Scalabillty not an issue?

[blipblip]

The community seems to agree that we will see bitcoin at 50-100k, people are predicting it, doesn’t matter if it’s an ”expert” or not. This rise in price is for the most part ”possible” because of the halving next year.


One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability, in 2017 we saw 250k transactions waiting to be sent and fees up to 100$ and as far as i know that problem isn’t solved. Sure we have a stronger Lignting network but it is not used by the majority of transactions and probably not ready for it.

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

[1715667990]

1715667990

[1715667990]

1715667990

[1715667990]

1715667990

[1715667990]

1715667990

[1715667990]

1715667990

[shield132]

The community seems to agree that we will see bitcoin at 50-100k, people are predicting it, doesn’t matter if it’s an ”expert” or not. This rise in price is for the most part ”possible” because of the halving next year.


One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability, in 2017 we saw 250k transactions waiting to be sent and fees up to 100$ and as far as i know that problem isn’t solved. Sure we have a stronger Lignting network but it is not used by the majority of transactions and probably not ready for it.

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

And what if we consider the fact that there are a lot of hodlers? For most of them tx fees aren't huge opportunity cause they rarely spend, well it means nothing btw.
The reason we can see price that everyone predicts is that you already know halving reduces number of bitcoins mined per block which to translate means 1/2 of current reward. In order to keep mining and miners, we need high price to make mining profitable again. Halving just pushes us to rise price in order to keep mining.
Also you mentioned correctly, because of lighting network (despite the fact that it's not used massively), people hope that they'll be able to spend bitcoin with low fees. Some LN users and some regular users in overall will cause normal rise in tx fees which won't be critical.

[hello_good_sir]

The community seems to agree that we will see bitcoin at 50-100k, people are predicting it, doesn’t matter if it’s an ”expert” or not. This rise in price is for the most part ”possible” because of the halving next year.


One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability, in 2017 we saw 250k transactions waiting to be sent and fees up to 100$ and as far as i know that problem isn’t solved. Sure we have a stronger Lignting network but it is not used by the majority of transactions and probably not ready for it.

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

And what if we consider the fact that there are a lot of hodlers? For most of them tx fees aren't huge opportunity cause they rarely spend, well it means nothing btw.
The reason we can see price that everyone predicts is that you already know halving reduces number of bitcoins mined per block which to translate means 1/2 of current reward. In order to keep mining and miners, we need high price to make mining profitable again. Halving just pushes us to rise price in order to keep mining.
Also you mentioned correctly, because of lighting network (despite the fact that it's not used massively), people hope that they'll be able to spend bitcoin with low fees. Some LN users and some regular users in overall will cause normal rise in tx fees which won't be critical.

It depends to be fair, obviously, a lot of the people using bitcoin nowadays are mostly in it to make large amounts of profit, and will likely not even sell their BTC until the profit is reached, and this makes the network easier to manage, ofc.

But, when bitcoin does become more adopted and popular, we are 100 percent going to see more transactions, which means higher transaction costs and slower transaction confirmation - which can be easily countered, if we get more miners in the coming years where bitcoin makes it big.

[blipblip]

The community seems to agree that we will see bitcoin at 50-100k, people are predicting it, doesn’t matter if it’s an ”expert” or not. This rise in price is for the most part ”possible” because of the halving next year.


One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability, in 2017 we saw 250k transactions waiting to be sent and fees up to 100$ and as far as i know that problem isn’t solved. Sure we have a stronger Lignting network but it is not used by the majority of transactions and probably not ready for it.

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

And what if we consider the fact that there are a lot of hodlers? For most of them tx fees aren't huge opportunity cause they rarely spend, well it means nothing btw.
The reason we can see price that everyone predicts is that you already know halving reduces number of bitcoins mined per block which to translate means 1/2 of current reward. In order to keep mining and miners, we need high price to make mining profitable again. Halving just pushes us to rise price in order to keep mining.
Also you mentioned correctly, because of lighting network (despite the fact that it's not used massively), people hope that they'll be able to spend bitcoin with low fees. Some LN users and some regular users in overall will cause normal rise in tx fees which won't be critical.

So you are saying that the transaction problem that was an issue 2017 is not an issue if we see lets say bitcoin at 50k in 2020 because people don't sell? Then how is the price going up?

[hatshepsut93]

Scalability hurts Bitcoin's adoption as a currency, but it's not a problem for Bitcoin being a store of value, and Bitcoin's properties as a store of value (deflationary, decentralized) can justify pretty high prices. Also, these high predictions merely say that the price will touch that level, not stay there - we had 80+% corrections in the past, so some correction is definitely happening after we get to a new ATH.

