is trollcoin (bytecoin) unwittingly the solution to bitcoins scalability issue?

[Impaler]

While the OP seems to be putting his finger on a growing TREND of alt-coin growth, I can't see how multiple coins with or without technical innovations over BTC can fulfill the dream of being an effective extensions of BTC.  The end user is simply never going to juggle ownership of multiple types of coins, just as people who are not currency-exchange-speculators do not simultaneously carry dollar/euros/yen in their pockets to buy things with. 

Money is a 'natural-monopoly' because its a network-effect ware the utility is proportional to the number of people in the network.  All crypto-currencies have appallingly small networks and low utility compared to national currency and the alts are even lower, so nearly all value is speculative in both.  Speculators can and will deal in multiple currencies, real commerce will not so an inevitable 'winner take all' will happen and everyone knows this.  Speculators are speculating on which coin that will be, not on actually proportional value in a mixed coin environment.  The current mixed coin environment must be transitory, and to what ever degree we have continual mushrooming up of alts they will always be alts in the shadow of the king-of-the-hill.  This is not to say the king can't fall, but if it ever dose it will be replaced by a new king.  In other words Cyrpto-currency will always be uni-polar and never multi-polar.

Another factor to consider, when most of BTC's perceived value is from encoded scarcity, the existence of a multi-polar world of alt chains that trade at comparable values and constitute any significant portion of commerce.  And particularly if they show potential to expand without limit, would completely negate the scarcity concept in BTC, as while the BitCoins themselves would be scarce their would be virtually unlimited numbers of adequate substitutes in the marketplace.  And any Econ 101 student will tell you, adequate substitutes trade as a pool.

[Anon136]

Speculators can and will deal in multiple currencies, real commerce will not so an inevitable 'winner take all' will happen and everyone knows this.

the winner can not take all because there is no room in the winner for all. I mean you can try to put 20 ounces of water in a 10 ounce cup if you like but it wont work.

[spacegoat]

[HiveLibrary]

How is litecoin centralized?\

It's a long story. Centralization of Litecoin was revealed in drama "BitcoinExpress and Litecoin 51% attack".

.
.
.

C'mon. I already answered. Read again my reply regarding BCX and Litecoin 51% attack drama. It's too long story to discuss it again.

PS: I understand. U bought a lot of litecoins, they r dumped now, u r upset. It's obvious, baby.

Ahem. You explained nothing. You only mentioned your working title for your really-soon-now argument.

[jubalix]

While the OP seems to be putting his finger on a growing TREND of alt-coin growth, I can't see how multiple coins with or without technical innovations over BTC can fulfill the dream of being an effective extensions of BTC.  The end user is simply never going to juggle ownership of multiple types of coins, just as people who are not currency-exchange-speculators do not simultaneously carry dollar/euros/yen in their pockets to buy things with. 

Money is a 'natural-monopoly' because its a network-effect ware the utility is proportional to the number of people in the network.  All crypto-currencies have appallingly small networks and low utility compared to national currency and the alts are even lower, so nearly all value is speculative in both.  Speculators can and will deal in multiple currencies, real commerce will not so an inevitable 'winner take all' will happen and everyone knows this.  Speculators are speculating on which coin that will be, not on actually proportional value in a mixed coin environment.  The current mixed coin environment must be transitory, and to what ever degree we have continual mushrooming up of alts they will always be alts in the shadow of the king-of-the-hill.  This is not to say the king can't fall, but if it ever dose it will be replaced by a new king.  In other words Cyrpto-currency will always be uni-polar and never multi-polar.

Another factor to consider, when most of BTC's perceived value is from encoded scarcity, the existence of a multi-polar world of alt chains that trade at comparable values and constitute any significant portion of commerce.  And particularly if they show potential to expand without limit, would completely negate the scarcity concept in BTC, as while the BitCoins themselves would be scarce their would be virtually unlimited numbers of adequate substitutes in the marketplace.  And any Econ 101 student will tell you, adequate substitutes trade as a pool.

a simple user wont see any of this they will get a gui that handles it all

[HiveLibrary]

While the OP seems to be putting his finger on a growing TREND of alt-coin growth, I can't see how multiple coins with or without technical innovations over BTC can fulfill the dream of being an effective extensions of BTC.  The end user is simply never going to juggle ownership of multiple types of coins, just as people who are not currency-exchange-speculators do not simultaneously carry dollar/euros/yen in their pockets to buy things with. 

