Bitcoin scaling problem

[MeCsc]

I know that Bitcoin scaling problem develops as more users join bitcoin network but has this problem be resolved and if yes how is it been resolved.

[1715471524]

1715471524

[1715471524]

1715471524

[1715471524]

1715471524

[BlackHatCoiner]

The scaling problem exists, and will continue to exist, because there will always be a limited number of transactions that can be processed per second.

We don't know yet with certainty how it can be resolved best, but we know how it can't: just by adjusting a block size limit variable.

[Charles-Tim]

Some people may see it as a problem, but some people do not see it as a problem. The mempool is not congested most of the time. With low transaction fee, your transaction will get confirmed. You can use segwit (version 0 and pay-to-tap-root) for lower transaction, or use lightning network for transaction of lower amount.

As for the confirmation time, do not think that is ever going to reduce.

[MeCsc]

Short answer: It's only partially solved with on-chain (e.g. SegWit and Taproot), side-chain (e.g. RSK and Liquid) and off-chain solution (e.g. LN). But side-chain and off-chain solution has slow/little adaption problem due to few reasons.

Please can you explain the On-chain, side-chain and off-chain. I don't really understand them and how they work

[dkbit98]

I know that Bitcoin scaling problem develops as more users join bitcoin network but has this problem be resolved and if yes how is it been resolved.

Bitcoin scaling is not problem at all when you learn about Lightning Network and other second layer solutions, that can help a lot and introduce many features not available on Bitcoin mainnet.
I don't see scaling as such a big problem but in pervious years we saw periods with lot of transactions during bull runs, that increased transaction fees, but network still worked.
In fact, Bitcoin is up 99,98% of the time, that is more than any other network in the world since internet was created.

Please can you explain the On-chain, side-chain and off-chain. I don't really understand them and how they work

It's not a simple answer, but you can learn more about all other layers for Bitcoin:
https://www.lopp.net/bitcoin-information/other-layers.html

[stompix]

Please can you explain the On-chain, side-chain and off-chain. I don't really understand them and how they work

On-chain are traditional transactions, fully recorded into the main blockchain, they are limited by the amount of data each block can hold and the time between blocks.
From there you have two splits:
Side chains are blockchains that are tied to the bitcoin blockchain but have their own protocol rules, so they can offer more transacting capacity on their own but still require a deposit lock from the main chain. Two of them that really matter, Liquid and RSK
LN (Lighting Network) is off-chain, all the transactions inside it are happening off the main chain but it also doesn't have its own blockchain like the others.

Some people may see it as a problem, but some people do not see it as a problem. The mempool is not congested most of the time.

Most of the time because you have less than 300k transactions a day even when they can get confirmed as cheaply as possible.
This basically means there is little usage considering we are 8 billion on this planet, so what do you think will happen if 1 million users a day will choose to actively transact Bitcoin, would there still be low fees and not a problem?

[un_rank]

With higher priority on securing the network scalability is still an issue. There are some band aid solutions and some more long lasting ones to improve it, but nothing to keep up with global average of transactions.

More solutions would come up in the future and some of the existing ones would be more popular, like the Lightening network which is not mainstream yet.

- Jay -

[Dunamisx]

There's two solution already in this process, the first is the LN, why the transaction is off chain under the layer 2 protocols is to make it fast regardless of the scalability, though having this done may require some extra charges but for those used to the Lightening network it's a fast and well secured means, also one can easily get rid of the issue of scalability when you choose a higher priority for your transactions if the mempool depth is big, but i believe more work should be going on on scalability meanwhile it remains not a problem for now provided that there's always an alternative to it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin scaling is not problem at all when you learn about Lightning Network and other second layer solutions

I disagree. First of all, not all merchants accept second-layer solutions. Some don't even have Segwit yet. Secondly, the Lightning Network doesn't solve scaling; it might help the situation a little bit for mostly experienced users in the field, but even for those it's still difficult to make proper usage of lightning channels, backups and other such precautions. We need far more than that, unfortunately.

[Charles-Tim]

I disagree. First of all, not all merchants accept second-layer solutions. Some don't even have Segwit yet. Secondly, the Lightning Network doesn't solve scaling; it might help the situation a little bit for mostly experienced users in the field, but even for those it's still difficult to make proper usage of lightning channels, backups and other such precautions. We need far more than that, unfortunately.

If they are not moving towards how they can use segwit to take advantage of low fee and also going for layer 2 solution, that does not mean that segwit and lightning network are not part of scaling solution, they were created to make the mempool not to be as congested as it ought to be. There are some exchanges and wallets that are supporting both today. Over 80% of bitcoin transaction today are segwit transactions.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If they are not moving towards how they can use segwit to take advantage of low fee and also going for layer 2 solution, that does not mean that segwit and lightning network are not part of scaling solution

It doesn't mean that SegWit and lightning aren't helping in scaling, indeed, but in practice there exist customers who have to go on their way, with higher fees. So these particular merchants somewhat contribute or vote in favor for less efficient usage of the chain.

There are some exchanges and wallets that are supporting both today. Over 80% of bitcoin transaction today are segwit transactions.

For SegWit, yes, but how much is it helping anyway? It wasn't a scaling solution to begin with. Lightning can provide some satisfactory levels of scaling, but it still not very appropriate in usage, for the reasons I outlined.