[alani123]

Scalabillty is not about the price. Whatever solution is proposed to allow for more transactions to be completed through bitcoin, price of BTC shouldn't be the primary factor of consideration. Solutions are focused on how much immutability and security are up-kept, along with opportunity to participate in the decentralized network. Of course it is still an issue but for any proposal to materialize with satisfactory ways to fulfill the demand at high standard, it's going to take time and a lot of testing. Side-chains are a proposed solution that are likely to be utilized on bitcoin.

But really, all this fuss in 2017 might have been artificial. Now we're left with a bunch of altcoins that have 'bitcoin' in their name but in the end have less transactions per second, although supposedly solving the scalability issue.

[blipblip]

The community seems to agree that we will see bitcoin at 50-100k, people are predicting it, doesn’t matter if it’s an ”expert” or not. This rise in price is for the most part ”possible” because of the halving next year.


One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability, in 2017 we saw 250k transactions waiting to be sent and fees up to 100$ and as far as i know that problem isn’t solved. Sure we have a stronger Lignting network but it is not used by the majority of transactions and probably not ready for it.

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

And what if we consider the fact that there are a lot of hodlers? For most of them tx fees aren't huge opportunity cause they rarely spend, well it means nothing btw.
The reason we can see price that everyone predicts is that you already know halving reduces number of bitcoins mined per block which to translate means 1/2 of current reward. In order to keep mining and miners, we need high price to make mining profitable again. Halving just pushes us to rise price in order to keep mining.
Also you mentioned correctly, because of lighting network (despite the fact that it's not used massively), people hope that they'll be able to spend bitcoin with low fees. Some LN users and some regular users in overall will cause normal rise in tx fees which won't be critical.

It depends to be fair, obviously, a lot of the people using bitcoin nowadays are mostly in it to make large amounts of profit, and will likely not even sell their BTC until the profit is reached, and this makes the network easier to manage, ofc.

But, when bitcoin does become more adopted and popular, we are 100 percent going to see more transactions, which means higher transaction costs and slower transaction confirmation - which can be easily countered, if we get more miners in the coming years where bitcoin makes it big.

Yes of course, depending on when the profit is reached.

Does the amount of miners matter when it comes to amount of transactions? Isn't the size per block an issue even if there will be more miners in the future?

I believe that if we will see bitcoin at 50k+ without Lightning Network or an similar idea we need to do it slow, i don't believe we can reach that high in a few months.

[eaLiTy]

Scalability hurts Bitcoin's adoption as a currency, but it's not a problem for Bitcoin being a store of value, and Bitcoin's properties as a store of value (deflationary, decentralized) can justify pretty high prices. Also, these high predictions merely say that the price will touch that level, not stay there - we had 80+% corrections in the past, so some correction is definitely happening after we get to a new ATH.

Scaling is what stops bitcoin from major adoption and as a user i do not want my transaction to be stuck in the mempool for days nor wanted to increase my transaction fees to make transaction faster on a regular basis, bitcoin cannot survive for the long term just as a store of value as you cannot expect the price of bitcoin having any stability and store of value means you need to have a stable price or you can consider bitcoin as a high volatile high risk store of value and you explain that to economist and they will laugh at you .
We are at the beginning phase and we will have some good solution in the future as there are many developers dedicating to make it better.

[seoincorporation]

I think Lighting network will be the only viable solution for this issue because we already know what happened when someone tries to fix this offering bigger blocks, so, since bigger blocks aren't viable for bitcoin then it gets stuck waiting for a new technology who can fix it, and LN is the answer.

Bitcoin was made to move big amounts of money and not to make cents payments and we can see that with the transaction fees, while better is bitcoin price bigger are the fees.

[7788bitcoin]

But, when bitcoin does become more adopted and popular, we are 100 percent going to see more transactions, which means higher transaction costs and slower transaction confirmation - which can be easily countered, if we get more miners in the coming years where bitcoin makes it big.

More miners will not sort the slower transaction problem  , we are improving with time and Lightening network is one solution that can be implemented to over come those but you cannot expect everyone to follow that, even if we have less miners we can adjust the difficulty level and carry on the process, if you get more transaction per day your transaction gets stuck and the users paying the higher fees will have the priority and this is a capitalist theory bitcoin is following  .

[hatshepsut93]

bitcoin cannot survive for the long term just as a store of value as you cannot expect the price of bitcoin having any stability and store of value means you need to have a stable price or you can consider bitcoin as a high volatile high risk store of value and you explain that to economist and they will laugh at you .

