[19-08-2018]Bitcoin Needs Centralization to Scale, Northwestern University Says

[SlipMart]

Researchers at Northwestern University have claimed that Bitcoin’s lack of scalability is a result of its decentralization model, and a compromise will be necessary to achieve mass adoption.

According to the researchers, the Proof-of-Work consensus algorithm adopted by the Bitcoin community is hindering the cryptocurrency from going mainstream due to the low transaction volume, MarketWatch reported.

“When you look at two networks like bitcoin and a central bank, one is centralized and one is not. If we want it [Bitcoin] to scale we have to compromise, which means we need to get to some level of centralization,” said Sarit Markovich, clinical associate professor of strategy at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

See more: https://news.bitzamp.com/bitcoin-needs-centralization-to-go-mainstream-says-northwestern-university-researchers/

[1715375958]

1715375958

[gentlemand]

How can a professional academic overlook the one and only reason Bitcoin is and ever will be worth anything - the lack of centralisation. As soon as it's definitely in there the whole shebang starts its descent in to doom. And you can't get decentralisation back either.

If I was running that university I'd dock them a month's pay for their sheer dimness.

What is it with all these people being so unwilling to acknowledge the most painfully obvious aspects?

[hatshepsut93]

According to the researchers, the Proof-of-Work consensus algorithm adopted by the Bitcoin community is hindering the cryptocurrency from going mainstream due to the low transaction volume, MarketWatch reported.

If these researches indeed concluded that Proof-of-Work is the problem, then they are idiots, because PoW has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In collaboration with bloXroute Labs, Northwestern University is reportedly developing a platform that could help resolve what bloXroute calls a “scalability bottleneck” caused by the sheer amount of work that goes into processing one single block on the chain.

In one of the threads here, user TraderTimm pointed out exactly what type of startup this bloXroute is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4899881.msg44156472#msg44156472

So, it seems like some people from this University are promoting an ICO scam and getting something in return. This is a good example how even scientists can get corrupt, and that we should always verify everything.

[dreamhouse]

These academic people are simply stupid, they forgot one very basic feature of the concurrency: decentralization.

[DooMAD]

"School of Management" seems like the key phrase for me.  Their goal is to develop leadership skills and decentralised crypto doesn't have leaders.  It's a no-brainer for their business model to want more centralisation.

It basically says as much on their website:

we develop brave leaders who inspire growth in people, organizations and markets

They're of literally zero use to Bitcoin.  We don't need managers.

[Umkar]

Such a compromise bitcoin is not needed. If it has at least partial centralization, it will be a completely different bitcoin, it will be the biggest deviation from Satoshi's vision. This can not be allowed. You need to look for other ways to increase the scaling of bitcoin. First, let's see what will be achieved in terms of increasing the bandwidth of lightning in the bitcoin network.

[veleten]

well,one thing he is right about is that the amount of transactions per second is hindering the adoption
pretty much wrong about everything else 
to want more centralisation defeats the whole idea of bitcoin,duh
also has he heard sbout Lightning network? it is a good compromise to increase the tranasactions number and remove this bottleneck from the system
one could say at some centralisation ,expense , yes ,since there bound to appear major LN network hubs sooner or later,but it is a good trade off in my opinion

[1Referee]

well,one thing he is right about is that the amount of transactions per second is hindering the adoption

I'm not really convinced of that. Bitcoin has been dealing with full blocks for like two or three years now? And it still results in growth. In the same way it applies to Ethereum's continuous full blocks. People are willing to pay for higher transaction fees as long as it isn't too extreme.

Currently Bitcoin's fees range from $0.01 to $0.10 depending on how many unconfirmed transactions there are. I haven't sent one single transaction in the last weeks with a fee higher than $0.05 and still 9 out of 10 transactions were confirmed by the first next block.

Most important factor to allow Bitcoin's throughput to increase is to make people and services utilize Segwit for once. It's crazy to think that only 30-40% of the network is using Segwit transactions. We can increase Bitcoin's throughput with almost 100% from where we are right now if we push Segwit utilization to +90%. In other words, this is something that we all can change instead of constantly looking at developers for solutions and whatnot. Use Segwit. Simple.

[vy99]

My guess is that this "study" was funded by institutional financial organizations that are threatened by Bitcoin and decentralized architecture.

[BitHodler]

My guess is that this "study" was funded by institutional financial organizations that are threatened by Bitcoin and decentralized architecture.

It's too obvious to be sponsored in my opinion. I really think it's more an uneducated attempt to point out what the 'problem' is and how they think it can be tackled, which they failed miserably in.

Some people really believe that crypto currencies are that what its name hints at, and for that reason directly point out that it can't be or isn't a currency at all. And even if so, it's a very bad currency compared to fiat currencies.

The far majority of the people don't care about the currency aspect of Bitcoin, and neither do I to a lower degree. It's the store of value aspect that I and a lot other people add the most value to.

If I want to pay for my coffee or burgers I'll just keep using fiat. Nothing beats fiat in that regard.

[vy99]

My guess is that this "study" was funded by institutional financial organizations that are threatened by Bitcoin and decentralized architecture.

It's too obvious to be sponsored in my opinion. I really think it's more an uneducated attempt to point out what the 'problem' is and how they think it can be tackled, which they failed miserably in.

Some people really believe that crypto currencies are that what its name hints at, and for that reason directly point out that it can't be or isn't a currency at all. And even if so, it's a very bad currency compared to fiat currencies.

The far majority of the people don't care about the currency aspect of Bitcoin, and neither do I to a lower degree. It's the store of value aspect that I and a lot other people add the most value to.

If I want to pay for my coffee or burgers I'll just keep using fiat. Nothing beats fiat in that regard.

I think you underestimate the potential of Bitcoin. I'm not saying it's going to eliminate fiat overnight (like some people on this board believe) but I do believe it has the potential to be a viable alternative currency form, as it was originally designed to be.

[BitHodler]

I think you underestimate the potential of Bitcoin. I'm not saying it's going to eliminate fiat overnight (like some people on this board believe) but I do believe it has the potential to be a viable alternative currency form, as it was originally designed to be.

I'm not underestimating Bitcoin, I'm just realistic.

Regardless of Bitcoin being instant and free to use somewhere in the future, the volatility is something that will always form an obstacle to how Bitcoin is being used as day to day currency. It's just not viable.

That doesn't imply that I think it can't be a great internet currency, because I think it's actually a fantastic internet currency, but not so much for local use if you're in a well developed country already.

[vy99]

I think you underestimate the potential of Bitcoin. I'm not saying it's going to eliminate fiat overnight (like some people on this board believe) but I do believe it has the potential to be a viable alternative currency form, as it was originally designed to be.

Regardless of Bitcoin being instant and free to use somewhere in the future, the volatility is something that will always form an obstacle to how Bitcoin is being used as day to day currency. It's just not viable.

Oh absolutely, to me price stability is a huge factor in Bitcoin being used as a currency. If we ever get to the point where the price stabilizes for months on end (like Gold or USD) then we'll see it being used as a form of currency more regularly.