Bitcoin Forum
April 22, 2018, 02:05:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Limitations of Blockchain. What are they?  (Read 584 times)
Xynerise
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 162


39twH4PSYgDSzU7sLnRoDfthR6gWYrrPoD


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 09:56:22 PM
 #21


This is new info to me. Forgive my ignorance about quantum computers, but how will it be a huge threat to blockchain? i mean, i just can't see the point why blockchain will be vulnerable. I thought people are aiming to improve it?
There are a lot of threads on Bitcointalk about the threat of quantum computers on bitcoin.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantum+site%3Abitcointalk.org

The gist of the matter is that quantum computers can break ECDSA which bitcoin uses for digital signatures and will be theoretically able to calculate private keys from public keys.
This is prevented by not reusing addresses because addresses are not public keys but a hash of them and quantum computing can't do anything with them. (An address's public keys are exposed whenever a transaction is made with that address)

However this is not a significant threat as quantum computing isn't that advanced yet, there are better easier targets than bitcoins (or other cryptocurrencies), and bitcoin can always move to a quantum resistant algorithm.

___________yahoo62278 CAMPAIGN MANAGER________  ◥◥  The Best & Most Popular Manager  ◤◤  ___________
✔ ICO Manager          ✔ Bounty Manager          ✔ Signature Campaign Manager          ✔ Twitter Campaign Manager
█████████████████████████   ADD "yahoo62278" on Telegram & Skype   █████████████████████████
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
1524362702
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524362702

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524362702
Reply with quote  #2

1524362702
Report to moderator
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 720


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 12:01:06 AM
Merited by Xynerise (2)
 #22

In addition to the aforementioned limitations of blockchain as enumerated by some contributors here on this forum,i would like to say that there are fears that that future development in cryptography may leave the blockchain vulnerable,ie hackable.That is why there is so much fear about the development of quantum computers,which may become commercially available 10-20 years time frame.Part of the solution to this future vulnerability is to use a bitcoin address only ONCE.Thanks to experts who already see the future.By the way,the world will have bigger problems to deal with when quantum computers become mainstay-sensitive military installations for example.

(Boldface is here added to question-begging.  Smart, well-informed people don’t have “so much fear” about quantum computers; thus, there is no “why”.  I have never beaten my wife; therefore, I have never stopped beating my wife.)

This is new info to me. Forgive my ignorance about quantum computers, but how will it be a huge threat to blockchain? i mean, i just can't see the point why blockchain will be vulnerable. I thought people are aiming to improve it?

There are a lot of threads on Bitcointalk about the threat of quantum computers on bitcoin.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantum+site%3Abitcointalk.org

Yes, so very many threads.  Behold the power of Quantum FUD®, superposition of which is entangled across the forum!

The gist of the matter is that quantum computers can break ECDSA which bitcoin uses for digital signatures and will be theoretically able to calculate private keys from public keys.
This is prevented by not reusing addresses because addresses are not public keys but a hash of them and quantum computing can't do anything with them. (An address's public keys are exposed whenever a transaction is made with that address)

Xynerise, you seem generally well-informed; but here, I think you are sorely mistaken in picking up an unfortunately popular meme.  Quoting one of my better Jr. Member posts from way back when, in the context of a thread about Bitcoin and quantum computers (bracketed clarification added):

As a general point, I will worry about disclosing Bitcoin public keys at the same time I start to worry about disclosing my long-term PGP public key.  (For those in the peanut gallery:  The latter would be entirely useless without public disclosure.)

There are excellent reasons to avoid address reuse; but this [QC resistance] is not one of them.  I say this as a paranoid security nut:  The security of publicly disclosed public keys is just fine.  That is why they are called public keys.  The only exception I would here make is if you have coins which you intend to potentially leave in cold storage for decades.  Then, yes, you will want the extra security margin of the key being unpublished.  That’s not only a concern about quantum computers:  Unexpected cryptanalytic techniques could develop over the course of many years.  For cryptography which really needs to stand the test of time, reducing your security requirements to a hash is simply good security hygiene.

