Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2019, 12:39:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: On chain scaling  (Read 300 times)
RP08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 16, 2018, 06:14:46 AM
Last edit: December 16, 2018, 06:38:48 AM by RP08
 #1

First off, I really want apologize for wasting everyone's time.
I am no software developer and I really have the vaguest understanding of blockchain technically speaking.
I am just an average Joe who happens to be a huge fan of Bitcoin and not so good at explaining things.
I don't understand how any of this works but I do understand scaling somewhat thanks to Litecoin.
More coins = Faster/cheaper transactions.

Since adding more coins to Bitcoin would be detrimental to the integrity and would result in a fork like it has time after time.
Could you instead scale to the parameters of Bitcoin's 21 million coins?

This is what I mean.
since there are 21,000,000 Bitcoins which are made up of 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion) individual units.
Instead of adding more Bitcoins could you just add smaller fractions to the smallest individual unit?
Then roughly scale the chain up 1:1 increasing the overall individual units? Making Bitcoin faster?
So if I owned 100,000,000 bitcoin units I now own 100,000,000,000 units, but basically the same thing.

Does this make sense at all?

Will better hardware eventually make bitcoins scaling problems non existent anyway?




1558571952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558571952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558571952
Reply with quote  #2

1558571952
Report to moderator
1558571952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558571952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558571952
Reply with quote  #2

1558571952
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558571952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558571952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558571952
Reply with quote  #2

1558571952
Report to moderator
1558571952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558571952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558571952
Reply with quote  #2

1558571952
Report to moderator
1558571952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558571952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558571952
Reply with quote  #2

1558571952
Report to moderator
joniboini
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 1029



View Profile WWW
December 16, 2018, 07:34:38 AM
Merited by bones261 (1), HeRetiK (1)
 #2

I think you got the wrong idea here. Scaling != increase the number of coins, nor more coins == faster transactions speeds. There are several factors that affect how fast/slow a block is generated, but the number of coins is not one of them. For example, block size, block time, difficulty and etc.

Litecoin is relatively faster because it has a faster block generation time, not because it has more coins (2.5 mins vs 10 mins). Other alt try to improve scaling by increasing block size so it can handle more transactions per block.

Your idea won't work, because the block size/block time of Bitcoin will still be the same. CMIIW.

Will better hardware eventually make bitcoins scaling problems non existent anyway?

Not really. Better hardware (I assume mining hardware, with a very high calculation power) will only result in a higher difficulty to produce a block. It might change the average block generation for around 2 weeks to be faster than 10 minutes but it will go back after the difficulty got readjusted.

███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
#1
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
BTC 
  ●
   BTC
  BTC  
.
    ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀
 ▄██▀
███        ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
▀███▄▄▄▄▀▀▀                 ▀▀▄▄
  ▀▀▀██████████████████████████▀
   ▄█▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▀▀██▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
      ▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
      ▀██▄  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
        ▀█▀██████████████▀▀
         ▀█▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
            █▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀
             ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
     BTC
  BTC   
  ●
  BTC  
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1766

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
December 16, 2018, 04:50:18 PM
 #3

Will better hardware eventually make bitcoins scaling problems non existent anyway?

No, but it will reduce the problem since costs of running full nodes would be cheaper (unless you never change your computer/server), so small block size/weight limit increase should be acceptable, even though majority would disagree.

Also, on-chain have difficulty regarding scaling without trade-off.

coinfirst
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 19, 2018, 09:18:37 AM
 #4

Not considering sharding, tps is determined by block sizem while latency is determined by block time. So if we want to scaling on the whole chain, it is necessary to increase block size and/or decrease block time.
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1766

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
December 19, 2018, 06:18:03 PM
 #5

Not considering sharding, tps is determined by block sizem while latency is determined by block time. So if we want to scaling on the whole chain, it is necessary to increase block size and/or decrease block time.

It's quite inaccurate since :
1. TPS also determined by transaction size. Less input/output and compress transaction (specifically signature part) also can increase TPS
2. Latency depends on latency of each peer and how many hops required for transaction/block to make sure all nodes receive transaction/block. I think you mean confirmation time

Also, you should aware that increase block size or decrease block time have trade off such as higher cost to run full nodes and potential bug/orphan caused by decrease block time such as faster coin generation and all locked output with block height value messed up.

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1298


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
December 21, 2018, 10:47:38 PM
 #6

I don't see why we can't scale to 10 Gigabyte blocks, even without zero conf, worst wait time is about 10 minutes.  Taking an average 1000 bytes per TX, we are looking at roughly 10 million transactions per block.

All you need is to find some people who want to run nodes that support these 10GB blocks.  Otherwise it's not a peer-to-peer network.  Being peer-to-peer is kind of an important aspect of what we're doing here.  It's easy to achieve scaling if you completely compromise the important stuff and make something that works in a similar manner to how visa works.  The hard part is scaling in a way that doesn't sacrifice the things that make Bitcoin better than visa.


