What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?

[dinofelis]

Simple as that. Please discuss.

As of now, none I know of.  Any block chain based technology can't, because the consensus is too strict.

The question, however, is: why SHOULD it scale ?  The delusion of the "world currency" is, well, delusional.

The real question is: are there things out there that can scale sufficiently to fill in comfortably their niche ?  Then, the answer is most probably, yes.  Because the niches of crypto are small.

The intellectual challenge to invent a scheme that can scale, is interesting.  The question is whether it will find a use case.

[1714304423]

1714304423

[1714304423]

1714304423

[1714304423]

1714304423

[1714304423]

1714304423

[1714304423]

1714304423

[1714304423]

1714304423

[Ayers]

isn't monero solving the scaling problem with the implementation of dynamic fee and they also have no limit in the block size? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Scalability, but monero is not as big as bitcoin, and it has not 300k transaction per day, and therefore it's easy to fix the issue for them

[25hashcoin]

BTC and LTC as soon as SW and LN are in place.

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

Ardor is meant to solve the scalability problem as far as I know:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nxtardor-platform-to-make-blockchain-cheaper-and-safer

[dinofelis]

isn't monero solving the scaling problem with the implementation of dynamic fee and they also have no limit in the block size? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Scalability, but monero is not as big as bitcoin, and it has not 300k transaction per day, and therefore it's easy to fix the issue for them

Of all block chain tech, monero is one of the coins that will not hit a HARD WALL, but that is not the same as "scaling".
Monero would scale if all of computing was 1000 - 10000 times faster and bigger (cpu, network, disk, ...)

Monero is good enough for what it wants to be for the moment and in the near future.  Monero doesn't pretend to be the "world currency".  It is good for private payment transactions in a relatively swift and secure way. 

[dinofelis]

BTC and LTC as soon as SW and LN are in place.

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.  Putting a banking layer on top of any crypto is not difficult, but it is not permissionless, decentralized payment.  It is banking, with the permission of your banker, the fees that your banker wants, he can ask you for justification to want to process your payment or not, grant you or deny you the right to pay someone or not.

If you do not agree, you have to settle your link on-chain, chain which doesn't have enough capacity to settle in this way.  So you are tied to your banker for ever essentially.  The settlement will never process in time (especially if your banker has agreements with miners, which he HAS TO HAVE if he has a certain size), and you will lose most of your money because the settlement will time-out.

[alyssa85]

Simple as that. Please discuss.

There are zero cryptos that are doing anything remotely similar to what Bitcoin is trying to solve. All other cryptos have far smaller transaction rates, and because of this they never have to make themselves larger.

There may be some cryptos that "scale" but chances are they're never actually going to have to test their effectiveness due to their blocks never getting filled ion the way that Bitcoin's do.

Actually, both doge and steem have come close in the past to equalling the number of transactions that bitcoin does. Both managed easily because they confirm very very quickly.

The real issue with bitcoin is it's ten minute block time, which allows thousands of transactions to build up in those ten minutes, waiting to be confirmed.

[Fuserleer]

If the long term intention of crypto-currencies is to be a primary choice for people to use instead of current financial systems (which it certainly SHOULD be, not just a speculators medium) then I wouldn't consider scaling to be solved until there is technology that can sustain > 10,000 tps....all day....every day...from the outset!

Kicking the can down the road with "Internet connections will be faster / mining more efficient / hard drives cheaper so it's not a problem right now!" isn't a solution.   That's what we did with Bitcoin and look at that shit storm now!

That 10,000 tps is the low end of the scale, and allows all the current primaries such as VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, GooglePay etc and all C2C payments to migrate.  When talking mass market, ease of use is paramount, so having multiple independent solutions that do say 1000 each isn't enough, consumers will not adopt it...it needs to be one platform ideally.

That's only the start though, with the advent of IoT, and the growth in electronic payments (VISA processing quantity is rising, MC's is too), that requirement increases further to > 25,000 tps in the next 5-10 years.  If you then include the Asian block with the volume of such things like Alipay, it exceeds 200,000+ tps.