Also apropos, in a distinct context (whereas FUD can only be distinct without difference):

The security of exposed Bitcoin public keys is just fine for general usage.  They cannot be hacked.  [...]  But there is a different, unrelated reason to avoid address reuse:  Privacy.  Avoiding address reuse gives you a modicum of privacy.  That at least makes Chainalysis work for their pay.  Re-using addresses makes transaction linkage trivial, child’s play.

A public key is called a “public key”, because it is secure when exposed in public.  I publish my PGP public keys (and if I didn’t, PGP would be useless).  I am not worried about that.  Each and every time you connect to an https website secured by TLS, the server’s public key is exposed to you—and your symmetric session key is derived from a key-agreement process based on the hardness of the same DLP as is the fundamental basis of most widely-used public-key cryptography other than RSA.  I am not worried about that, either!  Likewise, I am not worried about the security of my Bitcoin public keys.

Evidently, I am not the only one to be of the opinion that “hash public keys for quantum resistance” is a regrettable meme.  Quoting from discussion of Taproot on bitcoin-dev, 2018-01-23:

Quote from: Gregory Maxwell
Considering the considerable level of address reuse -- I recall prior stats that a majority of circulating funds are on addresses that had previously been used, on top of the general race limitations-- I am now dubious to the idea that hashing provides any kind of meaningful quantum resistance and somewhat regret introducing that meme to the space in the first place. If we considered quantum resistance a meaningful concern we should address that specifically.  --- so I don't think that should be a factor that drives a decision here.



As a general point about the strength of Bitcoin’s cryptographic security, from an adapted self-quote, I hereby formally posit the Nullian Flying Fire Hydrant Rule:

You had better be worried about being killed by a flying fire hydrant than about [the security] of Bitcoin’s cryptographic keys.  It has happened at least once somewhere that a man was killed by a flying fire hydrant.

Please.  You don’t worry about being killed by a flying fire hydrant.  Whereas to be killed by a flying fire hydrant is not only possible, but astronomically more probable than any cryptographic break of Bitcoin security.

At some point, after the size of 2128 is explained for the 2127th time, anti-Botcoin FUDsters realize that FUDding Bitcoin security in the present just makes them look absurd.  So, they upgrade to Quantum FUD® technology:  Point to an uncertain future, oversimplify complex technological questions much debated by experts, and then beg the question of “why there is so much fear about the development of quantum computers”.

Practical, usable quantum computers do not exist.  Their present is fantasy, and their future is unknown.  Some experts are of the opinion that a practical quantum computer capable of useful computation may be impossible—scientifically, physically, mathematically impossible.

E.g., quoting from one of my Newbie-rank posts, q.v.; see also the ensuing discussion between myself and haltingprobability:

A quantum computer is not a sure thing!

I should preface this by saying, I’m not endorsing the opinions of Scott Aaronson.  I’m only citing him as someone who is not a moron, and wrote a book on quantum computing (which I have not read).  I seem to recall some wager on his blog over the (im)possibility of quantum computing, but I can’t find it right now; anyway, D-Wave has a long history (2013) of drawing his ire (2017), to say the least.

See how he discusses skepticism of quantum computers:

Quote
What I did is to write out every skeptical argument against the possibility of quantum computing that I could think of. We'll just go through them, and make commentary along the way. Let me just start by saying that my point of view has always been rather simple: it's entirely conceivable that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. If so, then that's by far the most exciting thing that could happen for us. That would be much more interesting than if quantum computing were possible, because it changes our understanding of physics. To have a quantum computer capable of factoring 10000-digit integers is the relatively boring outcome -- the outcome that we'd expect based on the theories we already have.

[...]

