Best altcoin to be able to handle lots of transactions?

[Fuserleer]

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 you go, someone that has looked at it closer than me...

I was under the impression that the double-spend would still get picked up before it could actually cause any damage, but again, I didn't spend much time digging around in it once I'd realized that DoS was possible.

[1714921474]

1714921474

[1714921474]

1714921474

[1714921474]

1714921474

[Derek492]

Mintcoin can handle a lot of tranactions., and they are confirmed in less than 30 seconds.

[monsterer]

I was under the impression that the double-spend would still get picked up before it could actually cause any damage, but again, I didn't spend much time digging around in it once I'd realized that DoS was possible.

Picked up by who/what? The nodes are the network, so if you control a majority of nodes, you control the majority of the network. In any case, what all of this means is that, like instant-x, zero-time has a constant probability associated with the success of a double spend.

What does it take to control a majority of the network? Not much. Unlike instant-x, no collateral is required to be locked up, so you don't need to buy a bunch of VNL, all you need is a bunch of IP addresses.

[smooth]

Cryptonite XCN. It has a blockchain but the blockchain doesn't store every transaction forever. Has a nice zeroconf feature that has its warts (they all do) but should be okay for buying coffee.

It uses a heavily modified Bitcoin code base and the developer has been at it for a year or something, so he does look rather serious about the project. The emission curve is super-slow (half in 10 years).

Disclosure: I mined some of this at the beginning and I have the coins around in some wallet but I have no idea if I can even retrieve them, nor how much they are worth (I suspect not much as the coin hasn't really gone anywhere price-wise, though it did experience some sort of pump a few months ago -- no idea why). $27K market cap which strikes me as low even considering the emission schedule. Trades on Poloniex, BTC38, and BTER.

[Fuserleer]

I was under the impression that the double-spend would still get picked up before it could actually cause any damage, but again, I didn't spend much time digging around in it once I'd realized that DoS was possible.

Picked up by who/what? The nodes are the network, so if you control a majority of nodes, you control the majority of the network. In any case, what all of this means is that, like instant-x, zero-time has a constant probability associated with the success of a double spend.

What does it take to control a majority of the network? Not much. Unlike instant-x, no collateral is required to be locked up, so you don't need to buy a bunch of VNL, all you need is a bunch of IP addresses.

Double spends are always possible with block chains if you control a majority of nodes, but from my understanding, you don't need a majority to effect a DoS on the ZT algorithm and to clarify again I ceased by investigations here

In the case of simple disruption or a DoS, it appears to me that you do not need a majority and the double spend would be resolved by the usual confirmation processes.

[monsterer]

In the case of simple disruption or a DoS, it appears to me that you do not need a majority and the double spend would be resolved by the usual confirmation processes.

You  need a majority to afford a greater than 50% probability of double spend. For any lesser amount of sybil nodes, there is a constant probability of attack success, which is entirely a different situation from the worst case being no consensus, which is what the author is claiming.

[balu2]

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?

Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running), secure network and 3 minute blocks does three times or more what btc does in tps - and faster - and less inflationary. I'm asking myself since ages why people don't switch to it. It's basically a faster bitcoin with lower max coins and less inflation. Unobtanium is Bitcoin on steroids.

Alternative Primecoin runs like clockwork. Fast, reliable, very good coin to sink money into. Never hardforked to my knowledge. Backed by botnet power - these lights don't go out.

Both coins huge unrealized potential imo - and i have looked at a lot of coins, man. All the rest is fucking crap.

[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?

Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running),

Can you explain what you mean?

[BitcoinNational]

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

i've been told VISANET can handles a holiday peak of 30,000/sec and the ave. is 3000/sec

their website PR is higher than reality

By delivering on that promise day after day, year after year, we have grown our network to 2.3 billion cards, 36 million merchants and 14,300 financial institutions. What makes all this possible is our global network, our relentless investment in innovation and our dedicated people.
VisaNet

Over the last four decades, we've built one of the world's only real-time global networks – VisaNet – capable of authorizing, clearing and settling more than 56,000 transaction messages per second and fully operational 99.99999 percent of the time.

if DGB can handle 2000 TPS
then good enough ... srsly I doubt any single crypto to hit the visa benchmark for many reasons

but the multialgos are likely the best canidates for heavy traffic networks
the only barrier is raising the capital for dev staffing and marketing
*VisaNet is 10k employees
**BTC is 10 employees

[balu2]

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?

Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running),

Can you explain what you mean?

