Bitcoin Forum

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

With the first two methods you will have material to create a nice work for your school, just find information about how those options fight against the Scalability...

*Bigger blocks mean more transactions inside each block but a bigger blonchain in the long run.
*Lightning Network is a little more complex, but it opens payment channels, and it cost only one transaction to open the channel and another to close it.

the first one is scaling bitcoin. the other two are locking funds and diverting people over to other networks using pegged tokens not real bitcoin.. its like converting gold to a bank note

lightning doesnt use blockchains and doesnt have the mass validation and is more private. thus comes with risks
sharding is more regional blockchains with a master chain.

a true scaling solution is ofcourse allowing more transactions on the bitcoin network and not trying to make using bitcoin too expensive to use.

You may also want to look into the way Mimblewimble is supposed to increase TX throughput capability..

And just straight up Blockchain Pruning, where nodes don't have to store the entire blockchain is another..

Another aspect of possible scaling problems is bandwidth requirements to run full nodes..

This is just what comes to mind for me though this is not really my area of expertise..

increasing block size doesn't improve scalability. it just linearly increases transaction throughput while also linearly increasing bandwidth, latency, and storage costs.

like the lightning network, sidechains/drivechains intend to scale the bitcoin network by sending transactions off-chain onto separate protocols which interact with bitcoin.

physical bearer instruments are another possible solution for scalability. "bitcoin sticks" (https://twitter.com/opendime?lang=en) can be passed around like cash, removing the need for on-chain transactions at all.

Are we talking theoretically, or in practice? Because I don't think sharding will ever be implemented in Bitcoin. It completely trades off redundancy -- the backbone of the P2P protocol -- for scale. Ethereum is being forced to consider it because of its unsustainable throughput demands, but the "decentralist" camp (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/decentralist-perspective-bitcoin-might-need-small-blocks-1442090446) won't let it happen in Bitcoin.

Maybe we should start by identifying the exact issue. How do you define this "Bitcoin scalability problem?"

scaling is not just about making the blocks bigger, that would be the easiest and least efficient solution. scaling is about increasing the efficiency so the same space could be used better. for example the new Schnorr signature proposal alongside Musig would use the same space but can shrink the transaction size by a lot, hence increasing "capacity" which you can refer to as scaling bitcoin.

speaking of efficiency i think we can categorize Erlay under scaling: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2019/06/05/


sharding and pruning both are not scaling solutions, they are ways that can make it easier for individuals to run a full node since they reduce the storage space requirement.
categorizing them as scaling solutions is like saying running an SPV node is a scaling solution!

In addition to the hard fork, which is irreversible, there is a soft fork, which is a reversible change. It is relevant when it is necessary to preserve the interaction of new network nodes with old ones. Not yet said about SegWit (Segregated Witness) — allows you to reduce the size of the transaction, this solution is a soft fork. SegWit also opened the possibility to introduce Schnorr's multi-signatures into practical use. This scheme is a combination of a signature and verification algorithm. Multiple signers can use just one signature for a joint transaction. All Bitcoin network scalability solutions solve the problems of low bandwidth cryptocurrency network and the problem of high fees.

difference between soft and hard fork is not their reversibility. both are implementing changes that can not be reversed without significant changes in the protocol and additional risks.
the main difference is the backward compatibility.

wrong.
SegWit doesn't focus on transaction size, in fact SegWit transactions could slightly be bigger in size (raw bytes).

wrong.
Schnorr signature has nothing to do with SegWit, it is a signature algorithm and an alternative to ECDSA (the current algorithm) which could have happened without SegWit. SegWit makes any new OP codes easier to implement with versioning system that it has.

- Hard Fork - change block size
Bitcoincash is doing that. Seems like its not the ultimate solution. That would be an option for bitcoin too but we still need to look for better alternative.
Lightning network. A good solution for localized networks. But they may pose a threat to mining and industry.
Sharding, Let Ethereum successfully implement it. There are many things that could go wrong here.

