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

[Twerka]

There is two solution.

1) The elegant one is compression and/or simplification. Making the blockchain forget all transactions and keeping last one.
For example:
Guy1 gives Guy2, 2BTC
Guy2 gives Guy3, 1 BTC
Guy2 gives Guy4, 1 BTC
Guy3 gives Guy4, 1 BTC
Now, all of that should be compressed, we don't need the track of the money, we can say: "well today Guy4 has 1BTC, doesn't care where it comes from". We must watch out if this can be exploited, of course.

2) There will be services who offer the full blockchain for a monthly fee. NEVER USE THEM. Keep the blockchain on your computer, or wait for free services who provides the blockchain like Electrum client does.
If we accept to pay to use blockchain, a lot of services like that will emerge, that is a bad thing. Remember my words.

[1714987249]

1714987249

[1714987249]

1714987249

[1714987249]

1714987249

[1714987249]

1714987249

[1714987249]

1714987249

[Anon136]

There is two solution.

1) The elegant one is compression and/or simplification. Making the blockchain forget all transactions and keeping last one.
For example:
Guy1 gives Guy2, 2BTC
Guy2 gives Guy3, 1 BTC
Guy2 gives Guy4, 1 BTC
Guy3 gives Guy4, 1 BTC
Now, all of that should be compressed, we don't need the track of the money, we can say: "well today Guy4 has 1BTC, doesn't care where it comes from". We must watch out if this can be exploited, of course.

2) There will be services who offer the full blockchain for a monthly fee. NEVER USE THEM. Keep the blockchain on your computer, or wait for free services who provides the blockchain like Electrum client does.
If we accept to pay to use blockchain, a lot of services like that will emerge, that is a bad thing. Remember my words.

Yes i know about pruning. Im not talking about the problem of the size of the blockchain. im talking about the limitation on the total number of transactions a miner can receive and thus record in a 10 minute period based on bandwidth limitations. That is if bitcoin became the dominate currency of the world, there would be so many requests for transactions that a miner couldn't possibly download them all as fast as they were being relayed.

[mr_random]

Yes i know about pruning. Im not talking about the problem of the size of the blockchain. im talking about the limitation on the total number of transactions a miner can receive and thus record in a 10 minute period based on bandwidth limitations. That is if bitcoin became the dominate currency of the world, there would be so many requests for transactions that a miner couldn't possibly download them all as fast as they were being relayed.

I am confused. How does having more coins create more mining resources? If there were ten bitcoin clones and the transactions are being done across them, it will still take the same amount of mining no? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Anon136]

Yes i know about pruning. Im not talking about the problem of the size of the blockchain. im talking about the limitation on the total number of transactions a miner can receive and thus record in a 10 minute period based on bandwidth limitations. That is if bitcoin became the dominate currency of the world, there would be so many requests for transactions that a miner couldn't possibly download them all as fast as they were being relayed.

I am confused. How does having more coins create more mining resources? If there were ten bitcoin clones and the transactions are being done across them, it will still take the same amount of mining no? Or am I misunderstanding?

sure.

Users could chose to run 1 blockchain as a full node then run a litenode for the other. That way ordinary people without specialized internet connections could contribute to the strength of a network. If we had only 1 chain instead of 2 with blocks that were twice as large than only people with specialized internet connections could run a full node this would lead to undesirable centralization.

notice as death and taxes pointed out, businesses would probably need to run 2 full nodes and so would need a specialized internet connection.

[Explodicle]

If I were to rely on the multiple coins solution, I'd be concerned about someone finding a technical one-chain solution to the problem. Then everyone would switch to whichever subcoin was most popular, and people holding the other coins would be screwed.

I'm a little unclear on the problem: couldn't one handle VISA-level loads on a residential connection?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network
Should I update something on that page?

[Anon136]

If I were to rely on the multiple coins solution, I'd be concerned about someone finding a technical one-chain solution to the problem. Then everyone would switch to whichever subcoin was most popular, and people holding the other coins would be screwed.

I'm a little unclear on the problem: couldn't one handle VISA-level loads on a residential connection?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network
Should I update something on that page?

yes infact the vast majoirty of my money is being bet on the idea that someone will find a 1 chain solution. I just put a very small amount into bytecoin and litecoin on the off chance that this does not happen. I call it a lottery ticket investment, small chance for payoff but massive payoff if things do play out so that we need multiple chains.

yes with 10mb blocks we could handle a visa like load probably, but there is every reason to expect that bitcoin could someday eclipse visa in prominence.

[Vycid]

So I've been thinking a lot about the scalability issue, and perhaps I've got a solution. It's not elegant, but it might be a solution.

I should preface this by saying that I do not have a degree in computer science nor a background in distributed systems or cryptography, and I should not be taken seriously. I have contributed a total of zero lines of code to anything Bitcoin-related. Those of you who do know what you're talking about: please shoot this full of holes as appropriate.