As for myself, I account myself moderately skeptical of quantum computing; I’ll believe it when I see it, but meanwhile I think it’s a good idea to move to PQ crypto.  I would be more surprised if quantum cryptography can deliver on its promises.  I don’t like the hype around any of it, especially when it’s sometimes used to FUD Bitcoin.

On that note, in closing, I will repeat in this Quantum FUD® context what I said more generally about Bitcoin’s public-key security:

I strongly recommend that anybody not deeply involved in developing Bitcoin’s long-term security should absolutely not worry about the strength of Bitcoin’s public-key security.  It’s worse than useless worry:  It is a distraction from real problems.  Worry instead about your computer security, your operational security, and your financial privacy.  (Nobody can target you for theft or coercion if nobody knows you have anything significant to take.)

It is as if many people are keeping their coins in a safe with an unbreakable door (the cryptography—all of it) and walls made of tissue paper (the malware-infested PC, privacy leaks which may allow thieves to identify you and know what money you have, etc., etc.).  Then, they obsessively worry about the security of the door!  Don’t do that.



I think Xynerise concludes correctly:

However this is not a significant threat as quantum computing isn't that advanced yet, there are better easier targets than bitcoins (or other cryptocurrencies), and bitcoin can always move to a quantum resistant algorithm.

jhean_arcane
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 2


View Profile
February 26, 2018, 05:49:02 PM
 #23


However this is not a significant threat as quantum computing isn't that advanced yet, there are better easier targets than bitcoins (or other cryptocurrencies), and bitcoin can always move to a quantum resistant algorithm.


At least this is comforting to know. As of the moment, I will put my trust on the people behind improving the security of bitcoin. Nothing is ever perfect, but the goal is to minimize the risks. That is why it is important to ask the difficult questions, while people are taking care to be balanced in opinion as well, so that unecessary fear is avoided. The reason why I didn't check out on quantum physics here in this forum is because I didn't think it was an issue for the blockchain until you opened it up.

█ ▌▐▐ KEPLER // BRINGING AI & ROBOTICS TO THE BLOCKCHAIN▐ ▌▐ █ (http://keplertek.org/#)
saisandhya
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2018, 04:25:25 AM
 #24

Hi

  I know the block chain limitations

 1.Network error
 2.Network speed and size and transaction cost
 3.Human error
 4.unavoidable security flaw
 5.politics
boy130
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 263



View Profile
March 02, 2018, 11:29:25 AM
 #25

Well it really depends on which implementation of the blockchain you are referring to, if you're looking at the bitcoin core blockchain one of the limitations is the block size of 1Mb, meaning only 1Mb of transactions can be included in the next discovered block, thereby limiting the total of number of transactions the network can process at once. Another limitation is the the ledger is publicly available, meaning that anybody can go and check your balance, your transaction history and who you've been dealing with, something that most people probably don't want probing into.

nazaididuan1
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 02, 2018, 11:22:06 PM
 #26

Although the blockchain is an emerging technology, all the technologies that make up the blockchain are the technology developed in the last century. Whether the dependent encryption algorithm can be deciphered with the development of the computer, can the data network synchronization be realized?

⮘Pre-ICO Start - 27.04.2018⮚ ⮘https://wbb.io/⮚
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 720


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 12:14:31 AM
 #27

Well it really depends on which implementation of the blockchain you are referring to, if you're looking at the bitcoin core blockchain one of the limitations is the block size of 1Mb, meaning only 1Mb of transactions can be included in the next discovered block, thereby limiting the total of number of transactions the network can process at once.

WRONG.  Bitcoin no longer has a block size limit.  Segwit replaces the block size limit with a block weight limit, set to 4000000 bytes:

Code:
/** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;

Perpetuating the obsolete notion of a 1MB block size limit is often part of wider disinformation against Bitcoin, and certainly feeds into it.

