Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network...

[franky1]

this is not about 32mb blocks.
(...)
this is not about EB

How do you propose something and then basically say "this is not about the thing I'm literally proposing right now".  

Perhaps it would allow us to forego the continual hardfork drama, but it's still not remotely as simple and clear-cut as you're making it out to be.  There are very good reasons why people are opposed to such a system and if you aren't even going to attempt to overcome the objections and only talk about the positives, then don't expect people to take this proposal seriously.

because "EB" is a buzzword
EB is for a particular limitd proposal

the way EB handles increments is one way. but i can think of dozens. so again its not about EB.. but about increments without hardforks.
just like mentioning 32mb. suddenly your mind instantly thinks of an existing proposal.
this is not about those specific proposals.

the 32mb is about something entirely different. which is technical. by which certain proposals latched onto. now if you ignore the proposals which came second to the 32mb thing. and then concentrate on the 32mb as its own thing. where many concepts and proposals can develop from. you will see that i am not talking anything about resurecting old proposals. but getting to the root issue of hardforks and the 32mb issue.
again try not to make is a thing about old proposals. but about how to scale bitcoin with known things that need to be addressed.

[aliashraf]

Bitcoin has always been secure since the first day while the costs of carrying out such an attack has increased substantially from a few bucks to hundreds of million dollars.

Security is not quietly an 'indexable' measure, saying 'this coin is less secure', 'that coin is more secure' is absurd in cryptocurrency context, the way I understand bitcoin there is no "less" or "more" security, you are secure or you are not ...

bitcoin and crypto is not secure. its why difficulty exists.
yes bitcoin is secure against a CPU attack as it wil require trillions of PC's to match/overtake
but its not secure against certain things though. which is why it has to keep evolving.

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary, as I mentioned above. It needs evolution for new problems that has been raised recently, the most important one being what we are discussing here: mass adoption and scaling. It is not a security question for me.

There is and there have been no security crisis in bitcoin, forget about bugs, we are not discussing bugs here are we?

Security of bitcoin is guaranteed by its elegant use of game theory in its core model. It is defined as the result of equilibrium between costs of attack and maximum incentives for committing it. It is not just about one side, there is no one sided equilibrium, do you really need to be addressed about this?

As bitcoin price surges the threats are being escalated and difficulty too, it keeps bitcoin safe, just safe, not safer. It does not make sense to say bitcoin is getting safer when threats are getting stronger! Difficulty rise keeps us safe despite the escalated threats. Again, safe and not safer.

[franky1]

here is another way how i see a system where shards could be used, (dismissing my own concerns of masternode monitoring inevitability)

imagine one chain as the master financial audit chain. where the transactions are smaller
FFFFF AAAAAAA -> FFFFF AAAAAAA
                            FFFFF AAAAAAA
in byte count
5 7 5 7
     5 7
=36 bytes

the F is a byte and are an identifier. 5 bytes allow over 1 trillion identifiers
the A is a byte and are coin amount.7bytes allows 72quadrillion so easy to store numbers upto 2.1quad satoshi

and then a shard stores an ID chain
   EG:       FFFFF = bc1q.... lets say less than 50 bytes per entry
and then another shard stores the signatures
  lets say under 100bytes per entry

essentially making the financial chain that audits coins right back to the coinreward(creation)
only using 36bytes of data per minimal tx instead of 225bytes and a multisig of 2in- 2 out being 48bytes instead of 300bytes+

this not only lets more tx's per mb. but brings down the utxo down to 12 bytes per 'address' and coinage

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary,

ok imagine it. everything got locked down tomorrow. hashrate doesnt evolve. difficulty locks, developers retire and we stay with 10,000 full nodes..
how long do you think it will be before things start to go bad

[mechanikalk]

bitcoins beauty is about how to solve having multiple generals ruling multiple regions but ensuring they all comply to one rule.
and solves how those generals abide by that one rule without having one general.

the answer was everyone watch everything and reject the malicious individuals
we have had "sharding" systems in the real world for decades. sharding is DE-inventing what makes bitcoin, bitcoin

Franky,  based on all of your comment and discussion, much of which I agree with, I think you should look at BlockReduce.