Money is a 'natural-monopoly' because its a network-effect ware the utility is proportional to the number of people in the network.  All crypto-currencies have appallingly small networks and low utility compared to national currency and the alts are even lower, so nearly all value is speculative in both.  Speculators can and will deal in multiple currencies, real commerce will not so an inevitable 'winner take all' will happen and everyone knows this.  Speculators are speculating on which coin that will be, not on actually proportional value in a mixed coin environment.  The current mixed coin environment must be transitory, and to what ever degree we have continual mushrooming up of alts they will always be alts in the shadow of the king-of-the-hill.  This is not to say the king can't fall, but if it ever dose it will be replaced by a new king.  In other words Cyrpto-currency will always be uni-polar and never multi-polar.

Another factor to consider, when most of BTC's perceived value is from encoded scarcity, the existence of a multi-polar world of alt chains that trade at comparable values and constitute any significant portion of commerce.  And particularly if they show potential to expand without limit, would completely negate the scarcity concept in BTC, as while the BitCoins themselves would be scarce their would be virtually unlimited numbers of adequate substitutes in the marketplace.  And any Econ 101 student will tell you, adequate substitutes trade as a pool.

a simple user wont see any of this they will get a gui that handles it all

Not only that, people speculate naturally everyday: What products are too expensive, which car gets better mileage? And which forum is going to cry for me or react to my trolling.

But ultimately, we can't afford the corruption inherent in having a "top dog" currency dominating.

[stdset]

How a carbon copy of bitcoin could solve anything?

You still need to store all transaction of all random guys. Now those transactions are split into two separate blockchains, but they occupy the same space on your HDD (in fact even little more).

And yes, there can be at most one winner. That means, it is possible, that there will be no winner at all. I.e. all free decentralised cryptocurrencies dieout. And to be honest, greed drives us now to that worst, no winner, direction.

[Anon136]

How a carbon copy of bitcoin could solve anything?

You still need to store all transaction of all random guys. Now those transactions are split into two separate blockchains, but they occupy the same space on your HDD (in fact even little more).

And yes, there can be at most one winner. That means, it is possible, that there will be no winner at all. I.e. all free decentralised cryptocurrencies dieout. And to be honest, greed drives us now to that worst, no winner, direction.

its not a problem of hard drive space. Its a problem of limited bandwith for miners. Miners are only capable of receiving so many transactions in a 10 minute period. if the total demand for transactions exceeds the bandwidth of your average miner than people will be forced into other chains.

[HiveLibrary]

How a carbon copy of bitcoin could solve anything?

You still need to store all transaction of all random guys. Now those transactions are split into two separate blockchains, but they occupy the same space on your HDD (in fact even little more).

And yes, there can be at most one winner. That means, it is possible, that there will be no winner at all. I.e. all free decentralised cryptocurrencies dieout. And to be honest, greed drives us now to that worst, no winner, direction.

its not a problem of hard drive space. Its a problem of limited bandwith for miners. Miners are only capable of receiving so many transactions in a 10 minute period. if the total demand for transactions exceeds the bandwidth of your average miner than people will be forced into other chains.

Anon136, you're going to run into these social and structural biases from people.

People think they can solve everything with tools XOR rhetoric. It never occurs to them you need both. Also check private message.

[Anon136]

How a carbon copy of bitcoin could solve anything?

You still need to store all transaction of all random guys. Now those transactions are split into two separate blockchains, but they occupy the same space on your HDD (in fact even little more).

And yes, there can be at most one winner. That means, it is possible, that there will be no winner at all. I.e. all free decentralised cryptocurrencies dieout. And to be honest, greed drives us now to that worst, no winner, direction.

its not a problem of hard drive space. Its a problem of limited bandwith for miners. Miners are only capable of receiving so many transactions in a 10 minute period. if the total demand for transactions exceeds the bandwidth of your average miner than people will be forced into other chains.

Anon136, you're going to run into these social and structural biases from people.

People think they can solve everything with tools XOR rhetoric. It never occurs to them you need both. Also check private message.

i saw the private message. Unfortunately, even as a person who is moderately technically included and does understand how bitcoin works, your message looked like french to me =(.

[DeathAndTaxes]

its not a problem of hard drive space. Its a problem of limited bandwith for miners. Miners are only capable of receiving so many transactions in a 10 minute period. if the total demand for transactions exceeds the bandwidth of your average miner than people will be forced into other chains.

Where do you get the idea that tx bandwidth is a major limitation?  Most miners use pools, certain those bandwidth limited do.