It is true that the block weight limit does constrict the transactional capacity of the network.  It is estimated that with full Segwit adoption and the types of transactions typically seen on the blockchain, blocks should average a bit more than 2MB in size.  Further scaling will be achieved by (0) off-chain vertical scaling by adding another layer, with Lightning Network, (1) on-chain efficiency improvements such as Schnorr signatures, and (2) what I call “horizontal scaling” with sidechains/Drivechains.  Lightning Network is already live and running, albeit still in its early stages; as it matures, its scaling effects will be hugeN.b. that by taking transactions off-chain, it makes blockchain limitations less relevant.

Another limitation is the the ledger is publicly available, meaning that anybody can go and check your balance, your transaction history and who you've been dealing with, something that most people probably don't want probing into.

This is true, although blockchain analysis is not quite so easy as you say.  Bitcoin is not anonymous.  Use appropriate technical measures to protect your privacy.

Anti-Cen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 19

High fees = low BTC price


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 06:26:38 PM
 #28


WRONG.  Bitcoin no longer has a block size limit.  Segwit replaces the block size limit with a block weight limit, set to 4000000 bytes:

Code:
/** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;

Yes splits it between two files giving a total of about 3.5meg but they did not need to mess thing up by
coming up with vbytes to muddy the waters and should stick with plain old bytes because we all know
what they are.

Someone posted about the signature not having to be tested by lazy miners looking for a bit more speed
because it is in a separate file but apart from that I am OK with Segwit but will never be OK with Lightning
and its banking hubs that like you say is taking shape and it's not looking like any mama & poppa type home
banking that I have ever seen before. https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/



   

Mining is CPU-wars and Intel, AMD like it nearly as much as big oil likes miners wasting electricity. Is this what mankind has come too.
jhean_arcane
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 2


View Profile
March 06, 2018, 05:27:48 PM
 #29


WRONG.  Bitcoin no longer has a block size limit.  Segwit replaces the block size limit with a block weight limit, set to 4000000 bytes:

Code:
/** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;

Yes splits it between two files giving a total of about 3.5meg but they did not need to mess thing up by
coming up with vbytes to muddy the waters and should stick with plain old bytes because we all know
what they are.

Someone posted about the signature not having to be tested by lazy miners looking for a bit more speed
because it is in a separate file but apart from that I am OK with Segwit but will never be OK with Lightning
and its banking hubs that like you say is taking shape and it's not looking like any mama & poppa type home
banking that I have ever seen before. https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/



 

Yep. I've read a lot about Segwit and the main detractors of Segwit are the miners because it cheapens the incentives they get through mining. But as someone who wanted to improve the blockchain, I am pro to it.

█ ▌▐▐ KEPLER // BRINGING AI & ROBOTICS TO THE BLOCKCHAIN▐ ▌▐ █ (http://keplertek.org/#)
yepaiyique2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 3

Get Paid to Play your Media on Current


View Profile
March 07, 2018, 05:04:35 AM
 #30

The data is written to the block chain, waiting at least 10 minutes, all nodes synchronize data, and more time is needed! Block chain transaction data is delayed.

The generation of blocks requires the miners to carry out numerous meaningless calculations, which are very energy-intensive.


▃▃  ────▾ CURRENT ▾────  ▃▃
█ ▁ Get Paid to Play All Your Media ▁ █ (http://current.us/)
Anti-Cen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 19

High fees = low BTC price


View Profile
March 07, 2018, 11:39:40 AM
 #31

It’s an oversimplified explanation.  The blockchain forms a Merkle chain of unalterable history, whereby correct knowledge of the present can be used to verify correct knowledge of the past.  Adding a Hashcash-style POW function for transaction ordering, it becomes a Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed database with no central authority or trusted “supernodes”.  That’s the simplest explanation I can provide in two sentences.

All very fine but it won't scale as implemented by Bitcoin and hashing of hashes, well the credit has to go back to Bit-Torrent
for that one and I am yet to see anyone using a block-ledger (My invention) but i am sure someone will cotton on or were using
it long before I thought it up.