There is also a discussion thread on it specifically.

Basically it is using Proof-of-Work to create a hierarchy of merge mined blockchains.  It allows for incremental work to be used (lower chain blocks) to efficiently group and propagate transactions to the entire network.  I think of many of the people here, you would get it and be able to provide constructive feedback.

[aliashraf]

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary,

ok imagine it. everything got locked down tomorrow. hashrate doesnt evolve. difficulty locks, developers retire and we stay with 10,000 full nodes..
how long do you think it will be before things start to go bad

This is not an argument. I think you should spend a couple of minutes reading my post, it is not a wall of text after all.

Hashrate and price basically follow each other in a complicated socioeconomic game while price linearly determines how tense are security threats. It is how bitcoin becomes a stable dynamic system that regulates itself to remain in an equilibrium state. Doubling or tripling the hashrate doesn't make bitcoin "more secure", it would be just a waste of electricity.

Developers have a lot of problems to solve, we are already late in terms of versioning, nobody should apply for a premature retirement and we need to recruit even more.

[Wind_FURY]

We are discussing the scaling issue.  

Then "VIP2VIP cash" is the wrong terminology. Bitcoin remains to be an open system.

People must have a short memory. During the prolonged tx backlog event back in 2017, it certainly seemed that way. Since the tx fee is based on tx size and not the amount sent, people wanting to move around smaller amounts were getting eaten alive with fees. Although a fee of 300 sats per byte is trivial for someone wanting to move around 1 BTC, it was prohibitive for someone wanting to move around 1 million sats.

It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.

You really think the blockchain fee is going still going to be low if and when the demand is 100x higher than currently ?

No. I already said that users will be forced to use Bitcoin Cash. Other more secure altcoins would be better though.

So the riffraff have to settle for a 3rd rate shitcoin network? Sounds like a vip2vip attitude to me.  

It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.

Let's hope if and when that ever happens, LN will somehow ease the risk of losing coins either due to your channel partner closing a channel in an earlier state and you not catching it or you having a system error and closing a channel in an earlier state in error, and getting a penalty. (Or closing it in an earlier state not in your favor.)

As any software development project, it may succeed, or it may fail. But Lightning has been developing well, let's hope that continues.

How long has this been in development? I may not be from Missouri, but you still have to show me. Perhaps I will be less critical when and if I see a product that is actually usable and less prone to me losing funds for computer/human error.

As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

[bones261]

It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.

You act as if that is set in stone. Like it can't be changed for any reason. If Bitcoin is still around in 2118, is it still going to be this way?

It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

So the Core team is going to stick to this plan, no matter what? I really doubt they are that inflexible if it appears they can't find an acceptable solution to people loosing coins.

[franky1]

LN is not the solution for bitcoin. because LN is not bitcoin

LN is a separate network <- emphasis

LN is a separate network which many coins will use.

im surprised that people would prefer to defend developers by saying bitcoin is broke and wont scale and the only option is another network
even when it has been made clear that LN have flaws that wont be fixed people continue to push the defend a dev, call bitcoin broke and then promote an alternative network that is not even a blockchain and not even directly tied to bitcoin.

LN is just.. and in simple words a separate project that is just using bitcoins as its trial test coins. but not a bitcoin feature itself

bitcoin has been modified to be LN compatible. much like litecoin, vert coin and other coins.
LN has not been made to only fit bitcoin (whereby being a feature of bitcoin) which is why its not a bitcoin feature. but a cryptocurrency feature.
they are simply currently using bitcoin as their test coin to play off the fame of bitcoin

EG if LN used vertcoin as the initial testcoin. LN devs wouldnt be paid(as much) to develop LN but LN would still be the same network it is today. again for emphasis. its not a bitcoin feature its a separate network thats just playing off the fame of bitcoin because the LN network allow bitcoin access to the network (now bitcoin has been modified to fit LN)

im not saying LN doesnt have a niche. but clarifying that those that want bitcoin to remain the main currency of utility are not realising that LN will hurt bitcoin.
(imagine all the locked UTXO's)
anyway heres a video of the LN dev's themselves actually trying to remind people that the utopia of LN is not as perfect as promoted.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
(do not reply about my post unless you have watched the video)
(do not reply about my post unless you are replying to defend the bitcoin network(not devs but the bitcoin network))
(do not reply about my post to derail the conversation into personal attacks of me. as the video itself is doing the bashing. not me)
(do not reply about my post just to promote other networks. because that is not about scaling bitcoin)

[Wind_FURY]

It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.