100 tps (roughly 2x PayPal) * 400 bytes (average tx size) = 40 KBps.  Yeah not GB/s or TB/s but KB/s.  Now a miner will need to receive tx and send out the block and send to multiple peers but with the raw tx flow being 40 Kbps even a 10 Mbps connection provides sufficient headroom.  Bandwidth for tx was never a critical resource.  ByteCoin solves absolutely nothing.  Under your scenario ByteCoin would work in conjunction with another chain so any full node is likely going to need to be a full node on both chains meaning bandwidth requirements equal the sum of tx flows on both chains.

[Anon136]

its not a problem of hard drive space. Its a problem of limited bandwith for miners. Miners are only capable of receiving so many transactions in a 10 minute period. if the total demand for transactions exceeds the bandwidth of your average miner than people will be forced into other chains.

Where do you get the idea that tx bandwidth is a major limitation?  Most miners use pools, certain those bandwidth limited do.

100 tps (roughly 2x PayPal) * 400 bytes (average tx size) = 40 KBps.  Yeah not GB/s or TB/s but KB/s.  Now a miner will need to receive tx and send out the block and send to multiple peers but with the raw tx flow being 40 Kbps even a 10 Mbps connection provides sufficient headroom.  Bandwidth for tx was never a critical resource.  ByteCoin solves absolutely nothing.  Under your scenario ByteCoin would work in conjunction with another chain so any full node is likely going to need to be a full node on both chains meaning bandwidth requirements equal the sum of tx flows on both chains.

look guy, if bitcoin supplants the usd as the world reserve currency 10mb will not even be close to enough bandwidth to support that number of transactions without pushing fees into the triple digits. We are not speculating on bytecoin for the present we are speculating on the potential for its necessity in some distant future where crytocurrency is used for the majority of all trades in the world.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yeah lets see if Bitcoin can acheive the popularity of say PayPal before talking about new world reverse currency.  Honestly nobody has any idea of how popular Bitcoin will become over the next couple years and I have long believed Bitcoin (like most revolutionary technologies) is on a decade plus timeline to mass adoption.

BTW FedWire system transfers ~$600T (not a typo) annually and has a tx rate of ... ~7tps.  It is certainly possible in one of many scenarios Bitcoin evolves to become a store of value currency backing an entire next generation of crypto-currencies optimized for speed and low resource usage.  It is also possible the block limit will be raised in some fashion as miners realize that long term profitability would come from keeping the resource scarce but not too scarce.  Moon dust is far more scarce than Gold but Gold is a more useful currency.  Another possibility is some next generation currency which is more efficient with critical resources* replaces Bitcoin as the primary crypto-currency.   None of those require a bitcoin clone though.



* A ledger based crypto-currency which prevents tx which are unlikely to be spent again (through fee structure), encourages low cost UXTO reduction, and periodically trims the tail of the blockchain (i.e. super blocks with much higher difficulty) could possibly scale to much higher limits than what it possible with Bitcoin.

[Anon136]

Yeah lets see if Bitcoin can acheive the popularity of say PayPal before talking about new world reverse currency.  Honestly nobody has any idea of how popular Bitcoin will become over the next couple years and I have long believed Bitcoin (like most revolutionary technologies) is on a decade plus timeline to mass adoption.

BTW FedWire system transfers ~$600T (not a typo) annually and has a tx rate of ... ~7tps.  It is certainly possible in one of many scenarios Bitcoin evolves to become a store of value currency backing an entire next generation of crypto-currencies optimized for speed and low resource usage.  It is also possible the block limit will be raised in some fashion as miners realize that long term profitability would come from keeping the resource scarce but not too scarce.  Moon dust is far more scarce than Gold but Gold is a more useful currency.  Another possibility is some next generation currency which is more efficient with critical resources* replaces Bitcoin as the primary crypto-currency.   None of those require a bitcoin clone though.



* A ledger based crypto-currency which prevents tx which are unlikely to be spent again (through fee structure), encourages low cost UXTO reduction, and periodically trims the tail of the blockchain (i.e. super blocks with much higher difficulty) could possibly scale to much higher limits than what it possible with Bitcoin.

i understand that there are a dozen other possible scenarios that could address this problem other than alternative blockchains. The alternative blockchain is a gamble on the very real albeit small possibility that no better solution arises. Hence why you can get multiple of thousands of bytecoin for a single bitcoin.

[DeathAndTaxes]

i understand that there are a dozen other possible scenarios that could address this problem other than alternative blockchains. The alternative blockchain is a gamble on the very real albeit small possibility that no better solution arises. Hence why you can get multiple of thousands of bytecoin for a single bitcoin.