The solution to making the block-chain scale has been going off-block and we certainly have "supernodes" on that
as can be seen here https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/

Mining is CPU-wars and Intel, AMD like it nearly as much as big oil likes miners wasting electricity. Is this what mankind has come too.
Anti-Cen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 19

High fees = low BTC price


View Profile
March 07, 2018, 12:10:30 PM
 #32

The data is written to the block chain, waiting at least 10 minutes, all nodes synchronize data, and more time is needed! Block chain transaction data is delayed.

The generation of blocks requires the miners to carry out numerous meaningless calculations, which are very energy-intensive.

Yes network chatter becomes a killer when you scale upwards and you need to have order which DAG addresses using
direction (Not that I fully understand DAG) and I have used sub-domains based on the public keys but in the end you have
to accept that you need something resembling a data center or the chatter and delays becomes unacceptable.

Block-Chain with most of its code being concerned with mining is not the answer and just works left to right (2D)
and it needs to work downwards too (3D) with what I call block-ledgers at the very least to record the transactions
but maybe one of the other alt-coins has a better solution but some of them are very difficult to understand.

 

Mining is CPU-wars and Intel, AMD like it nearly as much as big oil likes miners wasting electricity. Is this what mankind has come too.
pawanjain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250


https://getunion.io - Union ICO


View Profile
March 08, 2018, 05:29:51 PM
 #33

There was a time when the Bitcoin blockchain and the Ethereum blockchain were filled with numerous transactions which lead to overflow of transactions in the memory pool. This became a problem as confirmation time was increased due to delay in confirmations and transaction fees were getting high due to this reason. Although now the memory pool is less occupied, it still is a bane as the same situation can occur again in the future. This is the only problem which needs to be rectifies in the blockchain. Other scalability issues are almost fixed with the implementation of Segwit.

Shenzou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 271



View Profile
March 08, 2018, 08:01:36 PM
 #34

Blockchain is a new kind of database - block or records connected to another block. That's the simplest explanation. However, I want to ask the hard question.

What are the limitations of blockchain? I know this is a really good innovation and I highly support it, not because I join the bandwagon, but because bitcoin will not exist if not because of it.... But I want to have a better understanding of the blockchain (in layman's terms please) if I want to get really serious about cryptocurrency and ICOs. My second question is, what are the things experts do to improve blockchain?
In my opinion the limitations of the blockchain is transactions times and miner fees, a year or 2 agao bitcoin was not as popular as it is right now, as the price started to grow nad people started knowing about it it got popular and this affected the traffic control in the blockchain netowrk which was reflected on the trnasaction time nad miner fees which have reached high values, blockchain was not ready for a situation where a large amount of transactions can be sent and confirmed at the same time, and probably that is its biggest flaw.

FORTUNEJACK
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
1Referee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1078


View Profile
March 08, 2018, 09:32:28 PM
 #35

There was a time when the Bitcoin blockchain and the Ethereum blockchain were filled with numerous transactions which lead to overflow of transactions in the memory pool.
No. As long as transactions remain unconfirmed in mempools, even if it concerns millions of transactions, they aren't 'filling' the blockchain. Transactions only 'fill' the blockchain once they are confirmed, and thus are no longer in any mempool. Otherwise Jihan & Co would have made sure the current blockchain would be a few terabyte in size already. Cheesy

Other scalability issues are almost fixed with the implementation of Segwit.
What scalability 'issues' has Segwit fixed according to you? Segwit itself isn't a problem solver at all when it comes to scalability, the second layer applications that will be built on top of Bitcoin will play the most important role in that regard. Segwit is basically just a first step that needs to be set in order to move further.

linshisui38
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 09, 2018, 05:39:37 AM
 #36

The blockchain is decentralized, and one of the meanings of decentralization is that there is no one person, or an institution is in a position of power, and no one has the final say. Any "decision/status/change, etc." requires participants to use a mechanism to achieve the same understanding, which is the limitation of the blockchain.