BTC Hello to all is anything on soft fork and hard fork on 2020 by God grace thanks

Before you furiously tap on that keyboard again, I believe we should clarify what "scaling" means. Define what scaling is, franky.

I admire your deep knowledge of the subject. My post is based on reading a popular article on the Internet. Please forgive me if I was inaccurate somewhere.

They seem to fall into two broad categories. on-chain and off-chain. on-chain scaling requires the developers to change one of Bitcoin's properties such as block size limit, transaction format, transaction signature format and etc. while off-chain scaling refers to approaches that increase the utility of the network without touching the blockchain. for example batching multiple payments into one transaction, virtual payments within the system of a custodian such as Coinbase, payment channels or lightning network, sidechains and etc. Off-chain is backwards compatible while on chain scaling isn't. On chain code is simpler and easier to maintain.

Thanks everyone for your advices! appreciate that

Thanks for your comment. I would describe Bitcoin scalability problem as (correct me if I am wrong) - inability to process a large number of transactions (like for example VISA). which result in impossibility to implemented Bitcoin as normal daily payment method for large amouth of people.

Achieving VISA-level scale was never a realistic goal for the base protocol. The costs of global decentralized consensus are simply too high. Bitcoin is robust as a P2P protocol because of its redundancy -- every node processes every transaction. Adding endless throughput to the base network would make it impossible to run a node, destroying that redundancy. Not to mention the increased costs for miners due to block orphaning, which would encourage mining centralization.

That's why developers and the community have opted to minimally increase throughput on the base network while building interoperable networks (like Lightning) that can deliver exponential scale with minimal added costs.

So far its the lightning that is working well for BTC and makes it better because of low fees.
Lets say sharding is successfully deployed in ethereum and has improved their TPS, would it be possible for it to be with BTC as well without it being complex as creating channel like the LN?

Well since this is as good opportunity as any, the question is: When Schnorr?

What is holding back this proposal, what are the cons (if any?) for it to be delayed? Is it a security risk?

well since it is a new signature scheme with a new OP code that probably requires a new witness version, it takes a lot of time to implement it, test it, optimize it and test it some more before adding it as a part of bitcoin consensus. consensus related changes must take a lot of time because they are security critical.
then it requires a soft fork that would also take some time to get the network to get on board and accept it.

the specifications of the proposal can be found here: https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
although things are moving forward but i haven't seen any dates.

UX needs work in my opinion. But you can use BlueWallet with hosted Lightning channels.


I believe no. Ethereum is selling an idea, sharding, that's supposed to scale the network, but does the opposite. It's centralizing.

BSV is solution of BTC scalability problem.

Define "scaling" in Bitcoin. I believe the word is used around the forum without the proper context. Is simply increasing the transaction throughput in Bitcoin, scaling?

sharding is only supposed to fool people into thinking they are running a full node. as i said before it is somewhat similar to telling Electrum users that they are running a full node!
if you are not downloading, verifying and storing the entire blockchain then you are not running a full node. you are running a light client.

the only thing that altcoins solve is more money in pockets of the whales and less money in the pockets of newbies when they pump and dump them.

I think that the Bitcoin scalability topic has been well-covered already, but in case you want to broaden the horizon and learn as well as share some other info, please consider DAG technology which is used by some cryptocurrencies instead of a blockchain. DAG solves the scaling problem in a long-term perspective, but has another flaw that's been pushing it down for years: if Bitcoin is great at first and problematic as more people join, DAG has the opposite issue. But because DAG has transaction confirmation issues at the early stages, it did not get a chance to show what it's capable of if we get behind this stage. The most famous DAG crypto is IOTA, you can find out more info online if you're interested. Good luck!

The first two options only increase throughput. They don't address the system's ability to handle that throughput.


Optimizing transaction size actually improves scalability. The next such major upgrade will probably be the addition of Schnorr signatures, which will drastically lower multi-signature transaction size.

Improving validation and initial sync speed or reducing bandwidth, latency and storage usage also improves scalability because they reduce the costs of increased throughput. Enough improvement in these areas can justify additional block size increases, especially as improving technology makes high speed internet and cheap storage more widely available.

