1mb per block and scalability

[fred21]

I will fully support the one that can lower the transaction fee and make it faster every transaction and also for a longterm period of time

So you have got to support lightning network because this will do exactly this.

Even if the average number of daily transactions increase to just 10 million (from the current 300,000), the 2 MB block size would become too small to accommodate a reasonable share of the translations. I have a solution for this. We can reduce the block reward from 12.5 BTC to 0.125 BTC. And this will generate new blocks every 5 or 6 seconds. That means that every 6 seconds, we will be able to accommodate up to 1,500 transactions. 15,000 transactions per minute and 0.9 million per hour. And daily limit will be 21.6 million transactions.

decreasing the time between blocks will be the same as increasing blocksize. Please look at lightning network, With this we will be able to do instant, low fee transaction without increasing blocksize!!!

[franky1]

I will fully support the one that can lower the transaction fee and make it faster every transaction and also for a longterm period of time

So you have got to support lightning network because this will do exactly this.

fred.
firstly lightning may decrease the individual tx fee for those doing LOADS of transactions a month. but it wont sort out the onchain fee because people need to eventually settle(close channel)

if you actually run scenario's the 'financial utility model' of bitcoin becomes:
 people pay a 'premium' / monthly fee subscription(analogy of opening channel)) just to get funds locked into a service to then have cheap daily fee's

the only people benefiting from this are people that spend often. people that hoard and only make one off purchases will not benefit.
you really need to run some scenarios.

..
secondly
you are subtly trying to over promote central services.. your comments in this topic today can be subtly translated to:
blockchain has failed, only handing funds to second party contracts can work
no need to run a full node in the future, just run a SPV lightning node
dont think about natural capable onchain growth over time. jump over to second party contracts and resist onchain innovation, stifle onchain growth because second party agreements are the only way.

in short your brown nose is just trying to promote that paypal2.0 is the only way

take a step back. stop over promoting.. run some scenarios and do some proper research. you will soon see that lightning has limitations and costs which you are not mentioning (either intentionally or ignorantly)

LN should be seen as just a side voluntary service for a niche amount of users. not the be-all-end-all solution for everyone

[fred21]

fred.
firstly lightning may decrease the individual tx fee for those doing LOADS of transactions a month. but it wont sort out the onchain fee because people need to eventually settle(close channel)

I know this is more complicated than that. I don't understand everything here. I am not specialist. This is why I am participating to this forum telling how I see things and maybe being corrected by those who know more. I want to be sure BTC is the way to go.

When you settle (close channel), then only one transaction is registered on the blockchain. To me the fee generated by this transaction is divided (or spread proportionally) between the channel users. So even if the fee is 50$ and that there are 1000 users in the channel, then on average fee will be 50 divided by 1000 equal 0.05$.

To this is added fee to participate to the channel and here you say that LN decreases individual transaction fee only for those who do a lots of transactions. Please can you explain to me why is that?

[franky1]

fred.
firstly lightning may decrease the individual tx fee for those doing LOADS of transactions a month. but it wont sort out the onchain fee because people need to eventually settle(close channel)

I know this is more complicated than that. I don't understand everything here. I am not specialist. This is why I am participating to this forum telling how I see things and maybe being corrected by those who know more. I want to be sure BTC is the way to go.

When you settle (close channel), then only one transaction is registered on the blockchain. To me the fee generated by this transaction is divided (or spread proportionally) between the channel users. So even if the fee is 50$ and that there are 1000 users in the channel, then on average fee will be 50 divided by 1000 equal 0.05$.

wrong

LN is about being given a multisig address between only TWO parties
alice makes a transaction to fund her side...  1tx
bob makes a transaction to fund his side.. 1tx

now the channel is set up
when closing there is indeed just 1 tx and bob/Alice (hopefully and fairly) split the cost... 1tx

meaning for each channel there are 3x onchain fee's split as average(hopefully) as 1.5x the onchain fee rate.