CreateCryptoCo.in
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2019, 10:37:57 PM
 #7

the scaling issue, is a disk issue, we use to host bitcoin nodes and 40gigabytes was fine but when it goes over 100gb and up to 150gb then its a hosting
problem , meaning the network will be smaller cuz less stuff running on raspberry pi'es and other cheap hardware, what u need is a good way to verify transactions without saving them
khaled0111
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 714
Merit: 344


Does people really read this!


View Profile
January 02, 2019, 12:20:33 AM
 #8

the scaling issue, is a disk issue, we use to host bitcoin nodes and 40gigabytes was fine but when it goes over 100gb and up to 150gb then its a hosting
problem , meaning the network will be smaller cuz less stuff running on raspberry pi'es and other cheap hardware, what u need is a good way to verify transactions without saving them

The scalability issue has nothing to do with disk space or storage devices.
The problem is with the increasing number of transactions and the limited block size.

▄▀











▀▄
▄▀











▀▄

      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ██▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀██
 ██▀      ▀█▀      ▀██
█████████▄   ▄█████████
█████▄      ▐██████████
█████████▀   ▀█████████
 ██▄      ▄█▄      ▄██
  ██▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄██
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████▀▀
BitcoinCasino.com
▀▄











▄▀
▀▄











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











▀▄
▄▀











▀▄
▀▄











▄▀
▀▄











▄▀
joniboini
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 1029



View Profile WWW
January 02, 2019, 03:33:48 AM
 #9

what u need is a good way to verify transactions without saving them

How can we verify that you truly own the bitcoin if we don't have a history of past transactions?

The scalability issue has nothing to do with disk space or storage devices.
The problem is with the increasing number of transactions and the limited block size.

Those two are related imo. If we increase block size & time, the size of blockchain will definitely get bigger and probably cause some kind of centralization too in terms of who store the blockchain. We need to find a way where we can verify more transactions without increasing the block size too much, which Segwit did. CMIIW.

███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
#1
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
BTC 
  ●
   BTC
  BTC  
.
    ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀
 ▄██▀
███        ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
▀███▄▄▄▄▀▀▀                 ▀▀▄▄
  ▀▀▀██████████████████████████▀
   ▄█▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▀▀██▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
      ▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
      ▀██▄  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
        ▀█▀██████████████▀▀
         ▀█▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
            █▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀
             ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
     BTC
  BTC   
  ●
  BTC  
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
khaled0111
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 714
Merit: 344


Does people really read this!


View Profile
January 02, 2019, 04:40:35 AM
Last edit: January 02, 2019, 04:58:33 AM by khaled0111
 #10

Those two are related imo. If we increase block size & time, the size of blockchain will definitely get bigger and probably cause some kind of centralization too in terms of who store the blockchain. We need to find a way where we can verify more transactions without increasing the block size too much, which Segwit did. CMIIW.
I have to agree that both are related, there are many solutions to the scalability issue and one of them (but not the best) is increasing block size. Now, the blockchain size issue is not that urgent especially with the fast growth of the technology industry (high Internet bandwith/ storage devices) or we can simply refer to Satoshi recommendation since all of this is his idea in first place:
Quote
as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

▄▀











▀▄
▄▀











▀▄

      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ██▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀██
 ██▀      ▀█▀      ▀██
█████████▄   ▄█████████
█████▄      ▐██████████
█████████▀   ▀█████████
 ██▄      ▄█▄      ▄██
  ██▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄██
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████▀▀
BitcoinCasino.com
▀▄











▄▀
▀▄











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











▀▄
▄▀











▀▄
▀▄











▄▀
▀▄











▄▀
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1766

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2019, 05:46:42 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4), khaled0111 (1)
 #11

the scaling issue, is a disk issue, we use to host bitcoin nodes and 40gigabytes was fine but when it goes over 100gb and up to 150gb then its a hosting
problem , meaning the network will be smaller cuz less stuff running on raspberry pi'es and other cheap hardware, what u need is a good way to verify transactions without saving them

It's problem for initial sync, not on-chain scaling as old/cheap hardware can run full nodes smoothly (assumed they have big HDD capacity)

what u need is a good way to verify transactions without saving them
How can we verify that you truly own the bitcoin if we don't have a history of past transactions?

I think he's talking about pruning, but this still require you download all blockchain, verify all block/transaction, record UTXO on chainstate and remove older blocks. But this isn't real solution against increasing blockchain size problem.

Those two are related imo. If we increase block size & time, the size of blockchain will definitely get bigger and probably cause some kind of centralization too in terms of who store the blockchain. We need to find a way where we can verify more transactions without increasing the block size too much, which Segwit did. CMIIW.
I have to agree that both are related, there are many solutions to the scalability issue and one of them (but not the best) is increasing block size. Now, the blockchain size issue is not that urgent especially with the fast growth of the technology industry (high Internet bandwith/ storage devices) or we can simply refer to Satoshi recommendation since all of this is his idea in first place:
Quote
as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

There are better solution such as :
1. Move transaction to off-chain/side-chain (such as LN and Plasma)
2. Reduce transaction size (such as MuSig:Schnorr and MAST)
3. Reduce bandwidth used when propagate transaction/block (such as Minisketch)

Increasing block size is needed, but IMO we shouldn't use it as 1st option.

Pages: [1]
  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!