I mean: Today the blockchain of Uno takes up 586 MB on my HD, which is half a GB. The coin was launched in the end of 2013. So that's worth 2 years of txs. Half a GB. I think that's very efficient. How come it is so? Because of low and even numbers. Uno has max coins 250.000 (250k)
For ever 1 Uno, 80 Bitcoin exist. It's Bitcoin 80 to 1
Reward for blocks started with one coin per block and is halving down approximately every 206 days (1 -> 0.5 -> 0.25 -> 0.125 and so on). That means it'slow numbers of inputs with less digits.

Look at doge chain for example. It's huge. Why? Because of the high numbers. Storing the number "1000000000" takes up more space than storing the number "1" - if that makes sense to you?

[balu2]

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

i've been told VISANET can handles a holiday peak of 30,000/sec and the ave. is 3000/sec

their website PR is higher than reality

By delivering on that promise day after day, year after year, we have grown our network to 2.3 billion cards, 36 million merchants and 14,300 financial institutions. What makes all this possible is our global network, our relentless investment in innovation and our dedicated people.
VisaNet

Over the last four decades, we've built one of the world's only real-time global networks – VisaNet – capable of authorizing, clearing and settling more than 56,000 transaction messages per second and fully operational 99.99999 percent of the time.

if DGB can handle 2000 TPS
then good enough ... srsly I doubt any single crypto to hit the visa benchmark for many reasons

but the multialgos are likely the best canidates for heavy traffic networks
the only barrier is raising the capital for dev staffing and marketing
*VisaNet is 10k employees
**BTC is 10 employees

I think none of the coins need visa-level capacity. All these coins together surely already have that. If people demand txs, they will get txs. We aren't running out of blockchains that's for sure.

[jwinterm]

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?

Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running), secure network and 3 minute blocks does three times or more what btc does in tps - and faster - and less inflationary. I'm asking myself since ages why people don't switch to it. It's basically a faster bitcoin with lower max coins and less inflation. Unobtanium is Bitcoin on steroids.
...

All the rest is fucking crap.

I think you meant to say Unobtanium is fucking crap. It's a straight clone with a few numbers changed - mainly the total number of coins and halving schedule. So it ends up that 80% of total coins are mined now, and like 50% were mined in the first month or few. So, maybe there's very transactions in the blocks because the vast majority of all total coins were ninja mined by Bryce Weiner and his ninja cohorts, and they are just sitting on their stockpile. Why would someone want to buy into that fucking crap?

[username18333]

Storing the number "1000000000" takes up more space than storing the number "1" - if that makes sense to you?

Both "number" (balu2) should require eight bytes (i.e., sixty-four bits) of "space" (balu2) to store transaction values if both networks should use 64-bit computer integers therefor.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

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.

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

[smooth]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

[username18333]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

Such "fiber connected homes" (smooth) would achieve relevance in "[Bitcoin] mining" (TPTB_need_war) through P2Pool, which is not "centralized" (TPTB_need_war).

[TPTB_need_war]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.

One of the arguments for being able to withstand the government's documented moves towards controlling Bitcoin[1], is that mining can move to any jurisdiction and any means of internet connection, even low bandwidth shortwave or HAM radio.

If we are relegated to the few fiber connections well controlled by the monopolistic telcoms in the G7 or G20, then we've lost the battle.

[1]

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-up-for-discussion-at-commonwealth-virtual-currency-meeting/ http://www.coindesk.com/research-federal-reserve-needs-power-over-bitcoin/ The government regulation of crypto-currency is on the march. A 51% attack can create as many Bitcoins as it wants to. I think Bitcoin investors do not really believe it can happen, because they would not invest in inflatacoin. But it is much more likely than they believe. Everyone knows that Bitcoin mining MUST become more centralized (in order to scale up transactions) and thus it will likely (almost certainly IMO) eventually become controlled by the G20 that can regulate a few 100s of mining nodes. Will be justified by the G20 doing coordination against terrorism, money laundering, and tax cheating. And the masses who use Coinbase wallets and other large providers such as the Blockstream.com (3 million wallets) CEO shaking hands with the Prime Minister of the UK upthread, won't care! They are sheep. They follow. They are preoccupied.

[smooth]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.

Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!).

I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.

[Este Nuno]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.

Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!).

I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.

I was traveling around and noticed that both Laos and Cambodia had 4G already. And this was not even that recently. There's a lot of money in the mobile market so I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the world was up to that standard soon.

I'm guessing AM is on an island which explains the poor internet.

[TPTB_need_war]

These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.

In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.

I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.

Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!).

No if you want to maximize resiliency against a bezerk totalitarianism, you need to be able to mine from any where and any connection. We don't even know if they will shut down the internet. We have to be prepared for everything.

You love to argue just to argue don't you? How about cutting to the chase? Or do you really don't want to win.

I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.

It depends on the threat environment. I'd prefer ultimate resiliency given there are no tradeoffs and it is simply better in every way.