.. now if alice just only ever wants to pay bob. great alice only pays 1.5x onchain fee rate for the session(open AND close)

but if alice wants to be part of a route, to pay other people and be on a link of others. she needs to open other channels too

To this is added fee to participate to the channel and here you say that LN decreases individual transaction fee only for those who do a lots of transactions. Please can you explain to me why is that?

not directly decrease but indirectly
EG say onchain fee was $50
alice pays $75 'premium' for the open and close sessions as described above
now LN fee imagine that was just 1 penny
if she makes only 1 tx a month to bob.. thats costing her $75.01 to use LN which is $75.01 per tx.. (its just simple maths)
if she used it 7500 times a month. then it costs her $150 total($75 session/premuim/subscription.. $75 for 7500 penny payments) = 2pennies per tx

thus making it indirectly appear that its a $75 vs 2penny cost difference.. but only 'cheap' if you are using it alot to dilute the overal cost down

[squatter]

My question is : is it possible to keep 1 mb block (with technical solutions) while the transaction numbers per day increases to 1 million, 10 millions, 100 millions...?

I think that LIGHTNING NETWORK can make this possible because for every transaction channel where can happen unlimited transaction there is only one transaction happening on the BLOCKCHAIN. why some are skeptical about Lightning network?

I think that for the foreseeable future, the Lightning Network will be enough with Segwit's 4MB block weight limit. That assumes that routing is sufficient (not totally clear yet from testing).

But if we're talking about a 300-fold increase, I don't think anyone can give you a clear answer. It largely depends on what the topography and usage of the Lightning Network looks like, and if the vast majority of transactions can be taken off-chain in an efficient, trustless way. We need to wait and see.

[franky1]

trustless way.

lol
do you even understand multisig contracts
do you even understand duel/second party agreements

[fred21]

wrong

I like that , thanks for the reply

but if alice wants to be part of a route, to pay other people and be on a link of others. she needs to open other channels too

To me she doesn't need to open other channel, to pay other people if those other people are in the network. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms

if she makes only 1 tx a month to bob.. thats costing her $75.01 to use LN which is $75.01 per tx.. (its just simple maths)
if she used it 7500 times a month. then it costs her $150 total($75 session/premuim/subscription.. $75 for 7500 penny payments) = 2pennies per tx

If Alice opens 1 channel for 1 year, then she will be able to make 12 tx (1tx per month), this will cost her total $75.12 instead of $600 for 1 year (12 onchain tx at $50) thus $6.26 per transaction.

To me, she is not obliged to close channel every month. She can leave it open for ever as she can pay others through the networks.

Then if Alice is not happy with the network, then she votes with her feet and choose a new one. Preventing control from huge corp or government.

I think BTC blockchain is where you store value, then if you want to use your value to pay for things, then you use LN.

[fred21]

To those who are saying lightning network is bad :
1) Some people think that LN only lower fees for those who are doing a lot of transactions. If you stay in the lightning network a very long time, you will be able to do little transactions per unit of time and only paying once onchain transaction fee to get to the lightning network and once to get out. You will also pay for using lightning network every time you do a transaction but very little.
Even if Alice is doing one TX per month, If she stays 1 year in the channel, then, she will pay only once onchain transaction fee to get to the network and half onchain transaction fee (split between the two channel users) to get out.
2) some people think that you have to create a channel for every user you send money to. But no, you have to create only 1 channel with another user. Then you will be connected to the network and your transaction will find its way through the network to the user you want to pay. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms
3) LN will lead to centralization. why? If a LN is too centralized and make decision that make its user unhappy, then its users vote with their feet and leave the network, close their channel. They create a new network on their own. No big central entity will be capable of controlling this. Meanwhile, the blockchain remains with small size blocks enabling plenty of nodes that keep the system decentralized.

The way I see it is : Blockchain : the place where you store your value
                            LN : the place where you use your value to pay for things   

[franky1]

To those who are saying lightning network is bad :
1) Some people think that LN only lower fees for those who are doing a lot of transactions. If you stay in the lightning network a very long time, you will be able to do little transactions per unit of time and only paying once onchain transaction fee to get to the lightning network and once to get out. You will also pay for using lightning network every time you do a transaction but very little.
Even if Alice is doing one TX per month, If she stays 1 year in the channel, then, she will pay only once onchain transaction fee to get to the network and half onchain transaction fee (split between the two channel users) to get out.

firstly a channel is usually set up with a lock time.. thus not eternal.
secondly people are not dumb enough to put their lifetime hoardings into a lock that never expires
thirdly its only deemed safe to put in an amount that would last you a certain time, and human nature is people can only predict spending habits of a few weeks..

there are other aspects and reasons why LN channels would not be eternal which will become clearer after i clarify your other points below.

