we say no to instant transactions those which reach verification/consensus instantly as they do not take the time to securely verify transactions as you said data propagation takes time. zero-confirmation transactions are totally different it means that you know that even though the transaction isn't confirmed that when the time comes to reach consensus that it will be through the security offered through the network. It is all explained in the article.

Would love your opinion as it is not the usual shitty article which forgets about the CAP theorem.

We had this convo, leaders do not verify or have nothing to do with the verification of transactions or in reaching consensus all they are doing is establishing an order of events. The next leader adds his order of events in and so forth.  Centralization vs Decentralization in such system comes to the way in which consensus is reached, consensus is reached in a fully decentralized manner. We do not have a committee/delegates in which reach consensus or verify transactions before consensus is reached or during.

The way in which we use a rotating leader does not make our system centralized at all as these leaders have no say so in verifying transactions.

I understand what is considered centralized/semi-centralized and we are not that. We do not have block producers, no sole person verifying/validating transactions(centralized), no committee/delegates verifying/validating transactions(semi-centralization) rotating leaders only set a paper trail of order of events they have no say so on the verification/validation of transactions.

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

All block headers is trash, genesis block should be always the 1st block that still have addresses with balance bigger than zero, all the 1st blocks with only addresses with balance = 0 should be completed removed, this is good programming habits.

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

so your really saying that block headers are trash? Dude so how would someone make sure that the blockchain was not modified? with block headesr who is keeping track on all transactions no one? that is the whole point of pruned mode. All that is kept is UTXO.

Lost me with that statement what are you trying to get at?

Sharding is already in existent. Bitcoin will not adopt it because it weakens security when reaching concensus. No one in Bitcoin is going to go for weaking security just to gain faster transactions, they would rather have longer wait times while being fully secured. Other projects are looking at sharding such as Ethereum and many are backing away from it because it will have weaker security thus making it more vulnerable to attacks.

Dude did you really have to make 3 seperate post ?

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

It's unfortunate, because eventually that will have real implications for Bitcoin's monetary policy. Consider, for instance, what will happen if quantum computing breaks ECDSA. Implementing a new signature scheme won't do anything about all the bitcoins that don't move to safe addresses. That could result in millions of previously lost bitcoins being reintroduced into circulation.

Hypothetically, on an ethical level, I don't mind the idea of owners being required to move coins every n epochs/blocks/years. The problem is this was never established in Bitcoin's rule set early on -- users never agreed to it. Now, consensus change seems impossible.

All block headers of blocks that are in the begining of blockchain and dont have any address moved with balance are completly trash, any information is trash, you can simply delete it and say block 2 is the new genesis, what we lost?

The problem is that one guy that have 1 Satoshi in the genesis block can stay to eternity with that money there even if the next 1 million blocks have all addresses with 0 balance, so we would need to keep record of millions of blocks in all the full-nodes just because one guy haves 1 Satoshi in the genesis block in 1999!!!!

Bitcoin code is not Moses tablets and Satoshi was not god, we need to keep improving, one database that cant delete records would become a white elephant sooner or later, so its better we think sooner and do it now!

Sharding can be done without bitcoin adopt it or not, its like pruned nodes, everybody can do one and use it, the bitcoin network will block something if its not OK. Imagine that you and me implement one and you save 50% of the blocks and me another 50% and our nodes work together to make new moves, what can other people/nodes do if we follow the same rules as them?

So, it will need to happen sooner or later, garbage collection its so important as safety or else someday we cant feed the white elephant, coul be 100 years and after that, the money reverts for miners or else we will have another problem too like money losting, we could solve 2 problems at once.

Nothing is impossible programming, you can set variables like each time detected nodes are double the number of groups in the sharding node is advised to scale too and user can choose to scale to save space or keep the same groups and keeps using too much space.

Basically sharding nodes will work like knowledge and people, as long as there are people there is knowledge, but all the people dont need to have the same knowledge, they can share knowledge !

About quantum resistant i woul not be so optimistic, Germany lost the war because thinked the same way about ENIGMA, i read in the past that a bitcoin address can be cracked in 7 years with quantum computers, dont know if it is true or not, i dont have a quantum computer yet to try it.

How would that be a problem why not just let long term unnacessed funds be, if a fund goes like 50 years without being moved does not mean it would need to be put back in rotation it could just be accounted as that unnaccesed funds and would bring up the value of Bitcoin a win/win.


The reason ECDSA is easily crack-able by quantum computers is because of the ECC used, it is basically a format of calculations in which a quantum computer could easily reverse. You might be thinking that it would take 7 years for it to become mainstream.

Hahaha. There are two posters here, or maybe it's actually one person, that are tag-teaming all of you with debates of nonesense.

Mods, lock this topic.