Well that is the thing it DOESN'T address any problem.  Period.  For it to complement Bitcoin a significant number of nodes would need to run full nodes of BOTH chains.  For things like multi-chain clients with currency conversion to exist it would require an exchange for example to run full nodes of both chains to handle deposits, conversions, and withdraws.  

So that brings up two issues:
a) If exchange X can run full nodes of Chain A & Chain B then there is no bandwidth savings over running a full node on Chain A (having 2x the tx volume).
b) If Bitcoin is limited to y tps then to scale to 1000x that would require not just chain A & chain B but chains A .... ZZZ.  

BTW I am not saying Bitcoin will be the end all of crypto-currencies or that a system of complimenting Bitcoin by offlloading smaller lower value transactions can't exist I am just pointing out that the idea of parallel identical chains provides absolutely no added utility.  Bytecoin was simply a joke, nothing more.  It will be destroyed by ASICs or get pump and dumped and end up in the crypto scrapbin like other clones.

[Anon136]

i understand that there are a dozen other possible scenarios that could address this problem other than alternative blockchains. The alternative blockchain is a gamble on the very real albeit small possibility that no better solution arises. Hence why you can get multiple of thousands of bytecoin for a single bitcoin.

Well that is the thing it DOESN'T address any problem.  Period.  For it to complement Bitcoin a significant number of nodes would need to run full nodes of BOTH chains.  For things like multi-chain clients with currency conversion to exist it would require an exchange for example to run full nodes of both chains to handle deposits, conversions, and withdraws.  

So that brings up two issues:
a) If exchange X can run full nodes of Chain A & Chain B then there is no bandwidth savings over running a full node on Chain A (having 2x the tx volume).
b) If Bitcoin is limited to y tps then to scale to 1000x that would require not just chain A & chain B but chains A .... ZZZ.  

BTW I am not saying Bitcoin will be the end all of crypto-currencies or that a system of complimenting Bitcoin by offlloading smaller lower value transactions can't exist I am just pointing out that the idea of parallel identical chains provides absolutely no added utility.  Bytecoin was simply a joke, nothing more.  It will be destroyed by ASICs or get pump and dumped and end up in the crypto scrapbin like other clones.

Obviously if a single entity with a normal internet connection was capable of running both chains with a full node there would be no point in having 2 chains... since they could just run the 1 and include twice as many transactions. Obviously in this future scinario people would chose 1 chain to run as a full node and run the others as a lite node.

if half the people on earth run a full node on chain a and a lite node on chain b and the other half run a lite node on chain a and a full node on chain b than both would be perfectly secure. Why do you think this would not be the case?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Lite nodes are reduced security any business with significant volume across both chains will need to be running both nodes.  When MtGox starts trading LTC for example they aren't going to run a LTC lite node.  No they are going to have a full node running for BTC & LTC.  Still realtime bandwidth is not the critical resource for crypto-currencies.  Bandwidth you don't use is just wated but storage requirements are eternal.  Yes storage capcities will rise but so will bandwidth and storage & CPU capacity will remain the bottleneck.    People complain about how long it takes to sync Bitcoin full node now, sometimes up to 24 hours.  6GB in 24 hrs = 70 kbps.  Obviously most people aren't running on sub 70 kbps links.  The bottleneck isn't bandwidth.

[Anon136]

Lite nodes are reduced security any business with significant volume across both chains will need to be running both nodes.  When MtGox starts trading LTC for example they aren't going to run a LTC lite node.  No they are going to have a full node running for BTC & LTC.  

Ah well then instead of a litenode they could use a service like the ewallet service that is provided by blockchain.info for one chain and a full node for the other chain.

also if you are running some sort of business where you actually need to run 2 full nodes you can buy two internet connections.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Lite nodes are reduced security any business with significant volume across both chains will need to be running both nodes.  When MtGox starts trading LTC for example they aren't going to run a LTC lite node.  No they are going to have a full node running for BTC & LTC. 

Ah well then instead of a litenode they could use a service like the ewallet service that is provided by blockchain.info for one chain and a full node for the other chain.

Still trusting a third party.  No MtGox will run absolute full nodes for every chain they trade (just like any other major business).  If you are going to implicitly trust a third party you don't need a secondary chain.  Just process bitcoin transactions off chain and major processors will do daily balancing on the blockchain (much like banks balance via bank wires today).

[Walter Rothbard]

It will be destroyed by ASICs or get pump and dumped and end up in the crypto scrapbin like other clones.

I think it will get creamed by ASICs at some point.  After that, I think it will eventually recover, or another chain will emerge on identical software.