Segwit is not a solution, LN is not a solution (LN isn't even a good one....off chain?  centralized 3rd parties?  cmon!).  Ultimately no block chain can scale to anything like that level no matter how many bags of tricks you bring without some form of centralization.

Confirmation or settlement time is paramount too, no one wants to wait around for transactions to process for long periods of time.  IMO the settlement time of a network poised to be a replacement of the incumbents needs to settle in 10 seconds or less and should be equivalent in security to at least 2 BTC confirms at present, at least for priority payments such as Point of Sale.

Fast confirmation is possible to a degree on a block chain if the size of the blocks is low, but once volume increases it becomes harder to maintain it.

If you're wondering why the above isn't possible on a block chain, simply its due to the architecture of a block chain requiring synchronicity of state at all times... therefore CAP theorem and speed of light are NOT a block chain's friend.

If you claim a block chain can do the above sufficiently, well....you're wrong.

[ahbritto]

Ripple has a 3 part scalablity approach:

On ledger
Ripple Consensus Ledger Can Sustain 1000 Transactions per Second:
https://ripple.com/xrp-portal/xrp-resources/ripple-consensus-ledger-can-sustain-1000-transactions-per-second/

Payment channels
Escrow, PayChan, and fix1368 Will Be Available in 3 Days:
https://ripple.com/dev-blog/escrow-paychan-fix1368-will-available-3-days/

PayChan, designed for high volume, low value transactions, flowing in a single direction. The scalability of these transactions is not limited by the Ripple Consensus ledger, and they do not incur the risks typically associated with delayed settlement.

Interledger's fully scalable payments are then settled with Ripple:
https://interledger.org/

Bonus features:

Transactions are typically finalized in under 4 seconds (Ledger Close Interval):
https://charts.ripple.com/#/metrics

The amendments feature allows voting for feature upgrades and upgrades the network instantly:
https://ripple.com/build/amendments/

[jonald_fyookball]

Ripple is interesting but does not provide trustless, decentralized consensus like most cryptocurrencies.

[gentlemand]

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.

Do you honestly think the Lightning Network concept would've received a second glance if that was provably the case?

[jonald_fyookball]

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.

Do you honestly think the Lightning Network concept would've received a second glance if that was provably the case?

He is somewhat right.  Anyone can build a LN on top of Bitcoin, but they can also choose how they will let users interface with that network.
The good thing is that it appears (for now) that there will be many options and choices.

But we should be careful not to allow the companies that are pioneering the technology with for-profit networks
to create future roadblocks for a larger, truly decentralized and permissionless, public LN network. 

[gentlemand]

He is somewhat right.  Anyone can build a LN on top of Bitcoin, but they can also choose how they will let users interface with that network.
The good thing is that it appears (for now) that there will be many options and choices.

Of course, but the exact same thing goes for Bitcoin itself. You can go fully down the third party route but the option to remain on your own terms is always there.

[Fuserleer]

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.

Do you honestly think the Lightning Network concept would've received a second glance if that was provably the case?

My 2 pence.

I wouldn't call LN banking, but I wouldn't call it a decent solution either.  I'm not quite sure what all the excitement is about as it only really works well in some limited use cases.

The premise of LN is that 2 (or more) parties that transact with each other frequently can just settle the difference after a round of payments have happened.  Great, but that requirement severely limits its application.

Consider two companies, one is a supplier of raw materials, the other produces products with those raw materials and then sells them on.  Even though transactions between the two may be frequent, they are typically one way, the producer pays the supplier for raw resources, but a supplier rarely purchases back items that have been produced with the resources it provided.

Another case is mass market, I go to the grocery store pretty often and make regular payments for goods of all types of amounts.....rarely though (if at all) does the grocer send me a payment unless I'm returning something, which is maybe once for ever few hundred purchases.

Most of my consumer purchases though are NOT frequent, maybe I visit my favorite clothing store once a month and buy some new clothes...hardly frequent.

If I then as the supplier of resources or as the grocer or the clothing retailer wish to use the funds that I've received they need to be settled on-chain so that I can use them (or a complex mesh of connecting channels needs to be in place).  In many cases this settlement back on-chain will actually increase the load.