You act as if that is set in stone. Like it can't be changed for any reason. If Bitcoin is still around in 2118, is it still going to be this way?

What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

I'm not asking. It is reality.

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

So the Core team is going to stick to this plan, no matter what? I really doubt they are that inflexible if it appears they can't find an acceptable solution to people loosing coins.

I can't speak for the developers, but I believe a layered architecture is the direction its taking.

[bones261]

What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.

I'm not asking. It is reality.

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.

[Wind_FURY]

What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.

Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".

I'm not asking. It is reality.

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.

Then why aren't you happy?

[bones261]

What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.

Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".

      I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
      I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.

I'm not asking. It is reality.

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.

Then why aren't you happy?

I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.

[Zin-Zang]

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.

[bones261]

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

[Zin-Zang]

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

I had no intention of arguing against your personal viewpoint, was just interested to hear them.   

[Wind_FURY]

What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.

Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".

      I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
      I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.

You mean the research being done on optimizations such as this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIuuKCm53o

Watch that. That's real, and efficient scaling. Unlike Bitcoin Cash's plan to keep hard forking to increase the block size.

I'm not asking. It is reality.

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.

Then why aren't you happy?

I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure. On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

[Zin-Zang]

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

Hmm,

Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.

What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.  

FTFY,  

[Wind_FURY]

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

Hmm,

Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.

How?

What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.  

FTFY,  

Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?

[Zin-Zang]

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

Hmm,

Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.

How?

Bigger Blocks or Faster Block Speeds either or both increase onchain scalability as both increase the # of transactions possible in less time.
*There are some altcoins that process 1mb blocks at a 30 second blockspeed and they can have 140 transactions per second,
where as bitcoin-segwit maxes out at less than 20 transactions per second. And the Nodes that can do this are less than $30 per month if you get a VPS.*

Any network can use offchain processing , but that does not increase onchain capacity, where it is needed most.
Offchain processing was always the pussy's way out.
Had btc ignored segwit, and just increased their blocks to 4MB, they would able to handle 28 transactions per second, 8 more than their current max.
And if your node could not handle 4mb in 10 minutes, you should throw that crap in the trash.
In the US, first quarter of 2017, the average internet connection speed was 18.75 Mbps or 2.34Mbytes per second,
meaning less than 2 seconds are required to send a 4MB block.
People with 100mbps can send that 4 MB block out in less than ½ second.
And you do realize the big players use 1 Gigabit and higher internet connections.

What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.  

FTFY,  

Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?

Yes, because non-mining nodes like yours are irrelevant and unnecessary.
All your node does is relay , nothing else , it is unimportant in the scheme of things.
If it were really worth a damn, you upgrade your node.  

LOL, you have no effect whatsoever on centralization of bitcoin mining, because you are not a miner.
BTC Mining is already centralized to the rich and they can afford to update their nodes.
Your confusion that your non-mining node matters is just sad.
Hell, turn it off and buy yourself a burger instead of wasting your money on electricity and guess what no one will even notice.  

[Wind_FURY]

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

Hmm,

Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.

How?

Bigger Blocks or Faster Block Speeds either or both increase onchain scalability as both increase the # of transactions possible in less time.

Bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. Faster block speeds have trade-offs between security and decentralization. Decentralization should not be abandoned to keep one of Bitcoins most valuable characteristics. Censorship Resistance.

If bigger blocks and faster speeds were the answer to scale Bitcoin, and not contentious with risks of a chain-split, then I believe the Core developers would have went on that road already.

But you are welcome to use Bitcoin Cash, or something better, Dogecoin.

What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.  

FTFY,  

Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?

Yes, because non-mining nodes like yours are irrelevant and unnecessary.

The UASF taught everyone no. Plus my node validates my transactions without a need for me to trust anyone. That, for me, is very important.