Which scalable solution is better?

[matt11235]

There are a lot of very vocal people on all sides of the argument. Read everything you can, check their sources and form your own opinioms 

[BitcoinPanther]

I have no Idea on which solution is better, though I have read proposals and fixed of both side, and I wonder if they can merge their idea and get on an agreement halfway with both features being implemented.  Anyway this is just my Idea but this may seem impossible.  Anywho, I just wanted to see the problem with scalability be fixed soon.

[freedomno1]

As long as it achieves consensus it doesn't matter which of the ones it is that makes it, it may not be the best one and we could come up with better solutions but any that are able to solve the problem well will do.
Lean towards node hard fork ^^ so other changed my answer a bit to last time thinking with a fork solution.

[Abiky]

Segregated Witness softfork is currently being voted by miners on litecoin network, it is also failing to get massive support there, although it only requires 75% to become active.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Well, at least it requires a less number of miners to accept it, unlike Bitcoin, which may be very difficult to achieve full consensus to it. The way I see it, it will be very hard for any cryptocurrency to achieve full consensus on SegWit, unless it had a very small network of nodes and miners. Up until now, there are several cryptocurrencies that have implemented SegWit into their code. Those are Bitcoin, Litecoin, Viacoin, and most recently, Vertcoin.

We'll see over time which of these coins gets to activate SegWit first. 

You want to know what is going on behind the scene? I can help you with that.
I've read recently statement of ViaBTC, a Chinese Mining Pool operator about current situation of bitcoin scaling progress.
In short, they are disappointed with the Core Dev Team and think current development is conducted against Satoshi's original vision.

Here it goes:

ViaBTC is of the opinion that the current "Bitcoin Core + Blockstream” Bitcoin development team is not taking satisfactory steps to ensure the growth and advancement of Bitcoin in accordance with satoshi's original white paper, and is in fact actively harming the health of the Bitcoin economy by actively stifling efforts to solve some of Bitcoin’s most pressing problems.

The reason why this Transaction Accelerator exists is due to problems created by Bitcoin Core’s inability and unwillingness to deliver any sort of meaningful protocol upgrade over the last several years, against the desires of the Bitcoin community at large. Those who have attempted to deliver the necessary upgrade have been vilified and silenced by Bitcoin Core and their affiliated censored media channels. Average users who dare to disagree are banned and have their comments deleted.

Rather than viewing Bitcoin as a fast, affordable, and reliable payments network, as it has been for years, they aim to transform Bitcoin into what they call “a settlement layer”, defined by high fees, unreliable transactions, and a labyrinth of complex overlays that require third-party trust on top of the basic system.

This development team has further prevented the ability of the Bitcoin community to freely discuss this radical change of direction by tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supporting censorship of Bitcoin’s largest discussion forums, along with the outright banning of many prominent developers, businesses, and community members who have differences of opinion with Bitcoin Core’s current roadmap. After years of stagnation, stalling, and broken promises, it has become clear that positive change will not come from Bitcoin Core, but rather from the diverse group of alternate development teams that have emerged as a result of Core’s tactics.

Thanks for the information. I guess that this explains everything, and it would only be a matter of time before there is most consensus from miners and nodes, to switch to a different Core alternative like Bitcoin Unlimited. I've seen one of Gavin's tweets recently, where he encourages users to run Bitcoin Unlimited. If Bitcoin Unlimited gets the approval of the network, then it would greatly improve BTC's ability to scale since there won't be a fixed block size limit. Just my thoughts. 

[pedrog]

Segregated Witness softfork is currently being voted by miners on litecoin network, it is also failing to get massive support there, although it only requires 75% to become active.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Well, at least it requires a less number of miners to accept it, unlike Bitcoin, which may be very difficult to achieve full consensus to it. The way I see it, it will be very hard for any cryptocurrency to achieve full consensus on SegWit, unless it had a very small network of nodes and miners. Up until now, there are several cryptocurrencies that have implemented SegWit into their code. Those are Bitcoin, Litecoin, Viacoin, and most recently, Vertcoin.