With that out of the way: one of the proposed solutions to scalability is centralization, which is undesirable because it trades Bitcoin's best features for convenience. Another is the multi-chain solution, which is undesirable because it makes already hard-to-use Bitcoin even more confusing to newcomers, and makes price-setting very hard.

I propose a hybrid of both. Rather than a central institution, a central blockchain that ensures commission-free, stable exchange rates between an unlimited number of compatible blockchains.

Let's call it MasterCoin.

This is quite different from any other coin that has ever existed. It is mined like any other coin - this is, of course, where the computational power comes from - but you cannot execute peer-to-peer transactions with it short of giving someone else access to your  wallet. Instead, one pool of alt-coins is maintained at a single, public address on the blockchain of every compatible alt-coin. This is where chain "compatibility" comes in: the associated blockchains must recognize this pool of coins, and execute disbursal from it based on the instructions from the MasterCoin blockchain (meaning compatible coins must constantly poll the blocks in the MasterCoin chain). Obviously no coins like this exist yet, so they would need to be created (or existing coins would need to be dramatically overhauled).

The only things you can "buy" (or sell) with MasterCoin are these alternative coins. The trade prices will be dynamically handled by supply/demand algorithms and published in every block. Once MasterCoin becomes established, these coin reserves will permit free and fair exchange between any two coins, since the shrinking of one coin reserve will result in a dramatic price spike. A mature MasterCoin should be able to handle market swings gracefully, just like a traditional forex market.

This allows prices to be confidently denominated in MasterCoin. The currency actually used to pay debt is irrelevant, since all compatible coins are made fungible.

Any thoughts?

[Anon136]

So I've been thinking a lot about the scalability issue, and perhaps I've got a solution. It's not elegant, but it might be a solution.

I should preface this by saying that I do not have a degree in computer science nor a background in distributed systems or cryptography, and I should not be taken seriously. I have contributed a total of zero lines of code to anything Bitcoin-related. Those of you who do know what you're talking about: please shoot this full of holes as appropriate.

With that out of the way: one of the proposed solutions to scalability is centralization, which is undesirable because it trades Bitcoin's best features for convenience. Another is the multi-chain solution, which is undesirable because it makes already hard-to-use Bitcoin even more confusing to newcomers, and makes price-setting very hard.

I propose a hybrid of both. Rather than a central institution, a central blockchain that ensures commission-free, stable exchange rates between an unlimited number of compatible blockchains.

Let's call it MasterCoin.

This is quite different from any other coin that has ever existed. It is mined like any other coin - this is, of course, where the computational power comes from - but you cannot execute peer-to-peer transactions with it short of giving someone else access to your  wallet. Instead, one pool of alt-coins is maintained at a single, public address on the blockchain of every compatible alt-coin. This is where chain "compatibility" comes in: the associated blockchains must recognize this pool of coins, and execute disbursal from it based on the instructions from the MasterCoin blockchain (meaning compatible coins must constantly poll the blocks in the MasterCoin chain). Obviously no coins like this exist yet, so they would need to be created (or existing coins would need to be dramatically overhauled).

The only things you can "buy" (or sell) with MasterCoin are these alternative coins. The trade prices will be dynamically handled by supply/demand algorithms and published in every block. Once MasterCoin becomes established, these coin reserves will permit free and fair exchange between any two coins, since the shrinking of one coin reserve will result in a dramatic price spike. A mature MasterCoin should be able to handle market swings gracefully, just like a traditional forex market.

This allows prices to be confidently denominated in MasterCoin. The currency actually used to pay debt is irrelevant, since all compatible coins are made fungible.

Any thoughts?

I may have misunderstood but it seems that when you boil it down to its essence what you are talking about is a decentralized cryptocoin exchange. A decentralized cryptocoin exchange would be very helpful indeed.

[FreddyFender]

...
This allows prices to be confidently denominated in MasterCoin. The currency actually used to pay debt is irrelevant, since all compatible coins are made fungible.

Any thoughts?

I may have misunderstood but it seems that when you boil it down to its essence what you are talking about is a decentralized cryptocoin exchange. A decentralized cryptocoin exchange would be very helpful indeed.

Anon136, we have been here a long time... remember $0.11? We also know that Satoshi originally intended lots and lots of competing *coins. These are all based on competitive systems, vying for the same "Master", Lord of the Coin, if you will. There is another form of value that everyone fails to acknowledge, you need to step back from economics and monetary-based systems and remember the precursors of money. It's a Trust system that can validate the honesty of the vendor/buyer instantaneously. That is what never got finished.
Bytecoin is exactly what Satoshi wanted. Landscape, territory for these *coins to explore/evolve in. We don't all have to be coders/miners, they can be single-minded - brilliantly single-minded, but the opening of *coins is needed. It gives something for us "non-coders" something to discuss. Have you ever wondered why the Bitcoin protocol was never completed? Competition begins @home.