Every attempt to date to improve transaction rates on BTC have been hampered by a small group of developers who have a vested interest in it not scaling for reasons explained here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/info...
Bitcoin won't get any of the improvements you hope it will because there is too much money vested in keeping it exactly how it is today.
If the vast majority of users and services decided to switch to PoS tomorrow there’s absolutely nothing miners could do about it.
That said, I’m not saying it would be easy to get consensus for such a major change. Futures markets might be useful for determining how much support for a change there is.
I understand big blockers are upset they didn’t get their way. They need to understand the reason big blocks don’t have consensus is that they increase propagation delays and propagation delays leads to centralization. Core devs are pursuing many alternative and intelligent scaling avenues.
Also, miners don’t determine consensus rules. If PoS works, another UASF initiative will arise and everyone running a node can decide the new PoW scheme. The fact that you don’t understand this leads me to believe you don’t have a good understanding of the technology yet.
> Core devs are pursuing many alternative and intelligent scaling avenues.
Their strategy of stalling for the last couple of years is the least intelligent approach they could have taken.
> Core devs are pursuing many alternative and intelligent scaling avenues.
Yes they do, that's the point of Bitcoin.
> If PoS works, another UASF initiative will arise and everyone running a node can decide the new PoW scheme
You mean if PoS works they can fork and use their altcoin.
> The fact that you don’t understand this leads me to believe you don’t have a good understanding of the technology yet.
The fact that you don't understand this leads me to believe you're either a Core shill or you have been seduced by their pretty words. The whitepaper makes all this clear.
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...
The above directly demonstrates how block size results in significant propagation delay.
I ask you again: can you show me the research which demonstrates increasing blocksize won’t result in significant propagation delay?
As I already wrote what matters is propagation between miners which is already very fast, even according your own link, which examins propagation throughout the network as a whole not between miners specifically.
If that’s your idea of research, best of luck to bcash.
triggered
If you read the original bitcoin white paper it is clearly evident that the purpose of bitcoin was as a currency. These insane fees, wait times, and rediculous technical decisions by core have made it such that bitcoin is becoming “bank coin” aka only used for settling between large groups and useless for individuals (unless you’re a speculator).
This has to change
No need to attack Bitcoin, just go all in on Bitcoin Cash , put your money where your mouth is, and move on.
Big blockers have their Jihan and Roger coin now. Stop trying to steal the bitcoin brand. If there was consensus for big blocks then Bitcoin would have activated. Jihan and Roger couldn’t convince the educated people that their proposals would work. Now they’re throwing a tantrum.
Segwit (besides being a crappy implementation) is by far not enough scaling.
That you blame Jihan and Roger is typical stupid propaganda which doesn't belong here.
Each additional kb results in an additional 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block. Increasing to 8mb means you’re adding a 9min delay in propagation. That is pretty much guaranteed centralization.
Perhaps you have some research you can point me to that demonstrates otherwise?
How you can conclude a 9min propagation delay for 8MB blocks is beyond me as miners are basically directly connected to each other. This is the only thing that matters decentralization wise.
Bitcoin Unlimited are successfully testing 1GB blocks: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock...
I wonder if it could be measured the _other_ way around - i.e. are the sustained tiny blocks on BCH _increasing_ decentralisation compared to BTC right now? I can't find any good information on block propagation time though :(
Only made by the incompetent/corrupt developers. Regular users just don't want to pay outrageous fees.
Looking at my transaction history, of my last 10 transactions, all had fees in excess of $1, one as high as $14.
I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I'm also not going to call the fees reasonable.
Without micro payments it's stuck in a niche paying ransoms and doing drug deals
I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Bitcoin still is having a holy war about increasing the blocksize.
One side effect of this whole deal is it shows that it is incredibly hard, if not possible, to change a decentralized system. By its very design, it will be all but impossible to make any breaking changes to bitcoin at this point.
> Lightning network further reduces the number of onchain transactions necessary.
Besides being complete vaporware, I do love how the solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems is to not use it...