We'll see over time which of these coins gets to activate SegWit first. 

Is there a website where we can see SegWit support in Viacoin and Vertcoin?

[ebliever]

Increasing the blocksize is at best a temporary fix, and comes with its own problems of increasing storage cost. We could fix the fee market situation today with a block size increase, but we are not going to scale up to compete with Visa and MasterCard simply by increasing the block size. That's why I take SegWit and LN type approaches as a given for real progress to the next level. If bitcoin rejects them, it will fade into the background as digital gold, at best, and another crypto like Dash or even Litecoin will take over as the flagship.

[d5000]

For me, the most interesting solution for "normal payments" are pegged sidechains. In contrast to Lightning Network and similar off-chain solutions, they don't change the fundamental way a transaction works, as sidechains are blockchains.

I've heard a problem with sidechains is the risk of them to be 51%ed because they are not secured with the same hashrate than the main chain. But ... couldn't that solved with merged mining? And pegged sidechains also shoud be less attractive to attack because they would hold much less value.

I am surprised sidechains are not getting more attention. Maybe there is some technical fundamental problem with them I don't understand?

For very small micropayments I favour LN and similar solutions, but I wouldn't like to get my salary with LN.

[freedomno1]

For me, the most interesting solution for "normal payments" are pegged sidechains. In contrast to Lightning Network and similar off-chain solutions, they don't change the fundamental way a transaction works, as sidechains are blockchains.

I've heard a problem with sidechains is the risk of them to be 51%ed because they are not secured with the same hashrate than the main chain. But ... couldn't that solved with merged mining? And pegged sidechains also shoud be less attractive to attack because they would hold much less value.

I am surprised sidechains are not getting more attention. Maybe there is some technical fundamental problem with them I don't understand?

For very small micropayments I favour LN and similar solutions, but I wouldn't like to get my salary with LN.

I like side-chains myself they operate co-existing to the main chain and keep the equity from leaking out to other alt-coins.
That falls under a segwit outcome as it assists as a mechanism for easy soft-forks.

An interesting topic to open would debating Hard Forks and what would be a non-consensus but set of widely supported alternatives in the case that people get tired of waiting for a soft-fork solution.

The community has had a lot of time to negotiate soft-forks but we haven't really looked at or considered seriously Hard-Fork solutions for good reason until recently when the size limit has become a real issue and as far as I can tell so that area is worth a look.

Back to sidechains it depends who controls it and how the OP code is applied same as segwit nodes/miner support is required.
http://www.coindesk.com/two-new-sidechains-proposals-change-bitcoins-dna/

"The main discussion relates to the effects of putting more power in the hands of the miners and what are the long-term consequences. More specifically, the question is what would happen if a bitcoin sidechain grows so popular that [miners mining both bitcoin and the popular sidechain] need to run higher-end computers, outcompeting solo miners," Lerner explained.

[adi33]

I thought to add scale can bitcoin by adding a block. as this will make it easier to transact and without having to wait a long time and interfere with the process of the transaction

[Xester]

As long as it achieves consensus it doesn't matter which of the ones it is that makes it, it may not be the best one and we could come up with better solutions but any that are able to solve the problem well will do.
Lean towards node hard fork ^^ so other changed my answer a bit to last time thinking with a fork solution.

I was promoting the thinking that we need not to join segwit and find other alternative solutions to bitcoin network. But I grew tired of waiting for solutions and then I changed my mind. I no longer care as to what kind of solution will the consensus can come up with, the most important thing is that the current problems on bitcoin will be settled before it gets worse.

[1Referee]

the most important thing is that the current problems on bitcoin will be settled before it gets worse.

It's nearly impossible to reach consensus regardless of what side people seem to be vouching for. At this point the community and the miners themselves are split into several sides, where each side supports their own ideology. That's the freedom open source offers to people. In most cases this freedom is what gets praised, but it can also form a heavy obstacle as we are struggling with right now.

