One simple idea to solve bitcoin block size problem

[bearexin]

How about minting bitcoin based bitcoin-tokens only for transaction purposes.

I mean it may work like this:
1. Open source based bitcoin core wallet like software needs to be developed which needs to accept BTCs.
2. For the equivalent of number of BTCs are supplied, it needs to give us a higher block size based tokens.
3. Again, it needs to accept same tokens to unlock BTCs.

Pros:
1. You will be able to move either BTCs or BTC-tokens, hence 21M supply will never get disturbed.
2. You hold your bitcoins or BTC-tokens hence you never need to depend on any 3rd party.

Disclaimer:
I am not a technical person hence I am not aware of feasibility of such thing. Still, I believe devs just need an idea as anything could be implemented.

(If this already got discussed, kindly let me know to lock this topic immediately).

Let's discuss and fine tune the possible solution to bitcoin-block-size problem.

[BlackHatCoiner]

To be honest, i don't understand how it works. Is your idea moving bitcoin transaction to side-chain or another blockchain entirely with custom script or tokenization?

I think he's talking about different blockchain, even if I haven't fully understood him too. @bearexin, I think there's already a thing like that you mentioned and it's called bitcoin cash except if I'm wrong.

How are those BTC tokens are going to be minted? By who? Also, how is this going to solve the block size problem?

1. You will be able to move either BTCs or BTC-tokens, hence 21M supply will never get disturbed.

So tokens will be equivalent with bitcoins? Doesn't this make the supply equal with 42M BTC ?

[doomloop]

To be honest, i don't understand how it works. Is your idea moving bitcoin transaction to side-chain or another blockchain entirely with custom script or tokenization?

OP is sounding like seeding an idea for on-going higher BTC tx fees. So, it can be side-chain or all new blockchain or anything; I guess it will be up to devs who feel which one is compatible and efficient.

I think there's already a thing like that you mentioned and it's called bitcoin cash except if I'm wrong.

Bitcoin cash? Then we have already such things at least in 100s.


OP, I like your idea. But, not sure about the feasibility in real time.

You sound like we need same bitcoins but on different blockchain. It may become possible if this will be possible: a trustless environment based 1 to 1 swap with backward compatibility.

[pooya87]

your idea sounds to be describing some sort of side-chain or maybe even be similar to second layer solutions such as Lightning Network. you basically to the same in these solutions, you deposit your bitcoin on-chain into a "channel" then you can send as many transactions as you like on that network using the "tokens" you have in that channel that are "pegged" to your on-chain bitcoin.

this doesn't solve the block size problem it helps the scaling problem. these two are different. scaling problem is the problem of bitcoin wanting to handle billions of transactions in a short time and can not happen on chain ever no matter what you do. there is simply no on-chain solution for it. which is where second layer (eg. LN) comes in and tries solving it.
however for these solutions to work you need the on-chain scaling to happen to which can only happen if the block size were increased like the soft fork we had in 2017 that increased it by a max factor of 4 (as the potential) out of which about 2.2x is achieved.

[shirleytorres]

To be honest, i don't understand how it works. Is your idea moving bitcoin transaction to side-chain or another blockchain entirely with custom script or tokenization?

Me neither. Could you please explain your case more widely?

[DooMAD]

You say you would have a wallet that allows you to "unlock tokens" between BTC and "BTC-tokens", but this raises issues.  There would need to be a way to record these "BTC-tokens" to prevent double-spending and if that involves introducing another blockchain, you raise the question of who is securing that blockchain and how are they incentivised/rewarded for securing that chain?  

If you solve that problem, then you run into the issue where the larger blocksize tends to result in centralisation, as fewer nodes will want to bear the cost of relaying these larger blocks.

One alternative if you're not introducing another blockchain is to look at off-chain transactions, but this is already well underway in terms of development by several separate dev teams.  It's also a compromise in that you have to sacrifice some security and rely on a different trust model compared to normal Bitcoin transactions.  Ideas have also been floated regarding "sidechains", "treechains", "merged-mining", but each of these have compromises of their own.

It's nice that you're trying to help, but this is ground that has already been well trodden and sadly isn't likely to yield any sudden breakthroughs.

[Pmalek]

How about WBTC - the Wrapped Bitcoin token. It's tied 1:1 to the value of Bitcoin but it is an erc-20 token hosted on the Ethereum blockchain. You will get faster transactions and lower fees unless the DeFi hype takes off again. But WBTC is centralized in contrast to Bitcoin. You can convert BTC to WBTC and back to WBTC but you are relying on third parties to do their job. I am talking about locking up your BTC and minting the equal amount of WBTC. When you are done, you need those third parties to release your Bitcoin again.

[doomloop]

You can convert BTC to WBTC and back to WBTC but you are relying on third parties to do their job.

you need those third parties to release your Bitcoin again.

One day or other those third parties will run away with all your Bitcoins.

[Pmalek]

One day or other those third parties will run away with all your Bitcoins.

That threat always exists, but can the same thing not happen with most other services the we use? Casinos, exchanges, mixers... There have been many instances of this in throughout the young history of Bitcoin. Somewhere along the line you have to trust something, otherwise you will go mad. The most trusted individuals can one day decide to say: I don't care anymore, I will take whatever I can and disappear.   

[dkbit98]

There is something called Drivechain or Bitcoin sidechains that can be used for creating coins on top of Bitcoin as Layer2 solution.
This sounds much better to me than creating separate altcoins that are more or less just ghostchains.
I started a topic some time ago, but it didn't get much interest from other members:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5278428.0