Transaction throughput scalability has nothing to do with PoW.
Sorry but that’s not correct.
As I explained in
my analysis of OmniLedger—a technology which shows how sharding can be adapted to Nakamoto proof-of-work—that proof-of-work is fundamentally incompatible with significant sharding because of the huge variance that individual miners would incur if they didn’t participate in pools. OmniLedger is incompatible with pools because it needs a large set of diverse miners that win blocks in order to populate the shards with independent entities so that it can
scale decentralized.
That assumes that sharding is a viable scaling approach for cryptocurrencies. Also, sharding being incompatible with PoW does not automatically mean that it's compatible with PoS.
How many transactions a blockchain is able to process depends on 1) the (file)size of each transaction and 2) the amount of decentralization you want to achieve.
As Bitcoin is trying to keep the network as decentralized as possible, the blocksize is kept rather limited as to keep the entry level for running a full node (ie. a node keeping a full copy of the blockchain) as low as possible. As an alternative to on-chain scaling, ie. increasing the blocksize limit, Bitcoin is currently heading towards adding additional protocol levels on top. This allows for scaling beyond the linear limitations of simply increasing the blocksize while keeping a high degree of decentralization. The solution that currently seems to be most viable is Lightning Network, which strives to move the bulk of smaller transactions off-chain using a network of payment channels managed by Bitcoin's smart contract capabilities. While not widely used yet, you can see it in action here:
https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/Lightning Networks has
some serious flaws and limitations, as compared to on-chain scaling. Thus an altcoin which can scale decentralized on-chain would still have a purpose. Yet
nobody has fully published such a consensus system yet.
It may be addressed elsewhere, but I see a handful of problems with the section on LN:
1) One assumption seems to be that user collusion allows for the emergence of fractional reserves. Please expand a) how this is supposed to work and b) why people would pass their private keys to third parties when using LN.
2) Regarding routing: The Fyookball article you are referring to is inherently flawed as it is built on faulty assumptions. The other I have yet to read.
3) Running a well-connected node does not require banking-level capital to be locked in various payment channels. Keep in mind that LNs main use case is small, everyday transactions.
4) Trying to steal a counterparty's funds is penalized by the network. The need to actively monitor your payment channels is indeed problematic, however assuming that the majority of people use LN as intended (ie. monitoring their open channels) a thieving strategy becomes a losing strategy.
5) Reducing on-chain transactions on average is already a vast improvement, regardless of spikes that may occur. Bitcoin can handle
short bursts of activity rather well. It is also worth noting that the load of on-chain settlements can be alleviated by introducing additional protocol layers:
https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf6) Slightly unrelated, your assumption of miners being able to steal P2SH SegWit transactions by forcing a roll-back hard fork does not reflect reality well, as the resulting alt coin is likely to be not well received by the market.
That being said, when Satoshi created Bitcoin there was nothing else to choose but PoW. PoW was what enabled cryptocurrencies in the first place, solving a problem that was previously believed to be unsolveable.
You’re speculating. So I will too. We don’t know how many technologies the Zionists were aware of when they created Bitcoin.
Zionist conspiracy theories aside, we
do though. Bitcoin is based on a huge body of work that came before it. All of which is public. Most of which were just separate, seemingly unrelated pieces of puzzle before Satoshi came along:
https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?ref=rss&id=3136559While we do not know who invented Bitcoin, we have a very well understood and documented historical context.
I see.That being said,I beleive that other Consensus like POS doesn't have such limitations right? So why some coins still use PoW when there is better options? And is it possible to change Bitcoin's system? If yes who decides? I apology for advance for my ignorance.Thanks
PoS and its variants are nothing more but different consensus algorithms. They make no difference in terms transaction and thus blockchain size. All things being equal, a blockchain based on PoS scales just as bad as a blockchain based on PoW.
Again that is not necessarily true. And I know for a fact isn’t true because I have a consensus system which scales, but it’s only partially published at this moment.
Let's rephrase it to "a blockchain based on
currently known PoS schemes scales just as bad as a blockchain on PoW". And really, that's all we can take into account for the sake of this discussion.
Proposed solutions to increasing on-chain transaction throughput by decreasing transaction size exist. Schnorr signatures for example
Decreasing signature size is not scaling. Scaling is something that continues without bound, e.g. Moore’s Law. A one-time increase in capacity is not a scalability solution. Because it runs into a limit again.
Decreasing signature size
enables scaling. Note that I'm not claiming this to be part of a scaling plan. I am pointing out room for optimization that increases transaction throughput while maintaining blocksize limitations.
[1]. Ethereum is exploring blockchain sharding [2]. However here too, the type of consensus algorithm is irrelevant.
The state of Ethereum’s 3 year exploration of sharding
is abysmal. And again #2 is incorrect.
Note that I'm merely introducing proposed scaling solutions, not evaluating them. I personally am rather skeptical of sharding, but that is a different matter. As mentioned above, sharding being incompatible with PoW, does not make it more compatible with PoS. Other consensus algorithms may be a better fit for sharding, but this thread so far only compares PoW and PoS.
Also note that these are not statement enumerations, but footnotes referring to the respective sources.
Case in point: MimbleWimble / Grin [3], should it ever come to fruition, stands to scale incredibly well due to small transaction sizes and a bit of mathematical magic that allows for very effective blockchain pruning without compromising security. With PoW being their consensus algorithm of choice.
Pruning is not scalability.
Pruning without loss of security
enables scalability while maintaining decentralization. It also worth noting that "pruning" is on oversimplification of what MimbleWimble proposes. I used the term to enable discussion without requiring deeper of knowledge of MimbleWimble as prerequisite.
