3 ms·

Basically, the current block size limit of 1MB isn't sufficient for the current volume of transactions. Some transactions aren't making it into blocks in real-t

Basically, the current block size limit of 1MB isn't sufficient for the current volume of transactions. Some transactions aren't making it into blocks in real-time and have to sit waiting in a queue to be processed. This leads to delays in processing commercial payments, which in turn threatens Bitcoin's viability as a mainstream currency. Some people argue the issue could be easily fixed by simply raising the block size limit, but others disagree and believe that would become too costly in bandwidth and processing capacity for miners, so AFAIK there's still no consensus on a resolution. A couple other good explanations: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=535 http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=535 https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.s44pxu3o5 https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin...

maaku 10y ago
However the two changes required for full lightning network, segwit and checksequenceverify, are either in the process of being merged or already released and waiting for mining activation. And lightning scales waaaaaay better than any block size increase that we'd reasonably see. The scaling issue is settled. Bitcoin transactions will scale off-chain with payment channel solutions like lightning.
- lawn 10y ago
  The reasoning "because we will scale it off-chain, on-chain scaling is a waste of time" must stop because it's so stupid. They are not mutually exclusive.
  - maaku 10y ago
    They are exclusive at this time. We have entirely exhausted the capacity for on chain scaling. There are technologies that might improve that situation, but until they are tested we cannot precommit to using the gained space.
    - bobwatson6 10y ago
      Then Core devs have been proven to be a bunch of incompetent. Sad but true.
- riprowan 10y ago
  Isn't this a fundamental change in the economic expectations as proposed by the system's creator, who planned to increase onchain capacity as far back as 2010? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg153...
  - maaku 10y ago
    I don't know the mind of the Satoshi I wouldn't care to. Bitcoin is an algorithm with empirical properties that are discovered, not created. It is what it is and we need to deal with that. (I would also be dubious of anyone's beliefs regarding bitcoin in 2010. There's a lot we didn't know then.)
    - bobwatson6 10y ago
      -Bitcoin is an algorithm with empirical properties that are discovered, not created. What have been discovered exactly? Care to point that out? Also, by which logic offloading transactions off-chain, making the blockchain itself uncompetitive, could be good for miners and the incentives to mine/secure the blockchain?
- dgenr8 10y ago
  I think LN will become highly centralized very quickly. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4fj2m9/ill_predict_that_lightning_network_will_quickly/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4fj2m9/ill_predict_tha...
- bobwatson6 10y ago
  -The scaling issue is settled. According to who? Bitcoin overlords?

maaku 10y ago

However the two changes required for full lightning network, segwit and checksequenceverify, are either in the process of being merged or already released and waiting for mining activation. And lightning scales waaaaaay better than any block size increase that we'd reasonably see. The scaling issue is settled. Bitcoin transactions will scale off-chain with payment channel solutions like lightning.

lawn 10y ago
The reasoning "because we will scale it off-chain, on-chain scaling is a waste of time" must stop because it's so stupid. They are not mutually exclusive.
- maaku 10y ago
  They are exclusive at this time. We have entirely exhausted the capacity for on chain scaling. There are technologies that might improve that situation, but until they are tested we cannot precommit to using the gained space.
  - bobwatson6 10y ago
    Then Core devs have been proven to be a bunch of incompetent. Sad but true.
riprowan 10y ago
Isn't this a fundamental change in the economic expectations as proposed by the system's creator, who planned to increase onchain capacity as far back as 2010? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg153...
- maaku 10y ago
  I don't know the mind of the Satoshi I wouldn't care to. Bitcoin is an algorithm with empirical properties that are discovered, not created. It is what it is and we need to deal with that. (I would also be dubious of anyone's beliefs regarding bitcoin in 2010. There's a lot we didn't know then.)
  - bobwatson6 10y ago
    -Bitcoin is an algorithm with empirical properties that are discovered, not created. What have been discovered exactly? Care to point that out? Also, by which logic offloading transactions off-chain, making the blockchain itself uncompetitive, could be good for miners and the incentives to mine/secure the blockchain?
dgenr8 10y ago
I think LN will become highly centralized very quickly. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4fj2m9/ill_predict_that_lightning_network_will_quickly/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4fj2m9/ill_predict_tha...
bobwatson6 10y ago
-The scaling issue is settled. According to who? Bitcoin overlords?