[AngryDwarf]

If I have bitcoin on an exchange, it is just a database entry. I don't consider to really have bitcoin unless it is confirmed against a private key I have unique control over in the blockchain. I don't count unconfirmed tx's either.
So I can understand a blocksize increase.
Question is, how does segwit or LN work in this context?

[AngryDwarf]

Or perhaps maybe what I am trying to ask, are offchain solutions really bitcoin or a bitcoin facilitator?

[Abiky]

Is there a website where we can see SegWit support in Viacoin and Vertcoin?

Not that I'm aware of. I've tried looking over Google but had no luck. Still, there are a few articles which states about Viacoin and Vertcoin's SegWit code integration.

Here are the links:

http://vertcoin.org/wp/vertcoin-segwit-wallet-release/
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/which-altcoins-are-implementing-segwit-1481577969/

It would be nice to have a stats page like Bitcoin, where you could keep track of SegWit adoption in these cryptocurrencies. I believe that these altcoins might adopt the scalable solution earlier than Bitcoin, as their networks are much smaller (especially Viacoin and Vertcoin) leaving the way towards achieving full consensus. If the day where these currencies experience SegWit adoption comes first, then they would become ahead of Bitcoin and increase their way towards mainstream media recognition and adoption among everyday people.

I have the feeling that neither of the proposed solutions in Bitcoin, would become accepted, thus making it exclusively for the store of value, which other altcoins like Litecoin would become used for everyday transactions. Just my thoughts. 

[paul gatt]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

[Abiky]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Still, if we come up to a point where neither solution gets the consensus among the miners, then Bitcoin would remain as a store of value with ever increasing transaction fees, and slow confirmation times, limiting its ability to rival traditional payment processors like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, and becoming used as a mainstream currency anytime soon.

Also, the SEC rejecting the ETF might make BTC's price decline and it might continue to do so, if it doesn't increase in capacity, in my own opinion. Just my thoughts. 

[shinratensei_]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Still, if we come up to a point where neither solution gets the consensus among the miners, then Bitcoin would remain as a store of value with ever increasing transaction fees, and slow confirmation times, limiting its ability to rival traditional payment processors like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, and becoming used as a mainstream currency anytime soon.

Also, the SEC rejecting the ETF might make BTC's price decline and it might continue to do so, if it doesn't increase in capacity, in my own opinion. Just my thoughts. 

I don't care who will be the winner on the scalable solution although there are no a lot of the drama, Too many the scalability debate just hurting the bitcoin itself. Yesterday i has made a transaction and it took around 20 hours to get delivered. That's really shit.

[Hazir]

FYI:
Litecoin fixed the spamming problem by

The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates.

FYI2:
Why is BTC Core Devs so Stupid they can't implement the same fix?
BTC Core Devs should be Fired!

This is actually amazing idea but I don't see Bitcoin Unlimited developers copy this solution either. They should be fired too?
Let's fire everyone, people who worked on bitcoin for almost 10 years must be fired because there is witch hunt going on.
Then we can work with BU developers - they showed their own dose of incompetency too - remember "miscounting of bytes" bug?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Increasing the blocksize is at best a temporary fix, and comes with its own problems of increasing storage cost.

240 GB SSD ~ $100

What do you think a 480 GB SSD will cost in two years?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Something to think about -

The way BitCoin was designed, miners are very important part of the security. The more miners we have, the higher the hash rate. The higher the hash rate, the more expensive (and thus difficult) it is for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack.

With off the chain transactions, miners lose their incentive to mine. It costs them real money to mine.

As they lose their incentive to mine, the relative hash rate decreases. Miners leave mining rather than update to modern technology because the profit is no longer there.

With a lower hash rate, the ability for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack becomes less and less expensive and the security of the Bitcoin network is reduced.

Miners are very important.