Bitcoins scaling issue

[kenji]

It's apparent from these past few weeks that if bitcoin wants to remain the leader it needs to evolve. Today there are nearly 200,000 unconfirmed transactions. I would love to be able to see that number at 0, but it seems that no one can agree on what is best for the network, and so nothing is being done and people are paying ridiculous transaction fees.

What do you all think would be best for scaling the network?

[1714064922]

1714064922

[1714064922]

1714064922

[1714064922]

1714064922

[devarajdp]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

[kenji]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

[jseverson]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

What do you mean it hasn't passed yet? Segwit is already here and is usable. As for why not everyone agrees over it, I honestly have no idea. You'll have to ask exchanges like Coinbase, although Coinbase plans to finally adopt by the first quarter of 2018.

The most popular solutions seem to be off-chain scaling and bigger blocks. Bigger blocks have been ruled out for the main chain, which is actually what prompted the birth of Bitcoin Cash. We're left with off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, which is currently being prepared for deployment. I'm not one to say which is better, but I'm obviously on the side of the real Bitcoin.

[kenji]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

What do you mean it hasn't passed yet? Segwit is already here and is usable. As for why not everyone agrees over it, I honestly have no idea. You'll have to ask exchanges like Coinbase, although Coinbase plans to finally adopt by the first quarter of 2018.

The most popular solutions seem to be off-chain scaling and bigger blocks. Bigger blocks have been ruled out for the main chain, which is actually what prompted the birth of Bitcoin Cash. We're left with off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, which is currently being prepared for deployment. I'm not one to say which is better, but I'm obviously on the side of the real Bitcoin.

Sorry, that's what I meant, lighting, because even with Segwit already being here look at the problems we still have.

[Passive Coin]

As for my knowledge, 800 voluntiers are testing Lightning feature for Bitcoin.
It will be implemented on the top of Bitcoin network and is supported by Bitcoin core dev. team.
If implemented within near future, will improve speed of transactions dramatically for better.

Anyway, Bitcoin evolve into "digital gold", mean medium that store value.
Seems micro-payments should be taken by Litecoin and give some relief to BTC.

[dothebeats]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

What do you mean it hasn't passed yet? Segwit is already here and is usable. As for why not everyone agrees over it, I honestly have no idea. You'll have to ask exchanges like Coinbase, although Coinbase plans to finally adopt by the first quarter of 2018.

The most popular solutions seem to be off-chain scaling and bigger blocks. Bigger blocks have been ruled out for the main chain, which is actually what prompted the birth of Bitcoin Cash. We're left with off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, which is currently being prepared for deployment. I'm not one to say which is better, but I'm obviously on the side of the real Bitcoin.

Sorry, that's what I meant, lighting, because even with Segwit already being here look at the problems we still have.

Pardon me but I don't think LN is a true scaling solution since you still need to entrust your funds into a third-party (which will include a fee for transfers, still) before confirming the transaction off-chain and sending the funds to its destination. Even if LN is deployed, I don't think it would be a sufficient--or effective--scaling solution in the long run since it will be clogged after only several days of deployment and that's for sure. SegWit proved to be an inefficient scaling solution for the growing needs of people even though the proposal seemed to be good.

[BTCforJoe]

Pardon me but I don't think LN is a true scaling solution since you still need to entrust your funds into a third-party (which will include a fee for transfers, still) before confirming the transaction off-chain and sending the funds to its destination. Even if LN is deployed, I don't think it would be a sufficient--or effective--scaling solution in the long run since it will be clogged after only several days of deployment and that's for sure. SegWit proved to be an inefficient scaling solution for the growing needs of people even though the proposal seemed to be good.

This is exactly what I came here to say. In theory, LN would offset so much load from the blockchain, but requires a centralized method in order to do so. We have to put our trust and faith in a 3rd-party, and one that will have enough capital to back everyone's transactions off-chain. And what kind of institutions have this type of capital? Banks. I don't trust banks, and neither do many individuals that trade crypto. LN removes the P2P aspect of what makes Bitcoin so popular.

