Bitcoin Scalability

[hknot]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

[1714465487]

1714465487

[1714465487]

1714465487

[1714465487]

1714465487

[seoincorporation]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

With the first two methods you will have material to create a nice work for your school, just find information about how those options fight against the Scalability...

*Bigger blocks mean more transactions inside each block but a bigger blonchain in the long run.
*Lightning Network is a little more complex, but it opens payment channels, and it cost only one transaction to open the channel and another to close it.

[franky1]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

With the first two methods you will have material to create a nice work for your school, just find information about how those options fight against the Scalability...

*Bigger blocks mean more transactions inside each block but a bigger blonchain in the long run.
*Lightning Network is a little more complex, but it opens payment channels, and it cost only one transaction to open the channel and another to close it.

the first one is scaling bitcoin. the other two are locking funds and diverting people over to other networks using pegged tokens not real bitcoin.. its like converting gold to a bank note

lightning doesnt use blockchains and doesnt have the mass validation and is more private. thus comes with risks
sharding is more regional blockchains with a master chain.

a true scaling solution is ofcourse allowing more transactions on the bitcoin network and not trying to make using bitcoin too expensive to use.

[eddie13]

You may also want to look into the way Mimblewimble is supposed to increase TX throughput capability..

And just straight up Blockchain Pruning, where nodes don't have to store the entire blockchain is another..

Another aspect of possible scaling problems is bandwidth requirements to run full nodes..

This is just what comes to mind for me though this is not really my area of expertise..

[figmentofmyass]

Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

increasing block size doesn't improve scalability. it just linearly increases transaction throughput while also linearly increasing bandwidth, latency, and storage costs.

like the lightning network, sidechains/drivechains intend to scale the bitcoin network by sending transactions off-chain onto separate protocols which interact with bitcoin.

physical bearer instruments are another possible solution for scalability. "bitcoin sticks" can be passed around like cash, removing the need for on-chain transactions at all.

[squatter]

- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Are we talking theoretically, or in practice? Because I don't think sharding will ever be implemented in Bitcoin. It completely trades off redundancy -- the backbone of the P2P protocol -- for scale. Ethereum is being forced to consider it because of its unsustainable throughput demands, but the "decentralist" camp won't let it happen in Bitcoin.

Maybe we should start by identifying the exact issue. How do you define this "Bitcoin scalability problem?"

[pooya87]

scaling is not just about making the blocks bigger, that would be the easiest and least efficient solution. scaling is about increasing the efficiency so the same space could be used better. for example the new Schnorr signature proposal alongside Musig would use the same space but can shrink the transaction size by a lot, hence increasing "capacity" which you can refer to as scaling bitcoin.

speaking of efficiency i think we can categorize Erlay under scaling: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2019/06/05/

- Sharding

And just straight up Blockchain Pruning, where nodes don't have to store the entire blockchain is another..

sharding and pruning both are not scaling solutions, they are ways that can make it easier for individuals to run a full node since they reduce the storage space requirement.
categorizing them as scaling solutions is like saying running an SPV node is a scaling solution!

[EdvinZ]

In addition to the hard fork, which is irreversible, there is a soft fork, which is a reversible change. It is relevant when it is necessary to preserve the interaction of new network nodes with old ones. Not yet said about SegWit (Segregated Witness) — allows you to reduce the size of the transaction, this solution is a soft fork. SegWit also opened the possibility to introduce Schnorr's multi-signatures into practical use. This scheme is a combination of a signature and verification algorithm. Multiple signers can use just one signature for a joint transaction. All Bitcoin network scalability solutions solve the problems of low bandwidth cryptocurrency network and the problem of high fees.

[pooya87]

In addition to the hard fork, which is irreversible, there is a soft fork, which is a reversible change.

difference between soft and hard fork is not their reversibility. both are implementing changes that can not be reversed without significant changes in the protocol and additional risks.
the main difference is the backward compatibility.

Not yet said about SegWit (Segregated Witness) — allows you to reduce the size of the transaction,

wrong.
SegWit doesn't focus on transaction size, in fact SegWit transactions could slightly be bigger in size (raw bytes).

SegWit also opened the possibility to introduce Schnorr's multi-signatures into practical use.

wrong.
Schnorr signature has nothing to do with SegWit, it is a signature algorithm and an alternative to ECDSA (the current algorithm) which could have happened without SegWit. SegWit makes any new OP codes easier to implement with versioning system that it has.

[tsaroz]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

- Hard Fork - change block size
Bitcoincash is doing that. Seems like its not the ultimate solution. That would be an option for bitcoin too but we still need to look for better alternative.
Lightning network. A good solution for localized networks. But they may pose a threat to mining and industry.
Sharding, Let Ethereum successfully implement it. There are many things that could go wrong here.

[gesrhon7]

BTC Hello to all is anything on soft fork and hard fork on 2020 by God grace thanks

[Wind_FURY]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

With the first two methods you will have material to create a nice work for your school, just find information about how those options fight against the Scalability...

*Bigger blocks mean more transactions inside each block but a bigger blonchain in the long run.
*Lightning Network is a little more complex, but it opens payment channels, and it cost only one transaction to open the channel and another to close it.

the first one is scaling bitcoin. the other two are locking funds and diverting people over to other networks using pegged tokens not real bitcoin.. its like converting gold to a bank note

lightning doesnt use blockchains and doesnt have the mass validation and is more private. thus comes with risks
sharding is more regional blockchains with a master chain.

a true scaling solution is ofcourse allowing more transactions on the bitcoin network and not trying to make using bitcoin too expensive to use.