2) some people think that you have to create a channel for every user you send money to. But no, you have to create only 1 channel with another user. Then you will be connected to the network and your transaction will find its way through the network to the user you want to pay. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms

please run some scenarios.. your missing many aspects.
i said before for private direct payment to someone in your channel you dont need to open more channels. but if you want to be part of a route/network to pay anyone you do need more than one channel.

EG alice paying bob.. 1 channel alice:bob
but if charlie gets involved either alice or bob needs to open a channel with charlie so that the chain/route can be established
EG alice paying charlie
alice:bob     bob:charlie   as you can see bob needs 2 channels for alice to pay charlie.
thinking bob does not need more than one channel would leave bob not part of the route network and only able to interact with alice, no one else, same goes for alice,

using an earlier post i made ages ago i will explain Alice Bob Charlie Dave Edward based route/network

the reality people need to realise is
FIAT spenders use debit cards 40 times a month on average, but because bitcoin is not acceptable in every retailer
the average spender only uses bitcoin once a week/once a year.(5 a month average)  based on person-merchant

the only real niche LN has is the faucet raiders and exchange day traders that will want to arbitrage daily. (average 10 a day)

knowing people cannot predict spending habits beyond a couple weeks and wont risk locking entire hoards into year/eternity long channels. the reality is channels will only get funded with pocket money amounts and for only a couple weeks lock periods.

these things limit the available funding for route hopping to occur

LN is not.. and i emphasise this.. is not about the funds of [A-B] $120 actually moving out of the channel. LN is about having 'pockets' of funds that 2 parties share. and they have a couple pockets dedicated to share

think of it like a 3 legged race where the legs are tied together with a fanny/bumbag. where the money stays in the fanny/bumbag. but who owes what % of whats inside the fanny/bumbag is agreed by the 2 people tied to it.

so get 5 people and play a game


EG
[A-B]    [B-C]     [C-D]      [D-E]
imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks
A need to deposit $60 (1 channel with B of $60)
B need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with A and C)
C need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with B and D)
D need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with C and E)
E need to deposit $60 (1 channel with D of $60)
[$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60]

now imagine if A wants to pay E $60
[$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120] now finally after 4 hops E has $60 extra thanks to the 'routing'/hops

technically B, C, D still has $120 but its not spread over the channels
for instance B has $120
but has $120 in [A-B] but $0 in [B-C] channel

meaning if B wants to pay D.. B can no longer user the [B-C][C-D] route because B doesnt have funds to pay C to pay D.

instead B needs to go backwards through [A-B] because thats where B's funds are, so...
B needs to give A.. then A needs to find a completely new route or create a new channel that is funded and has a new route to E to get E to pay D. or B needs to set up a new channel to fun that has a new route to E.

.. it may seem complicated but its alot easier visually if you just get 5 friends and 3 fanny/bumbags and put $120 of monopoly money in each bag ($60) each person... and without physically taking the paper money out.. agreeing who owes what inside each bumbag and then finding the best chain of hops to fund the group..

and see how long the 'payments' last by making up scenarios of buying each other things.. you soon learn the limitations of LN
next time you are at a bitcoin meet-up.. try it with the other attendee's. as its a very helpful visual display

as you can se.. not only does B need a channel (tie) to A bit also a channel to C
as you can see if A wants to pay E.. then B,C,D have less funds on their side to play around with in the future because its already been moved one sided for the route payment
meaning that some parties need to close their channels early to the start again by moving funds from second channel into first channel to then be able to be part of the route

3) LN will lead to centralization. why? If a LN is too centralized and make decision that make its user unhappy, then its users vote with their feet and leave the network, close their channel. They create a new network on their own. No big central entity will be capable of controlling this. Meanwhile, the blockchain remains with small size blocks enabling plenty of nodes that keep the system decentralized.