Volatility is actually mostly a problem for a currency, since it's bad for storing value short-term, but in long term its effects won't be felt, and since Bitcoin tends to grow with time, due to having a lot of untapped potential for adoption and being deflationary, it really is a good store of value. Yeah, you shouldn't put 100% of your net worth in it, but there's very good chance that if you'll put 10%, it will grow to 50% of your portfolio.

[Velkro]

With this problem still ”active” how can we see a the price everyone is predicting?

Its not active problem by me. If problem is congestion in transactions once every 4-6 years while demand to trade spikes 1000%-10000% in no time?
Pay more to overcome that or wait for your turn . Simple yet beautiful.

[Upgate]

If it doesn't matter if an expert or a novice predict the price increase or decrease then any one can give baseless price prediction.
Bitcoin right now to be honest is mainly use for investing cash than to use it for other things it will not just affect price alone but trying to spread it

[Carlton Banks]

Does the amount of miners matter when it comes to amount of transactions?

no

you could say more miners means more competition, and that pushes them to think harder about how to make their transaction choosing tech work more efficiently, but that's gonna have the tiniest effect to the users wanting to get money sent

I believe that if we will see bitcoin at 50k+ without Lightning Network or an similar idea we need to do it slow, i don't believe we can reach that high in a few months.

Not that bothered myself if huge gains don't materialize next year. Too many people are getting into Bitcoin for the wrong reasons, it's far better to take exactly as long as it needs to get the scaling (and privacy and network strength and fungibility...) done right, rushing it carries an increase in the risk of a price of $0K


Saying that, there's more scaling tech coming next year: schnorr & taproot. Or at least, optimistically, they'll roll out next year, and they're on-chain related. Lightning will be improved by then too, too many Lightning improvements are coming to list quickly (and are all  easier to roll out than the schnorr & taproot)

[DooMAD]

One major problem that no one is talking about is scalability

Really?  You must be reading the wrong topics, heh.  I see a great deal of discussion about it.

Since it's something a large number of people are working on, I don't worry about it as much as I used to.  There's definitely stuff in the pipeline that's going to assist with scaling, so it's just a matter of waiting.

[Gyfts]

Right now the scaling discussion needs to be compared to the volume of transactions of some of the larger credit card transaction companies. They deal with millions of transactions a day which authorize funds immediately. Scaling is dependent on the verification time of transactions and transaction fees. Credit card companies aren't going to charge users to verify the deposit of funds. The bitcoin community seems to be ignoring the issue too because they're hyper focused on the price increase.

[Twinkledoe]

I think Lighting network will be the only viable solution for this issue because we already know what happened when someone tries to fix this offering bigger blocks, so, since bigger blocks aren't viable for bitcoin then it gets stuck waiting for a new technology who can fix it, and LN is the answer.

Bitcoin was made to move big amounts of money and not to make cents payments and we can see that with the transaction fees, while better is bitcoin price bigger are the fees.

I think Lightning Network needs good exposure to all those bitcoin users. It really addresses the hefty fee that we are paying for a regular btc transaction, whereas, you will pay almost nothing via LN. Am wondering as well why it has not gone a massive adoption til now?

[franky1]

Since it's something a large number of people are working on, I don't worry about it as much as I used to.  There's definitely stuff in the pipeline that's going to assist with scaling, so it's just a matter of waiting.

scalability talks heightened in 2015.. its now 2019 .. 4 years of waiting... yawn
and no solution insight for the btc network
and no dont even bother to pump the PR waggon about alternate networks like sidechains and networks that are not even blockchains.
we still have not surpassed the 600k tx a day threshold.. so dont even pretend things have been done.
also with fixes as far back as 2013-2015 the btc network can cope with more transactions per second if the baseblock number was not limited. but still 4 years on.. nothing

but we know you love stalling btc network scalability to promote that people should use other networks if they are not happy with the delays. that has been your mindset for the last few years. just a shame your preference is alt networks and not scaling the btc network

you really should just go full alt network fangirl and stop the pretense that your a btc fan, as your mindset is pretty obvious on the subject

[ene1980]

Since it's something a large number of people are working on, I don't worry about it as much as I used to.  There's definitely stuff in the pipeline that's going to assist with scaling, so it's just a matter of waiting.

scalability talks heightened in 2015.. its now 2019 .. 4 years of waiting... yawn
and no solution insight for the btc network
and no dont even bother to pump the PR waggon about alternate networks like sidechains and networks that are not even blockchains.

