Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 09:45:08 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Scalability?  (Read 1801 times)
amishmanish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


Proof-of-Asset Protocol


View Profile
November 07, 2017, 08:08:06 AM
 #21


Second, because the Bitcoin network is a peer-to-peer network, nodes are free to leave and re-join at will. The time to re-join the network is a linear function of the size of the blockchain (since the Genesis block). Right now, that is 140GB and I think it takes more than 24 hours to sync a full-node on a typical desktop PC. The blockchain will continue to grow at a rate of about 50-100GB per year with the current blocksize limitations; while the sync-time will grow in direct proportion to this, at least we know how much it will grow. If this were unrestricted, the sync time could actually fall behind an "event horizon" where it takes longer than 24 hours to process 144 blocks (24 hours worth of blocks), meaning no new node could ever join the network!

This is a pretty solid reason to not go for the block-size increase. Is there somewhere one can find proof to this. Like the work involved in syncing blocks and time a typical computer would take for that.
This way, we can know what hardware acceleration will support or be necessary to allow and increase in the block-size without these issues.

1513460708
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513460708

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513460708
Reply with quote  #2

1513460708
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513460708
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513460708

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513460708
Reply with quote  #2

1513460708
Report to moderator
CyberKuro
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 616



View Profile
November 07, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
 #22

Will bitcoin every be able to handle more than a few hundred transactions per second ?

Few hundred transactions per second? Not for current nodes in my opinion.
Look at this; https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions > there are over 30,770 unconfirmed transactions.
Total Fees      5.03496607 BTC
Total Size        49017.571 (KB)
Transactions Per Second   3.88


Every block included into blockchain every 10 minutes, and most miners submit about 1Mb for each block.
There is 49 Mb unconfirmed transactions in waiting list right now.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
November 08, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
 #23

The one thing you know is that full blocks are bringing much profit for miners than not filled blocks. On the other hand, the Bitcoin developer team want to remain the block size and not bigger blocks while a part of bitcoin community wants bigger blocks. In the next fork, the altcoin B2X brings bigger blocks and the SegWit functionality remains.

Woldn't implementing lightning network require even bigger blocks at some point? Like 100 MB block size to cover all the needs of network for billions of people?

Yes - all those 2nd layer techs need to settle on-chain and will either need more block-size or higher fees. Making ordinary on-chain tx way to costly for small users ( yet told to run a relay node each).

The biggest issue with these new techs is, that they are brand new compared to on-chain transactions and so not really same secure or rather insecure by many orders of magnitude.

All ppl that promote those things will mostly not tell you about risks and disclaimers as it would be usual for any financial solutions.


Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 09, 2017, 09:59:53 PM
 #24

The one thing you know is that full blocks are bringing much profit for miners than not filled blocks. On the other hand, the Bitcoin developer team want to remain the block size and not bigger blocks while a part of bitcoin community wants bigger blocks. In the next fork, the altcoin B2X brings bigger blocks and the SegWit functionality remains.

Woldn't implementing lightning network require even bigger blocks at some point? Like 100 MB block size to cover all the needs of network for billions of people?

Yes - all those 2nd layer techs need to settle on-chain and will either need more block-size or higher fees. Making ordinary on-chain tx way to costly for small users ( yet told to run a relay node each).


This is not true.

Lightning does not need to be settled on-chain. This is wrong. Once money is on the Lightning network, it can stay there until a user wants to use it on-chain instead. Settling on-chain is not necessary at all, and so because mining is not involved in Lightning transactions, fees can be cheap or free (the only cost is running your computer and it's Bitcoin node, basically nothing).

For instance, if your friend sends some money directly to you with Lightning, you can charge a fee if you like. Just don't expect them to still be your friend if you do Grin (or to receive the money soon Wink)


This will not require 100 MB blocks or anything like that, as there can be huge amounts of money on Lightning all the time. Lightning transactions don't use block space, they are off-chain.

Vires in numeris
nickmarketeer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2017, 12:24:37 AM
 #25

Hi guys,

this is our idea to scale Ethereum. But you may borrow it for Bitcoin, as it would work for any blockchain:

http://afterether.org/blockchain-scalability-by-blockchain-clustering.html

would be very interesting to know what do you think of it

AfterEther, another Ethereum network
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
November 10, 2017, 11:33:40 AM
 #26

The one thing you know is that full blocks are bringing much profit for miners than not filled blocks. On the other hand, the Bitcoin developer team want to remain the block size and not bigger blocks while a part of bitcoin community wants bigger blocks. In the next fork, the altcoin B2X brings bigger blocks and the SegWit functionality remains.

Woldn't implementing lightning network require even bigger blocks at some point? Like 100 MB block size to cover all the needs of network for billions of people?

Yes - all those 2nd layer techs need to settle on-chain and will either need more block-size or higher fees. Making ordinary on-chain tx way to costly for small users ( yet told to run a relay node each).


This is not true.

Lightning does not need to be settled on-chain. This is wrong. Once money is on the Lightning network, it can stay there until a user wants to use it on-chain instead. Settling on-chain is not necessary at all, and so because mining is not involved in Lightning transactions, fees can be cheap or free (the only cost is running your computer and it's Bitcoin node, basically nothing).

For instance, if your friend sends some money directly to you with Lightning, you can charge a fee if you like. Just don't expect them to still be your friend if you do Grin (or to receive the money soon Wink)


This will not require 100 MB blocks or anything like that, as there can be huge amounts of money on Lightning all the time. Lightning transactions don't use block space, they are off-chain.

If you do not settle on-chain where is then the bitcoin security ?  I can use PayPal here - so you sell vaporware and have no disclaimer in a financial env.

No bigger company with proper due diligence buys this .

Nobody at all should buy this - sorry.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 10, 2017, 01:24:30 PM
 #27

What are your security worries? You seem to be afraid of Lightning transactions, but not about anything specific.

Vires in numeris
Samarkand
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
November 10, 2017, 04:25:56 PM
 #28

What are your security worries? You seem to be afraid of Lightning transactions, but not about anything specific.

One of the great features of Bitcoin is that it removes counterparty risk.
By using Lightning transactions you are essentially introducing a counterparty risk if the payment hub provider
has nefarious intentions. Therefore really high value transactions will probably still be settled on the main
blockchain even if Lightning is adopted by a huge part of the Bitcoin user base.

Disclaimer:
I´m just playing devil´s advocate here, actually I´m fairly optimistic about
the potential of Lightning and other 2nd layer solutions.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 10, 2017, 05:13:52 PM
 #29

By using Lightning transactions you are essentially introducing a counterparty risk if the payment hub provider
has nefarious intentions.

Risk of what

Vires in numeris
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!