Before you furiously tap on that keyboard again, I believe we should clarify what "scaling" means. Define what scaling is, franky.

[EdvinZ]

In addition to the hard fork, which is irreversible, there is a soft fork, which is a reversible change.

difference between soft and hard fork is not their reversibility. both are implementing changes that can not be reversed without significant changes in the protocol and additional risks.
the main difference is the backward compatibility.

Not yet said about SegWit (Segregated Witness) — allows you to reduce the size of the transaction,

wrong.
SegWit doesn't focus on transaction size, in fact SegWit transactions could slightly be bigger in size (raw bytes).

SegWit also opened the possibility to introduce Schnorr's multi-signatures into practical use.

wrong.
Schnorr signature has nothing to do with SegWit, it is a signature algorithm and an alternative to ECDSA (the current algorithm) which could have happened without SegWit. SegWit makes any new OP codes easier to implement with versioning system that it has.

I admire your deep knowledge of the subject. My post is based on reading a popular article on the Internet. Please forgive me if I was inaccurate somewhere.

[Darooghe]

Hello guys,

I have just one  question. I am collecting some information about Bitcoin Scalability for my school work. Can please someboy write me all methods which are considered as Bitcoin scalability solutions ? when I try to google it everything what I found is:
- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Thank you.  

They seem to fall into two broad categories. on-chain and off-chain. on-chain scaling requires the developers to change one of Bitcoin's properties such as block size limit, transaction format, transaction signature format and etc. while off-chain scaling refers to approaches that increase the utility of the network without touching the blockchain. for example batching multiple payments into one transaction, virtual payments within the system of a custodian such as Coinbase, payment channels or lightning network, sidechains and etc. Off-chain is backwards compatible while on chain scaling isn't. On chain code is simpler and easier to maintain.

[hknot]

Thanks everyone for your advices! appreciate that

[hknot]

- Hard Fork - change block size
- Lightning Network
- Sharding

Is there any other methods which might solve the bitcoin scalability problem ?

Are we talking theoretically, or in practice? Because I don't think sharding will ever be implemented in Bitcoin. It completely trades off redundancy -- the backbone of the P2P protocol -- for scale. Ethereum is being forced to consider it because of its unsustainable throughput demands, but the "decentralist" camp won't let it happen in Bitcoin.

Maybe we should start by identifying the exact issue. How do you define this "Bitcoin scalability problem?"

Thanks for your comment. I would describe Bitcoin scalability problem as (correct me if I am wrong) - inability to process a large number of transactions (like for example VISA). which result in impossibility to implemented Bitcoin as normal daily payment method for large amouth of people.

[squatter]

Maybe we should start by identifying the exact issue. How do you define this "Bitcoin scalability problem?"

Thanks for your comment. I would describe Bitcoin scalability problem as (correct me if I am wrong) - inability to process a large number of transactions (like for example VISA). which result in impossibility to implemented Bitcoin as normal daily payment method for large amouth of people.

Achieving VISA-level scale was never a realistic goal for the base protocol. The costs of global decentralized consensus are simply too high. Bitcoin is robust as a P2P protocol because of its redundancy -- every node processes every transaction. Adding endless throughput to the base network would make it impossible to run a node, destroying that redundancy. Not to mention the increased costs for miners due to block orphaning, which would encourage mining centralization.

That's why developers and the community have opted to minimally increase throughput on the base network while building interoperable networks (like Lightning) that can deliver exponential scale with minimal added costs.

[enhu]

So far its the lightning that is working well for BTC and makes it better because of low fees.
Lets say sharding is successfully deployed in ethereum and has improved their TPS, would it be possible for it to be with BTC as well without it being complex as creating channel like the LN?

[Artemis3]

scaling is not just about making the blocks bigger, that would be the easiest and least efficient solution. scaling is about increasing the efficiency so the same space could be used better. for example the new Schnorr signature proposal alongside Musig would use the same space but can shrink the transaction size by a lot, hence increasing "capacity" which you can refer to as scaling bitcoin.

Well since this is as good opportunity as any, the question is: When Schnorr?

What is holding back this proposal, what are the cons (if any?) for it to be delayed? Is it a security risk?

[pooya87]

scaling is not just about making the blocks bigger, that would be the easiest and least efficient solution. scaling is about increasing the efficiency so the same space could be used better. for example the new Schnorr signature proposal alongside Musig would use the same space but can shrink the transaction size by a lot, hence increasing "capacity" which you can refer to as scaling bitcoin.

Well since this is as good opportunity as any, the question is: When Schnorr?

What is holding back this proposal, what are the cons (if any?) for it to be delayed? Is it a security risk?

well since it is a new signature scheme with a new OP code that probably requires a new witness version, it takes a lot of time to implement it, test it, optimize it and test it some more before adding it as a part of bitcoin consensus. consensus related changes must take a lot of time because they are security critical.
then it requires a soft fork that would also take some time to get the network to get on board and accept it.

the specifications of the proposal can be found here: https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
although things are moving forward but i haven't seen any dates.