May i ask what is your scaling solution, i agree side chains are not the solutions but in your opinion what you will do to scale bitcoin, i have seen some of your debates in this forum and you are a good critic but i am yet to find your solution on how to scale.  LN is an option for users who are willing to accept payments through it and it will aide merchants for micro payments and i hope there will be other viable solutions in the future for mass adoption.

 

[Eugenar]

If it doesn't matter if an expert or a novice predict the price increase or decrease then any one can give baseless price prediction.
Bitcoin right now to be honest is mainly use for investing cash than to use it for other things it will not just affect price alone but trying to spread it

Basically there are people without reference when predicting the price of bitcoin, they just state what they feel about the market without any analysis made from the situation. And regarding the use of bitcoin, there are still people who utilize Bitcoin, not just for investment, it is a mode of payment that is suitable for huge amount of money as it is proven secure. Though The thing here is the Lightning network, massive adoption of it is needed, bitcoin's transaction fee is too high especially when there are many transactions.

[franky1]

May i ask what is your scaling solution, i agree side chains are not the solutions but in your opinion what you will do to scale bitcoin, i have seen some of your debates in this forum and you are a good critic but i am yet to find your solution on how to scale.  LN is an option for users who are willing to accept payments through it and it will aide merchants for micro payments and i hope there will be other viable solutions in the future for mass adoption.

those fangirls who hate btc network scaling but love promoting alt networks like LN and sidechains, always try to make scaling the btc network sound like LEAPING not scaling. they use their scripted mantra's of 'gigabytes by midnight'

scaling is just that.. a scale, meaning gradual increase.
and no. segwit is not 'scaling' its shuffling of numbers that cause more hard drive bloat but no actual large impact on transactions per day increases (still under 600k a day tx performed 8 years after satoshi himself suggested moving away from 1mb block, but didnt get to se that idea prosper, and it instead got ignored)

so here is some suggestions i have made over years
1. decrease the max txsigops from thousands to just hundreds(or less) no one deserves to have a whole block to themselves of only a fw TX's that can bloat a block or could cause propogation delays.

2. knowing that a maxtx sigop linear validation attack using legacy tx's cant occur due to point 1, next would be to remove the 1mb baseblock and the silly 4x math(weight) and instead just have a fully utilisable 4mb block. thus actually get more transactions. plus again due to a low sigops would ensure more transactions per block. and not a few bloated tx's filling 4mb of space
currently someone can fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's. which is a stupidly allowed thing to have and would be stupid to allow 5 tx to fill 4mb of space. thus maxtxsigops neds addressing

3. alot of people think limiting tx per block makes people pay more thus helps mining pools cover costs. however the economics dosnt play out that way. if tx's start costing $1 each. less people transact and get pee'd off with using the btc network. however by having a fully utilisable 4mb of space = 4x transactions = 4x the amount of sats per byte possibility. thus pools still get more income

4. the btc network can handle more than 4mb a block but as the word and above described SCALING is incremental

5. also we can implement a new and actually beneficial 'transaction fee formulae' we actually had one years ago but it had its flaws. so devs just removed it, which just made transactions a wildwest of bidding wars of confusion and guesswork which resulted in higher fee's even when blocks only had a couple hundred tx's in them

6. as for the historic data storage. thats simple. imagine a UTXO set data screenshot is taken as of how it would be at block 210,000(year 2012). and is hashed as a datablock.
then at block 630,000(year 2020) that 210,000 datablock becomes the new 'regenesis' block
then a screnshot of utxo states are taken of how it would be at block 420,000 which becomes the 'regenesis block' of block 840,000(year 2024)... thus the blockchain changes from holding every years data, to holding 8 years of chain data and the 'utxo state' of prior to that. thus can prune off the previous chained blockdata

it can be done by having the blockchain have 2 block hashes. one for the current chainwork of blocks and another for the 'regenesis block' plus blocks after it chainwork. and eventually a flip would occur where we then just use the regensis blocks chainwork once enough time has passed that the network is happy that they trust the (8 year old) data is immutable

i can understand people wrongly think that a starbucks giftcard is real fiat as its 'measured' in £$ but take a starbucks giftcard and try buying a soda in a 7-11 and it will be refused. as its not an actual bank not or debit card.
same mistake is for things like LN. it is not real btc. it is a non blockchain, non peer validated network it is more like a joint bank account negotiation which has its limits and its flaws and its holes.(even LN devs have lost funds using it) thus should not be given the same 'branding' as a secure network such as the btc network
we should not be trying to promote that bitcoin is limited and people should try other networks. as that is just saying bitcoin failed.. the only failure is devs avoiding actually allowing the bitcoin network to scale