Bitcoin Forum

In crypto land, many people are often looking for ways to make money instead of believing in crypto's core technology (Blockchain) that gives financial freedom to anyone worldwide. Some people prefer decentralization above all else because it provides censorship-resistance against third parties. Others simply prefer scalability over decentralization, to enjoy faster speeds and low costs as much as possible. While many people have criticized Bitcoin because of its high fees and slow TPS, it's more of a feature than a bug as it preserves decentralization in every way.

Which is why, I wonder what's the best path for crypto to take? Will it be decentralization or scalability? With an ever-growing demand for crypto, there's the need to scale Blockchain technology to meet with the needs of everyday people. But then, there's the issue of centralization. The more the Blockchain scales, the less decentralized it will be. You'll sacrifice one thing over another. It's nearly impossible to meet with both standards at the same time.

What are your thoughts? ???

You're mistaking about the part tthat " there is no more need for Blockchain scalability".
Scalability itself means non stoppable development to bring the best that the market, economy, communities,... need.

If i had to choose among both, i would differently choose Decentralization over Scalability.
Scalability is something inevitable while decentralization is literally jeopardized nowadays.

in a system I prefer to decentralize because I think one form of resistance for people who abuse third-party transactions, as well as the transparency in the transaction makes me prefer bitcoin in.

Simply take a look at Digibyte. At the same time it's secure, decentralized and scalable as no other.

Bitcoin's block size is limited therefore it can only process handful of transactions per block. As you said, it is feature rather than bug. This contributes to the market value of Bitcoin, making is more difficult to own. This is called premium creation. That is why Bitcoin's price has risen so much.

But it is wrong to expect everything from Bitcoin. It can't be used as your go-through currency for shopping or a currency supporting your online application that processes hundreds of transactions per second. To solve this problem, developers have created many coins over-time. With less block difficulty (due to less mining competition), large block size, shorter block creation time; such coins solve the basic problem of Bitcoin. But it doesn't mean such coins are centralized. Decentralization is not black/white concept. Most of the coins are still community-driven even though their spread is much smaller than the Bitcoin.

If I have to chose its going to be the decentralization because after all there is an option for the lightning network for the faster transaction. What this market need is the decentralization to once and for all end the hacking of funds and  scamming of centralized platforms. It shouldn't just the market should be decentralize but the projects as well.

Actually both of them are equally important because Cryptocurrencies are advantageous because they are decentralised but for me personally scalability is much more important because if we are expecting Cryptocurrencies to boom over the world then it must have the capability to cater millions and billions of transactions in a minute. The mere 3000 transaction block size within 10 minutes is surely not going to help anyone. So definitely bitcoin will have to be improvised to be used as a mainstream currency.

You argue weather it is possible to have a scalable solution or decentralized for a blockchain. While there is a working example, Digibyte operates 1066 tps on a Proof of Work blockchain, it has multishield feature that helps secure the network to prevent 51% attacks. Digibyte also use multialgo to make 51% attack even less possible, because every 15 seconds each block is generated by a different algorithm SHA, QUBIT, SCRYPT, SKEIN, ODOCRYPT and needs different equipment. Digibyte also has real time difficulty adjustment so it helps network scale faster and have no delays to generate blocks. All this stuff is already possible and operating live on a real blockchain network.

I think that answer is clear. Decentralization!
If you want high scalability use MasterCard or Visa, if you want decentralization use Bitcoin. It is technical problem that decentralization is connected to low scalability because the information about payment has to be send among many nodes.  ;)

rather than scalability and it's much better to replace it with the utility. scalability doesn't matter a lot these days. The new announcement that comes from the coinfloor to delist all of the altcoin from the market has already proven if scalability means nothing compared with utility. it's so easy to create a scalable blockchain while there is the only coin that already proven its utility and that's bitcoin.
scalability just an old story that used by garbage blockchain that cannot create a utility or usability for its token or coin

let nature do the selection, whether Decentralization or Scalability. Because both have advantages and disadvantages of each. Crypto is here to speed up transactions and penetrate transactions between countries, but regulations will definitely emerge between them.

Decentralization is an important part of cryptocurrency because this is what underlies Bitcoin was created. But with the development of transactions that occur, scalability also becomes important and I think the technology will continue to develop, maybe in the future there will be a project that combines the two

Decentralization should be the one which is the true need of an crypto currency.If we wanted something digitized form of payment then why we need cryptos fiat can be the one which is also available in digitized form but it can be tracked,limited usage and much more.