With regards to blocksize, the only reason it’s not widely embraced is because it’s known to directly impact propagation delay. One side couldn’t care less about centralization, the other side cares dearly. SegWit was activated, which compresses transaction size and doubles transactions per second without impacting propagation delay. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr signatures are coming soon, which are also soft forks and compress transaction size even further. There’s plenty of change happening that are all very intelligent scaling solutions. Big blocks are not intelligent nor difficult to implement.
source? afaik it's open source and it charges no fees.
Congratulations guys, you made the banks SWIFT 2.0. I’m sure they appreciate it very much.
There have even been successful atomic Bitcoin<->Litecoin cross-chain transactions with Lightning last month.
It doesn't matter - it can fork. And if the fork offers something compelling, it will get used. Even Bitcoin Cash, which is not (very) compelling, is now tradable more than most altcoins.
If you've tried linking distributed Oracle databases between just a few different sites, you'd understand this has tons of failure cases and is, in fact, not a solved problem, even in the centralized world.
(Bigtable probably gets the closest these days, if you want proprietary and not globally auditable.)
That is nice. But can I, and everybody else in the USA successfully use Bitcoin on Black Friday? According to the National Retail Foundation, in 2016 over 101 million people went out on black friday to buy something. If Bitcoin could somehow 10x its transaction rate to even 40 transactions per second (which it can't and probably never will) it would take almost 30 days to process every order. At its current rate of 4tps, you are looking at about 292 days--during which, according to Wolfram Alpha, Venus will have made 1.3 trips around the sun.
So again, yeah, great job. Bitcoin solved some technical problem. Go team! But who gives a crap if some technical problem doesn't solve any real problem? Isn't that what we engineers exist to do? Solve real-world problems?
That shouldn't diminish all the other things that BTC does successfully.
b) Precious metals are too reliant on physical security. Someone can break into your house much easier than into i.e. your hardware wallet.
c) Besides these, precious metals are not a payment system, much less a programmable one. You can't code for example a logic that requires multiple untrusted parties to sign a transaction for it to complete.
Also, Bitcoin settles transactions in 30 days, merchants get their funds in 30 days if they are lucky to not have the charge back.
Apples and oranges.
That is one reason why I prefer centralised to decentralised. I have yet to see a justification for the cost of decentralisation. This cost is an important thing, not a trivial thing.
Other reasons include but are not limited to the governance mechanism of things like bitcoin not being demonstrably better than the governance systems of any other currency, but that’s a much longer topic of discussion.
We had a gentleman visit our booth from one of the big 4 airlines. He asked us what we were going to do to get to 1800 t/s, because that was the load requirement for the reservation system he and his division were tasked with creating, deploying and maintaining.
I’m fairly certain a currency system needs to scale beyond what a single airline needs in terms of transactions per second.
Tl,dr: each additional kB in blocksize adds approximately 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block.
Tl,dr: each additional kB after 1mb adds an additional 80ms in propagation delay. It’s not just bandwidth that’s the problem. Nodes need to validate the block, then communicate that block to other nodes who also need to validate. Big blockers are drinking Roger Ver koolaid. The man doesn’t even know how to program, yet has convinced an army of redditors he knows best.
why does increasing propagation delay lead to centralization?
Mining a block is suppose to be a lottery, not a race.
I've learned a lot, btw... so thanks for that too.
Arbitrarily increasing blocksize without addressing propagation delay and centralization impacts is also irresponsible.
Bitcoin has been tirelessly working on the scaling problem in a responsible way. SegWit will allow up to 12t/s. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr Signatures will further compress transaction size and increase t/s to roughly 20t/s. All this without increasing propagation delay (increasing blocksize).
Lightning network further reduces the number of onchain transactions necessary.
Rootstock adds ethereum compatible smart contracts to bitcoin as a side chain.
All these technologies responsibly scale Bitcoin. Your comment implies Bitcoin is stagnant which to me implies you don't know what you're talking about.