This^^^

If the word "scaling" is misused to mean the same thing as "throughput", it's easy to pose as a helpful person recommending throughput increases as "the" solution. The problem being, that only increasing the throughput actually hurts the strength (i.e. the decntralized nature) of the Bitcoin network, and so mysteriously helpful people are always hanging around the Bitcoin community incessantly suggesting this bad idea ::)


@squatter gets it exactly right here:

when a block is solved the propogation around the network is much faster now than in the past. meaning when the past could cope the future can definetly cope with more

same with the transaction relay

saying that transaction throughput in blocks should not scale with FALSE alarms about centralisation. and then offering locking up transactions to tether peoples value to a different token which is hosted by hubs.. and get people to use hubs as the server/watchtower of their litewallet is more of a real centralising concern

after all who wants to be a fullnode if they only ever use the blockchain once every 6 months

blocksizes can scale up. using false alarms of "big blocks" "gigabytes by midnight" is not scaling thats LEAPING
i find it funny how the rebuttal of scaling ends up with leaping armageddon stories
also scaling bitcoin is not pushing people to other networks 12 decimal tokens that have no blockchain of their own
also scaling bitcoin is not to falsely name those networks as bitcoin to hide the shifting usage away from bitcoin

scaling is increasing utility progressively onchain as that is the real bitcoin
bitcoin can scale its transaction throughput. all stats show that more transactions per second can occur.

the only hold out is not technical. its political

scaling is about transaction throughput because thats bitcoins whole purpose and function. to make transactions for people to move value

but lets hear all those political excuses one more time about how some particular users love certain devs wielding the power to make the rules
(i was being satirical, i dont actually need to hear their excuses, as those excuses are out of date)

Centralizing Bitcoin towards a cartel of miners to increase transaction throughput is NOT scaling. Scaling should be looking for ways to increase transaction throughput WITHOUT sacrificing decentralzation on the base layer.

Simply increasing the block size, does NOT scale the network. Bigger blocks > more costs of running a node > fewer nodes > not scaling the network.

Trolls want you to believe that centralizing the network for transaction throughput is OK, and they call that "scaling a decentralized network"?

You're just trying to confuse people by appealing to authority and making this about semantics. If we're playing that game, I can just as easily point to Wikipedia's definition:


But this isn't about proving which definition is correct. That doesn't matter. The issue is the distinction between throughput and the system's ability to handle throughput -- and how we can improve the latter. I'm not interested in adding throughput without regard for the costs.

His definition of scalability would make it OK to centralize, scale the network down towards the miners, "as long as it scales".

Scalabilty for Bitcoin should be to increase transaction throughput, without giving up node decentralization on the base layer.

Last night I received a payment from one of my client in the form of bitcoin and it took quite a while to confirm the transaction. I was thinking if bitcoin remain like this, only people like me who are a fan of bitcoin will use it. No one will prefer to use bitcoin if settlement time for bitcoin remains like this.
Some experts say that blockchain trilemma can never be solved and it will remain like this forever.

1 satoshi/byte transactions are being confirmed every few hours. What more could you ask for? Fees are the cheapest they've been in years. Not to mention, the consistently increasing hash rate pushes average block times below 10 minutes.

People (and wallet software) need to get smarter about fee rates. If a payment is urgent, send a higher fee. If there is congestion due to a period of long block times, use RBF to bump the fee up.

I don't think we need to find it hard and get to know how to stop scalability cause crypto has been built with that scheme already. But wondering if this could help to understand how it goes https://coinrivet.com/how-blockchain-and-cryptocurrency-can-address-scalability-issues/

And I see that there is no solution for this cause as we are in a decentralized market everything has often to change. The transaction can be fast or low depending on the block size which makes people never think how it was work and say negative when they experience a delay confirmation.

It could very well be that he emptied his dust wallet adding up a lot of byte size. That's not Bitcoin's fault. Even on BCash's network such transactions don't make it through right away if the fee isn't appropriate, and that while they have +99% of free block space almost every single block.