As for Segwit, it's already here, and it seems to have helped offset transaction fees after its adoption. You can download a segwit-enabled wallet if you want to do your part in slowly reducing transaction fees across the network. Green Address seems to be the most trusted amongst segwit proponents in my observations. You can learn more about Green Address here: https://greenaddress.it/en/

[silverstar43]

I read they already tested LN on mainnet.
And some rumors the real segwit2 is going to try again?

[kenji]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

What do you mean it hasn't passed yet? Segwit is already here and is usable. As for why not everyone agrees over it, I honestly have no idea. You'll have to ask exchanges like Coinbase, although Coinbase plans to finally adopt by the first quarter of 2018.

The most popular solutions seem to be off-chain scaling and bigger blocks. Bigger blocks have been ruled out for the main chain, which is actually what prompted the birth of Bitcoin Cash. We're left with off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, which is currently being prepared for deployment. I'm not one to say which is better, but I'm obviously on the side of the real Bitcoin.

Sorry, that's what I meant, lighting, because even with Segwit already being here look at the problems we still have.

SegWit only have 10% adoption/usage, so we haven't see SegWit benefit. If majority use SegWit, tx fee will be reduced and confirmation time will be faster.
More info : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7ojt5f/day_7_i_will_post_this_guide_regularly_until/

If it's such a good solution though, why hasn't 100% switched and only 10%? Doesn't make sense to me, why don't the people using the network also want whats best for it?

[Pixyoxx]

You know the reason it's slow is because it's super secure, the size specified by the main node is something that's safest possible thing but for sure it slows down everything.
I think safety over speed , thus will only think it's wise to consider when they are actually ready to make bigger block size transactions secure.

Fee is something that's​based on BTC not dollars so I think it's legitimate

[Kprawn]

I would have been worried, if the developers did not have a scaling roadmap for the technology, but they do. If the exchanges

and the third party services start to implement SegWit, we would not have had all these issues. Most issues come from the

use of old legacy addresses. We can also look forward to the implementation of the Lightning Network in 2018 and this will

solve this issue.  

[Virtual miner]

It's apparent from these past few weeks that if bitcoin wants to remain the leader it needs to evolve. Today there are nearly 200,000 unconfirmed transactions. I would love to be able to see that number at 0, but it seems that no one can agree on what is best for the network, and so nothing is being done and people are paying ridiculous transaction fees.

What do you all think would be best for scaling the network?

With the advent of alt market I think almost everyone's attention today is to develop a new coin and a whole new blockchain for it rather than improving the old husky bitcoin. People rather prefer to hardfork it have some improvements. But this is really not good for bitcoin itself. We see it as a parameter of cryptocurrencies.

As far as scaling issues are concerned the immense price rise is also a very big culprit for the high fees. Lightning network is still pending no one knows when it is coming. Even after it arrives what will be the reaction of the crown will they really adopt it?

[franky1]

This is exactly what I came here to say. In theory, LN would offset so much load from the blockchain,

not true..
spammers are still gonna spam the blockchain.. all LN does is make INNOCENT people have to give up their independent control of their own funds by putting thm into smart contracts(LN)

the devs still have not solved spam nor the fee war.. to them all they care about is being the heads of state in control of the network and taking a cut of the fee's

they actually love the idea of high fee's onchain because it pushes/forces innocent people to use the third party service and pay ln hub fee's.
after all how do you think blockstream ever intend to repay barry silbert and axa those multi million dollar investments.

LN is not a solution and will not reduce congestion.
no on is going to be stupid to lock their entire hoard in a LN contract.. and so when peoples weekly 'deposits' are spent the channels need to close. meaning any merchant/hubs attached to such people that have done multihops will need to close MANY channels so that the balances can balance out. causing a bottleneck if say walmart needed to settle up its thousands of customers

but hey, as i said the devs have not thought beyond their income stream of getting fee's from being hubs to repay BScartel

[berrymenalo]

I didn't realize there were so many strong arguments against implementing the LN. Do people here think it would be better NOT to implement the LN? What sort of solutions are practically within our reach if not LN? We've all seen the difficulty of trying to get a hardfork through. If not LN, then what?