I prefer decentralization because there are a very good benefits to scaling in a decentralized way. for one there’s less initial cost involved, users around the world are providing the computing power. There is a much lesser chance of the network going offline, natural disasters, electricity outages, etc. happen in the real world but geographically disparate computing mitigates that. Associated with that risk is regulatory cost, which is also mitigated by decentralization. You also have a much more secure system where people can’t just hack you and steal the money in the system like keeps happening on centralized exchanges.

Decentralization and scalability are equally important. At the beginning of the coin making, decentralization was an important issue but after transactions grew rapidly, scalability became the next issue that needed to be addressed. For the crypto community, decentralization is the main thing because it concerns the security of transaction data but I think it can be combined with scalability in the near future

Even though there’s no easy answer, but I think decentralization should always come before scalability, why else would you scale? If you’re not decentralized enough anyway why not just go for centralized solutions.

Not precisely, remember what made Bitcoin transactions smooth and cheap again in 2017? Segwit? Not really! In that time, with the help of XRP, STR (XLM), ETH, LTC, and other altcoins, Bitcoin was able to solve the problem of too many transactions on its Blockchain. Not only by the Segwit upgraded has solved that issue.

I would disagree with any idea, such as focusing solely on Bitcoin because we want Decentralization, not just decentralizing work on Blockchain. And, it must also include the number of assets put into Cryptocurrency.

However, I can't disagree with you about the currency Altcoin ecosystem is trash at now. :V

When we are talking about brand new coins, decentralization is a dream. Why do people pay millions of dollars in funds to a team to create a coin? Because they want the team to build a good coin and keep working for it. When a team works for a coin that coin can never be decentralized, it is not humanly possible. So in the long run if you invest into a coin know that it can never be decentralized.

Look at bitcoin for example, it doesn't have any one person behind it and even the core team members can't do whatever they want, hell billion dollar worth duo created bitcoin cash because they couldn't change bitcoin. When you are in the position of bitcoin maybe it is time to think about availability, if you are new it would be great to move towards decentralization.

If the value of today's crypto space with USD is removed, %1-2 of the community will be left behind. The majority is only interested in earning more. Decentralization remains in the background, as there are priority demands in such a system. Indeed, it may be possible to carry both in one basket, but if one is not superior than the another.

I agree with you. The more scalability blockchain projects seeks, the more its driven into the hands of with government or private institutions as well as individuals. Remaining decentralized entails a long time of waiting for more adoption and scalability but seeking scalability reduces its decentralized abilities.

No problem. at that time (2017) the bitcoin blockchain gets overloaded caused by massive demand from the market to buy bitcoin, and the tx fees were also jumping you can see this news that released in 2017
https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-payment-mining-fees-hit-new-high-2017-12

Ethereum is also getting overloaded at that time.
For crypto in the past, scalability matters a lot, but right now even a single scalable blockchain is enough. The fact that if they lack utility right now and that makes the government contradicting with altcoin or also becomes an opponent to it

It's really a trade off, isn't it. At least with current technology.

I think that projects like IOTA actually have both aspects pretty down already which is rare, which may contribute to their long term success.

That said though, I'd definitely not sacrifice decentralisation in favour of anything, scalability included. Simply because that's the sole reason anyone would use BTC in the first place.

We can't talk about one and leave out the other. The beauty of crypto is decentralisation and when technologies are becoming faster and less expensive, it's expected that crypto follows same path. If mass adoption is to be thing then crypto must scale.

These two are actually very important, but as far as I am concerned, the first on the list will be decentralization, because that is the true essence of cryptocurrency. Scalability is just an addition. Perhaps, it is meant to just add flavour to it and make transactions to be much easier.

Originally, it is both for me. Decentralized systems are key to many sort of transactions that won't require much of the expenses when using third party. Also, the scalability  of this technology helps the society jump to the next step of mankind. Hopefully, these two can be and will be preserve as we enter a new era where cryptocurrencies are not just abundant but also relevant and useful to the society.

I choose both (decentralization and scalability) because cryptocurrency need the two features in other to genuinely be the mainstream of payment without the control of the government or third party. However, I believed the OP don't get the point that a project don't have to be centralized before it can be scalable because we already have some crypto which are decentralized and still hold the scalability features in terms of transaction.