Digitize Coin  |  Convert loose change and cash
---  into cryptocurrency. Instantly.  ---
pebwindkraft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 159


View Profile
March 09, 2018, 06:08:42 AM
 #37

Reading through this thread, I am missing the positive developments. I mean, by the headline people get already distracted - ok, but you were explicitly asking about positive developments.

With many answers here I wrote up (unintentionally) something, which might answer your question, especially looking at the newer developments.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3074677.msg31895112#msg31895112

When re-reading the headline, I think it should be precisely this: „what is it in the mind of people, what makes them think, there are limitations in blockchain“  Cheesy
suzanne5223
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 257


View Profile
March 09, 2018, 08:03:05 AM
 #38

Blockchain is not perfect and everything is this world have it own limit. However, I only know 2 limitations of blockchain network. (1) The limited total number of transactions that blockchain network can process per seconds. An Example bitcoin network can process 5transaction per second while Ethereum process 7 transaction per seconds. (2) The 51% attack.

Ashleybarnes2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 09, 2018, 10:02:49 PM
 #39

I think the limitations are in scalability and security. That's if it's a decentralised blockchain. Although I think bitcoin is proving that it is possible.
bambazamba
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301
Merit: 250


The secure, scalable blockchain


View Profile
March 11, 2018, 02:28:18 PM
 #40

Blockchain is a new kind of database - block or records connected to another block. That's the simplest explanation. However, I want to ask the hard question.

What are the limitations of blockchain? I know this is a really good innovation and I highly support it, not because I join the bandwagon, but because bitcoin will not exist if not because of it.... But I want to have a better understanding of the blockchain (in layman's terms please) if I want to get really serious about cryptocurrency and ICOs. My second question is, what are the things experts do to improve blockchain?

The two most unavoidable limitations of blockchain will be its size and the transaction tax & speed .
When the market cap reaches to its highest extend it becomes unavoidable to overlook the shortcomings rising due to the network size . It gets filed and overloaded with the unconfirmed transactions . Moreover , that scenario leads to high transaction fees and its long delays.

|
               ▄
            ▄█████▄
         ▄███████████▄
      ▄████████▀████████▄
   ▄█████████▀   ▀█████████▄
 █████████▀    ▄    ▀████████
▐██████▀    ▄█████▄    ▀██████▌
▐████▌   ▐███████████▄   ▐████▌
▐██████▄    ▀▀   ███████▄█████▌
▐█████████▄     ██████████████▌
▐█████████▄  ▄   ▀▀   ████████▌
▐███████████████▄    █████████▌
▐████ ▀████████▄  ▄    ▀██████▌
▐████    ▀███████████▌   ▐████▌
▐██████▄    ▀█████▀    ▄██████▌
 █████████▄    ▀    ▄█████████
   ▀█████████▄   ▄█████████▀
      ▀████████▄████████▀
         ▀███████████▀
            ▀█████▀
               ▀
   
>_FOR


    ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ██
    ███            █
             ██    █             █████
 █████             █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████
 █████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█  █             █████
 █████          █  █      ██
       ██       █  █
 ██             █  █           ███
            ██  █  █      █▀▀▀▀███
   █████        █  █      █
   █████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀
   █████             █
         ██          █   ██          █████
                ██   █      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████
        ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄█        █████
        ███
                  ██      ▀
 

█▄▄              █▄▄
█████▄▄         ██████▄▄
████████       ████████ █
████████ ██   ████████ ██
████████ ███ ████████ ███
████████ ████ ██████ ████
████████ █████ ████ █████
████████ ▀█████ ██ ██████
████████    ▀▀██  ███████
▀███████         ▀███████
   ▀▀███            ▀▀███
       ▀                ▀
 

                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
 

             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!