[South Park]

Segregated Witness is a system by which the signature data is segregated from other transaction data. Segregated Witness has been proposed as a solution for scaling, and has impacts in two ways. ... It fixes transaction malleability that has been a roadblock for other bitcoin projects.

Why is it that it hasn't passed yet? I know what segwit is, I was just wondering more why you thought no one can agree on a solution such as segwit?

What do you mean it hasn't passed yet? Segwit is already here and is usable. As for why not everyone agrees over it, I honestly have no idea. You'll have to ask exchanges like Coinbase, although Coinbase plans to finally adopt by the first quarter of 2018.

The most popular solutions seem to be off-chain scaling and bigger blocks. Bigger blocks have been ruled out for the main chain, which is actually what prompted the birth of Bitcoin Cash. We're left with off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, which is currently being prepared for deployment. I'm not one to say which is better, but I'm obviously on the side of the real Bitcoin.

Sorry, that's what I meant, lighting, because even with Segwit already being here look at the problems we still have.

Segwit alleviates the problem somehow, if you use a segwit address the size of the transaction goes down, in theory you could get a transaction fourth times lower than usual which is a good discount, but the real solution is the lightning network, we do not know when it will become operative but changes like this take time.

[GeePeeU]

Remember how years ago, we started with segwit, then the dozen BIP proposals, then 2mb/Seg, then LN, and here we are again.

It seems the people benefiting from the capacity issues, are over complicating the proposals for a "fix" to maintain their benefits.

[hatshepsut93]

I didn't realize there were so many strong arguments against implementing the LN. Do people here think it would be better NOT to implement the LN? What sort of solutions are practically within our reach if not LN? We've all seen the difficulty of trying to get a hardfork through. If not LN, then what?

There are no strong arguments, only lies and manipulations by biased people who want to centralize Bitcoin with their gigabyte blocks.
The beauty of Lightning Network is that it's completely independent project, if you don't like it you don't have to use it and can stick with Bitcoin's onchain transactions, which might be expensive, but 100% secure because of the network's decentralization. So even if something would go wrong and LN will come up centralized (which I'm sure is not going to happen, because currently its design allows anyone to easily run a node - it is as permissionless, open and accessible as Bitcoin itself) we will still have a secure and trustless main network.

[berrymenalo]

Thanks for the quick response, I'll do some more research into it.

[franky1]

There are no strong arguments, only lies and manipulations by biased people who want to centralize Bitcoin with their gigabyte blocks.

because currently its design allows anyone to easily run a node - it is as permissionless, open and accessible as Bitcoin itself) we will still have a secure and trustless main network.

as soon as i read "gigabyte blocks" i started laughing at how much hatshpsut93 has been indoctrinated by the reddit propaganda. no where on the face of this planet have gigabyte blocks been an actual proposal

secondly LN is not permissionless..
its like saying anyone can open a bank account. but if you cannot take your money out unless the bank authorises it. its not permissionless
LN is a smart contract with a counterparty that needs to DUAL sign with you.. if a tx does not have both signatures the payment cant be authorised..

the flaw then becomes that you are forced to broadcast a previous ln tx that was countersigned.. but the counterparty can then invoke their CSV revoke code because you transmitted a tx you shouldnt have. in short LN is ripe for blackmailing people by not agreeing on payments and then forcing the other party to lose out

its really worth people reading the code and documentation and not just reading reddits garbage.

LN is not a bitcoin solution.... at best its just a off chain service.. the big issue is devs are not fixing bitcoin. they are crippling bitcoin to try to force/persuade people into thinking this offchain service is the last resort..... sellouts