The way I see it is : Blockchain : the place where you store your value
                            LN : the place where you use your value to pay for things  

lol you might want to look into the DNS seeding or route seeding that will control who connects to what and how routes are discovered/created.. then you will see more than you realise
also to reduce the amount of channels needing to be created by lets say bob to connect to different strings of routes floating around. hubs will be created.. think about that

[taxmanmt5]

Well what are the things we need to look at is that Bitcoin is only used by a small percentage of the population. Most people feel that if a cryptocurrency does make a major introduction to standard covers and he gets a 100% acceptance level it might not be Bitcoin.

[virasog]

Well what are the things we need to look at is that Bitcoin is only used by a small percentage of the population. Most people feel that if a cryptocurrency does make a major introduction to standard covers and he gets a 100% acceptance level it might not be Bitcoin.

But, right now Bitcoin is traded more than any other cryptocurrency and is used more than any other cryptocurrency at this moment it can handle it, but if it goes into full Acceptance in Commerce it'll go from being used by about 1.6% of the population being used by anywhere from 50 to 100% at any given moment. That's a lot more transactions per second.

[defined]

It depends on where the transactions will take place. The plan is to move majority of transactions to offchain solutions such as lightning and sidechains. Even if then the bitcoin blockchain is not able to support the transactions, there will be a hard fork by developers to increase the block size.

If this is how it works, what are we waiting for?

There must be a way to delete all the small "spam" transactions.This might leave some free space for all the other normal transactions in the 1mb block.The other members think that the Lighning Network will be the ultimate solution,but i`m skeptical about these offchain transactions.

If small transactions can be made off chain, blockchain has space left for large transactions. I do not need my morning coffee to be recorded forever. My store of value on the other hand has to be on blockchain.

If bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency in existence, then yes, the 1mg thing would be a massive problem.

But if you look at the cryptocurrency space as a whole, you can see that most transactions are done outside of bitcoin - Ethereum for example usually does at least 300,000 transactions a day, and then of course there is ethereum classic, litecoin, monero, dash, doge etc.

So money is moving, it just isn't moving through bitcoin.

From a Bitcoin point of view, those transactions are not trustless.

imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks

Back to the problem of trust. Can we have trustless sidechains?

[fred21]

There must be a way to delete all the small "spam" transactions.This might leave some free space for all the other normal transactions in the 1mb block.The other members think that the Lighning Network will be the ultimate solution,but i`m skeptical about these offchain transactions.

If small transactions can be made off chain, blockchain has space left for large transactions. I do not need my morning coffee to be recorded forever. My store of value on the other hand has to be on blockchain.

I agree, LN is what you use to spend your BTC
            Blockchain is where you store your value

It depends on where the transactions will take place. The plan is to move majority of transactions to offchain solutions such as lightning and sidechains. Even if then the bitcoin blockchain is not able to support the transactions, there will be a hard fork by developers to increase the block size.

If this is how it works, what are we waiting for?

Is there a timetable for lightning network support or offchain support?

[craZyLovE0916]

There must be a way to delete all the small "spam" transactions.This might leave some free space for all the other normal transactions in the 1mb block.The other members think that the Lighning Network will be the ultimate solution,but i`m skeptical about these offchain transactions.

If small transactions can be made off chain, blockchain has space left for large transactions. I do not need my morning coffee to be recorded forever. My store of value on the other hand has to be on blockchain.

I agree, LN is what you use to spend your BTC
            Blockchain is where you store your value

It depends on where the transactions will take place. The plan is to move majority of transactions to offchain solutions such as lightning and sidechains. Even if then the bitcoin blockchain is not able to support the transactions, there will be a hard fork by developers to increase the block size.

If this is how it works, what are we waiting for?

Is there a timetable for lightning network support or offchain support?

I seriously can't wait until we get Lightning Network. It is going to be amazing. We will be able to do more transactions per second than even VISA or any other credit card company. It will truly make Bitcoin "a thing".