Best altcoin to be able to handle lots of transactions?

[adhitthana]

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?

[1715160488]

1715160488

[1715160488]

1715160488

[1715160488]

1715160488

[1715160488]

1715160488

[1715160488]

1715160488

[iGotSpots]

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

[username18333]

"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), 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.)

[Fuserleer]

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.

[rnicoll]

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.

[DigiByte]

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?

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

[favdesu]

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

[tyz]

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

[MisO69]

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?

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

[dnaleor]

Monero can handle 1600 tps

Speaking of block size...what's Monero's capacity in terms of txs per second?

Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.

Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.

What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.

Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.

[KingJo]

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

so anytime , you can transacting when you want !

[Este Nuno]

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.

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

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

[americanpegasus]

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.

[Este Nuno]

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.

[americanpegasus]

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

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.

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.

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

[tyz]

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

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

so anytime , you can transacting when you want !

[monsterer]

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).  

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