I supported what you said because for cryptocurrency to be great in the future and be accepted by billions of people around the world we need it to be decentralized and scalable. However, we already have some crypto that manage the both characteristics and I don't see anything stop a project to implementing both decentralization and scalability into their protocols.

That's right, there are two sides of the same coin. I have said more than once that decentralization is the laying of fees for the maintenance of data centers and responsibility for glitches on the shoulders of the users themselves. The blockchain becomes fully controlled when someone reaches 51% of the computing power and that already was.

Scalability has always been a weakness in the blockchain industry when applied in practice. It relates to whether a blockchain network is capable of providing a high-speed and stable quality experience to users. Users and businesses need to know if they can trust a network anytime, anywhere. So scalability should be a priority.

I believe bitcoin can still work with both of them with a lot of fixed adjustments.

scalability also has a thicker function for the stage of further adoption of benchmarks to the extent that the effectiveness of the development of the network goes, but there is no definite formula where decentralization will always be eroded by various things involving the government in it, very inevitable.

Right, if we have to choose one of the two options, why this should not be our freedom? There are hundreds of assets available to scale. But, decentralized cryptocurrencies can survive through our support, and if we do not evaluate it, we may never have a chance like this again. And do not consider this evaluation as a trade, it means decentralized freedom.

It seems like Decentralization is favored. Probably because we are at a website called bitcointalk. But I agree in most of them that decentralization must not be used a tradeoff for scalability.

Nah, a lot of people have a love for Bitcoin and the technology behind it, but nobody is ready to take the risk of losing their money. If Bitcoin was stable, then people wouldn't be looking at making money with it but would be more focused on using the technology.

Another question is - if Bitcoin was stable, how many people will be ready to make use of it? Maybe if it wasn't volatile as it is today a lot of people wouldn't have been interested and it would have just died off like that. If you check the story of those that started Bitcoin at the very first, they got into it because they saw it as an investment and not really as a payment method. Whatever you choose to see it as is up to you.

Most of us, veterans in the crypto space, would prefer Decentralization on top of Scalability for a very good reason. In a world where powerful governments and central banks control the financial system, it's best to rely on an alternative that can withstand any situation in the future. Bitcoin's ever-growing Blockchain network has reached a level of censorship-resistance far beyond reach. If it scales to massive TPS, I'm afraid that it will lose its luster over time as the risk of centralization increases over time. Take a good look at Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV which are marketed as "better versions of Bitcoin", yet they're controlled by a few players in the mainstream world. Decentralization its what it's all about ever since Bitcoin was introduced to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto.

If people want faster transactions, their best bet would be to use a traditional payment processor like Visa, MasterCard, or even PayPal. Blockchain technology was not meant to scale indefinitely, as it would turn itself into a "centralized database" than anything else. Most people don't understand this, as they just want convenience above all else. They're also in it for the money instead of the core technology that helps democratize finance. In the end, scalability might win on top of decentralization because of human greed. Mainstream companies and startups will pressure developers in order to improve the coin's underlying Blockchain network's scalability. As long as there is money involved, you cannot expect to enjoy a decentralized financial system that puts the user first instead of said entities. Just my opinion :)

I cant seem to think to segregate one of these cause both are important when it comes to blockchain. I like decentralization of course, once we are preoccupied by centralized system this so call crypto will be another internet of things now which Im afraid is going to happen soon. Scalability on the othet hand is also important but we must priority decentralization to further strengthen the sole purpose of blockchain.

To choose between the two option, both could possibly a good idea depending on what particular option for scalability could be consided. Because even with the low transactions per blocks, what matters the most is that the bitcoin could still reach its destination and at the same time, without the need of any thirdparty to handle the transactions. But the only problem I could see in here is the use of more power to process more blocks because of the bitcoin scalability problems.

yes it is true that if you want to send quickly of course you will take centralization but if you want freedom without attachment to other parties you will take decentralization.
so it might be balanced for a long time, or it will continue to exist and coexist, centralized and decentralized :)

The main fundamental of Blockchain technology is decentralisation and when a blockchain is not decentralised, then it is not a blockchain at all, we should not compromise on this issue at all because we know that Blockchain technology is still in it's early stage and there is still room for improvement, eventually there would be a Blockchain that would be scalable without having to sacrifice the very core of blockchain technology.