Don't get me started on the fact that LN channels may be controlled in the majority by 3rd parties off-chain who aren't auditable.

[jonald_fyookball]

Of course, but the exact same thing goes for Bitcoin itself. You can go fully down the third party route but the option to remain on your own terms is always there.

unless the network is artificially constrained.  But that would never happen right? 

The premise of LN is that 2 (or more) parties that transact with each other frequently can just settle the difference after a round of payments have happened.  Great, but that requirement severely limits its application.

That is not the entire premise.  The other part is that anyone can transact with anyone else offchain even if they don't have a channel together through intermediaries.  This is what people are so excited about.
 

[iamnotback]

LN is banking.  Raw, savage banking that is.

And private fractional reserve banking is no longer viable...

There is only one altcoin design which will win:

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

I believe what Nash meant is that if there exists a deflationary currency, then the issuers of long-term loans would have a problem. This is because those who demand exchange to a currency at par to the deflationary currency, demand more over time of any currency which is inflationary or less deflationary.

A deflationary decentralized currency makes private banking non-viable. My blockchain consensus design checkmates Bitcoin's, because PoW can't be deflationary, because the miners either have to be paid with minting and/or transaction fees.

Any way, private banking is going away naturally because private banking is only really viable for fixed capital loans wherein the bank can calculate NAV and cash flow reliably. The knowledge age is incompatible with such financial computations.

Checkmate on Bitcoin, MP and his $billions. I had warned him last year. His control and wealth is going away. Ditto all the banksters. They will own the death of the fixed capital investment age (i.e. industrial age and capex projects), but the knowledge age will bifurcate away from their influence. I predicted all this many years ago.

As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise:

The end of democracy

...

Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy.

[Fuserleer]

The premise of LN is that 2 (or more) parties that transact with each other frequently can just settle the difference after a round of payments have happened.  Great, but that requirement severely limits its application.

That is not the entire premise.  The other part is that anyone can transact with anyone else offchain even if they don't have a channel together through intermediaries.  This is what people are so excited about.

Do you have an linkable citation of that?

I've read quite a bit of stuff about LN and nowhere does it seem to indicate that is possible.  There always appears to be a need for an "opened channel" recorded on the block chain.

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.0

The product isn't currently working plus the release and the thread is a complete shambles. Anyone care to unravel the buzzwords below?

UNLIMITED SCALABILITY

HEAT's unbounded vertical scalability is only limited by the performance of the hardware used. Utilizing not a single blockchain , but a chain of blockchains - and removing embedded databases through the use of off-heap memory mapped binary files, the HEAT blockchain is able to sustain transaction throughput of at least 1000 tps 24/7. On our internal tests the HEAT server has been capable of achieving an unbelievable rate of 100,000 updates per second on commonly available consumer hardware.

[gentlemand]

The product isn't currently working plus the release and the thread is a complete shambles.

Then what's the point of mentioning it?

[Fuserleer]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.0

The product isn't currently working plus the release and the thread is a complete shambles. Anyone care to unravel the buzzwords below?

UNLIMITED SCALABILITY

Don't get me started on that one!

HEAT's unbounded vertical scalability is only limited by the performance of the hardware used.

Meh I hate it when projects use incorrect terms and contradict themselves in order to build hype.

"HEAT's unbounded vertical scalability is only limited by the performance of the hardware used."

Unbounded means its not limited by anything tangible...but wait....its limited by the performance of the hardware used.  *facepalm*  isn't EVERYTHING that operates in a vertical environment?

On our internal tests the HEAT server has been capable of achieving an unbelievable rate of 100,000 updates per second on commonly available consumer hardware.

Meh nothing special, I (and many others no doubt) can get close to that with a well tuned MySQL server, smart commits and aggressive caching in Java let alone C++ on commodity gear.  Opt for simple NoSQL key->value store databases and it's even higher still.  Btw updates of state are NOT transactions per second!

I've seen these kind of claims now for nigh on 2 years and it really grates my gears (if you couldn't tell :-) ).   They are simply undeliverable and are at best a twisting of common terms to make it appear such that there is real innovation when really there is none.