People expect way too much from decentralized networks. In no shape or form will they ever be able to compete with centralized networks on their main network. In order to get your network to scale up you need layers on top of the main network, which Bitcoin is currently working towards with Lightning already usable today.

Who knows what other layers we will see in the forthcoming years. Lightning will probably be one of the many in 5-10 years.

Nevertheless, the scalability of Bitcoin is much lower than for example Ethereum.  I have to agree with this anyway.  Of course, the transaction speed for this period greatly affects the demand for Bitcoin among large companies that could become potential investors.  But as for a certain user who commits transactions and receives a delay, then Anyone who wants to carry out an operation faster solves this problem by increasing the amount of payment of the price of the commission.

You can expand your cryptocurrency to quickly get rich by mining Bitcoin. Have you paid your Bitcoin mining tax? Bitcoin mining is very beneficial. Miners can then exchange Bitcoin for fiat currency like USD or use them to buy goods and services directly. There are countries that tax Bitcoin mining, but also countries that do not.

Maybe you have never done it. In case you didn't, do note that, asic miners are not free, and electricity for the vast majority, isn't free either. While its still barely profitable for some, it isn't something to "get rich" anymore, like it might have been years ago.

AND, there is always a chance for a price downtrend to put you out of business very fast, especially if you are close to the borderline of margin/loss, as many large miners seem to operate within (which is why they rather lose more in pool fees by going PPS just so they could have a constant income regardless of pool luck).

Taxing mining is silly, highly prone to evasion. You might as well just tax them with the power bill.

Miners are paying for the power they consume and if they collect tax for mining that would mean they are paying double.

Lightning Network they said would be a huge centralization for BTC and I think coinbase CEO had recently patented their product for sending BTC to email address, is one thing that is taking out miners of the equation. Its not going to be the same experience anymore that a transaction will have to be validated by POW.

I know that LN is considered as a Off-chain , what about sidechain Pegged may it be also considered Off-chain ? I find many resources on the internet and the opinions do not match. Someone say that it is a off-chain solution but someone consider it as a third possibility : 1) On-chain 2) Off-chain 3) Sidechain

That's probably because there are multiple types of sidechains, each with different effects on scalability.

Federated sidechains have a trusted group of validators that enforces the sidechain consensus. It's basically an altcoin that can interact with Bitcoin. This would be an off-chain solution, since the sidechain consensus doesn't involve Bitcoin miners or mainchain consensus.

Drivechains or merge-mined sidechains are enforced by miners and/or full nodes. While they are not on-chain in the sense of the Bitcoin mainchain, they increase mining and full node overheads the same exact way that an on-chain block size increase would.

Look at the troll. Proposing something, believing that a hard fork, that would scale the network in, IN Bitcoin would be "easy".

Troll, go use Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin.

My stance hasn't changed since this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202006.msg53093614#msg53093614).

I guess it's also been a while since someone posted one of these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/acbwry/scaling_vs_increasing_the_blocksize_a_hddssd/

As the stupid one in the community, I follow who, I believe, are the most competent people in the community. I'm open, and listen, on why "some people" believe they are not the most competent, but I haven't heard anything from "them" that has changed my mind that the Core developers are the most competent group of developers in the world for cryptocurrencies.

The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1. ::)

What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.

Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone.  Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer.  It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.

All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.

The #NO2X movement CLEARLY showed that bigger block size had strong opposition from the community.


The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.

Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!

It's only partly about the price. It's which cryptocurrency truly is the most valuable, for the economic majority, and the miners. It's obvious that everyone demands Bitcoin more than Rogercoin or Craigcoin.

all scaling ever was about

go

industrial


no hobby system / experiment ever scaled from its laboratory setup



get over and see how BSV does that - it works EXACTLY a Satoshi designed it

You may likewise got to investigate the way Mimblewimble should expand TX throughput ability..
What's more, only straight up Block-chain Pruning, where hubs don't got to store the entire block-chain is another..
Another a part of conceivable scaling issues is data transfer capacity necessities to run full hubs..
This is exactly what strikes a chord on behalf of me however this is not generally my material.