The more here decentralization becomes blurred, all competing to improve scalability with the aim of making efficient. But the thing that was sacrificed was decentralization.
I prefer decentralization even with a large transaction fee because it can make bitcoin and blockchain last long for the welfare of anyone who uses it.

I believe in decentralisation and think we should stick to it. Sooner or later, a decentralised model is going to change the world, the only thing we need to do is to wait for further steps towards the mass adoption not only for crypto, but for decentralisation as well.

the nature of bitcoin is basically decentralized and I'm sure about this, but market manipulation sometimes makes people think that bitcoin can be regulated. and for this one problem actually lies with people who have large funds, but sometimes the manipulation they do in the market is not successful because again it is that the nature of bitcoin is decentralized, anyone who tries to regulate it will not be able to because the price flow can move depending on market needs

You have answer within your statement. Over the time large blocks will be possible along with large number of miners to ensure decentralization.
Mr.Satoshi definitely might have foreseen this so if large blocks will not ensure the backward comparability then lighting network kind of developments will take care the problems of availability along with decentralization.

With my little knowledge, I guess decentralization will never be compromised but enough technologies will be invented to ensure more scalability.

if asked to choose between the two, I prefer decentralization because that is the main purpose of bitcoin made by satoshi, yes even though developing blockchain technology, but still the main goal is to decentralize everything.
there are also many cryptos that use blockchain technology that is still centralized.
or there are some countries that intend to make their own digital currency and be controlled by them.

Scalability can be simply divided into 2 definitions,speed and capacity.
Confirmation speed and decentralization are difficult to achieve at the same time, but capacity and decentralization have successful solutions. For example, DAG.
However, when analyzing scalability and decentralization, you must consider security. The security discussion boundary determines the degree of scalability and decentralization.
So,for bitcoin,I prefer decentralization.That's why it exits.
No decentralization,No Bitcoin!

I agree that Bitcoin should focus on decentralization, but blockchain technology is not necessarily. Blockchain technology has other applications besides currency.

Bitcoin doesn't even focus on the decentralization because it's already decentralized. Bitcoin needs focus to the development of the scalability solution and no more. As bitcoin itself has already considered to be utility coin. Blockchain is necessarily caused by it has become the core of the crypto to run its own network. Blockchain is a critical part from the crypto. you must understand it better.

Currently, Bitcoin is indeed the most decentralized project.
Of course, Bitcoin needs to focus on the development of scalability. But in this process, it cannot at least reduce its degree of decentralization.

I believe one of the most important aspect of cryptocurrency is decentralisation which gives every individual the authority to manage his finances. It just dawned on me that decentralisation and mass adoption cannot be achieved simultaneously and this makes taking a side very difficult for me.

Whatever we say here, but the cryptocurrency market will nevertheless develop in the same way as it had developed before, and we still cannot say how the cryptocurrency will look after many years. Almost all options will be used and, perhaps, it will be possible to find some optimal balance between decentralization and scalability. It is also quite possible that the development of cryptocurrency will lead us to completely different options for the development of cryptocurrency. For all of us, these are completely new unexplored technologies and opportunities.

When you find it difficult to take sides, it is better to take sides with yourself, do research on something new and follow your heart, because things like that are far better than having to side with others.

I believe that developers will somehow find a way to balance between decentralization and scalability to maintain a usable Blockchain network for the foreseeable future. At least, Bitcoin is heading towards the right direction by adopting scaling solutions in the safest way possible. This would allow the cryptocurrency to remain decentralized while at the same time being scalable for the whole world to enjoy. But we cannot deny, that it's impossible to achieve perfect decentralization and scalability at the same time. One way or another, a certain level of centralization will exist in order for scaling solutions to work as intended. You'd either go towards the fully decentralized route for censorship-resistant payments or the fully scalable route for quick payments with reduced security. At least, that's the way it works.

But rest assured, that Blockchain technology is being heavily improved to make it a huge contender against the existent financial system. If successful, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be able to surpass VISA's TPS without decreased decentralization. That's the goal many mainstream developers are hoping to achieve in the long run. With so much money invested into the crypto/Blockchain space, anything is possible in the future. Just my opinion :)

We can't talk about crypto or blockchain without decentralisation and they can't be useful without being scalable. So I believe there must exist a balance between the two if we are to move past this stage.