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.  

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.

I know that LN is considered as a Off-chain , what about sidechain Pegged may it be also considered Off-chain ? I find many resources on the internet and the opinions do not match. Someone say that it is a off-chain solution but someone consider it as a third possibility : 1) On-chain 2) Off-chain 3) Sidechain

[squatter]

I know that LN is considered as a Off-chain , what about sidechain Pegged may it be also considered Off-chain ? I find many resources on the internet and the opinions do not match. Someone say that it is a off-chain solution but someone consider it as a third possibility : 1) On-chain 2) Off-chain 3) Sidechain

That's probably because there are multiple types of sidechains, each with different effects on scalability.

Federated sidechains have a trusted group of validators that enforces the sidechain consensus. It's basically an altcoin that can interact with Bitcoin. This would be an off-chain solution, since the sidechain consensus doesn't involve Bitcoin miners or mainchain consensus.

Drivechains or merge-mined sidechains are enforced by miners and/or full nodes. While they are not on-chain in the sense of the Bitcoin mainchain, they increase mining and full node overheads the same exact way that an on-chain block size increase would.

[Wind_FURY]

Look at the troll. Proposing something, believing that a hard fork, that would scale the network in, IN Bitcoin would be "easy".

Troll, go use Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin.

[DooMAD]

My stance hasn't changed since this post.

I guess it's also been a while since someone posted one of these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/acbwry/scaling_vs_increasing_the_blocksize_a_hddssd/

[Wind_FURY]

My stance hasn't changed since this post.

As the stupid one in the community, I follow who, I believe, are the most competent people in the community. I'm open, and listen, on why "some people" believe they are not the most competent, but I haven't heard anything from "them" that has changed my mind that the Core developers are the most competent group of developers in the world for cryptocurrencies.

[Wind_FURY]

The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1.

What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.

[DooMAD]

The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1.

What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.

Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone.  Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer.  It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.

All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.

[Wind_FURY]

The truth about the troll is coming out. He's actually another anti-Core big blocker, like my friend, franky1.

What the big blockers can't accept about Bitcoin's development is that it WILL become a store of value on the base-layer, and medium of exchange on layers developed on top. The solution simply isn't "big blocks", that scales the network in.

Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone.  Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer.  It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.

The #NO2X movement CLEARLY showed that bigger block size had strong opposition from the community.

All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.

The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.

[TheNewAnon135246]

The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.

Yeah, Nope.

Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.

I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.

Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.

 

Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!

[Wind_FURY]

The trolls are being trolls because Bitcoin is winning/WILL WIN the war of attrition. Wait for the halvings of Bitcoin Cash and its fork, Bitcoin Cash SV.

Yeah, Nope.

Your winning just dropped to ~$6k.

I guess you won't get it thru your thick skull that bitcoin can drop to $zero until it does.

Enjoy your fantasies , sorry that reality is smacking the shit out of you.

 

Please compare BItcoin's drop to the drop of every other shitcoin. Thanks!

It's only partly about the price. It's which cryptocurrency truly is the most valuable, for the economic majority, and the miners. It's obvious that everyone demands Bitcoin more than Rogercoin or Craigcoin.

[hv_]

all scaling ever was about

go

industrial


no hobby system / experiment ever scaled from its laboratory setup



get over and see how BSV does that - it works EXACTLY a Satoshi designed it

[elenag1442]

You may likewise got to investigate the way Mimblewimble should expand TX throughput ability..
What's more, only straight up Block-chain Pruning, where hubs don't got to store the entire block-chain is another..
Another a part of conceivable scaling issues is data transfer capacity necessities to run full hubs..
This is exactly what strikes a chord on behalf of me however this is not generally my material.