4 ms·

Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size incre

by bduerst 10y ago

Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size increases as hard forks. Like I said, different blockchains solves the blocksize differently, and Bitcoin has demonstrated that it's not capable of addressing it's blocksize issue and can't scale. You can scoff and say, "That's a non-issue.", but even at the start of an NPR Planet Money podcast episode about Bitcoins, where they do a Bitcoin transfer, it hits the cap and gets lost.

stale2002 10y ago
Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.
- tlrobinson 10y ago
  You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
    - tlrobinson 10y ago
      Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        So it's an alt-coin that still requires bitcoin?
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        No, you're still transacting in Bitcoin, it's just using fancy smart contracts to allow you to do it (mostly) off the blockchain in a secure way.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Exactly, that is one of the "clever solutions" that I was referencing.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Right, but Litecoin hasn't repeatedly hit it's transaction cap yet. Litecoin is still unproven as to whether or not it will fail to scale, which Bitcoin has already proven to fail at. You're splitting hairs and ignoring ZCash. The point is that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations of a blockchain than Bitcoin, even with regards to the block size.
  - TGilmour 10y ago
    The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong. The point that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations is moot, bitcoin is 8 years old and still working very well. I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect and complete, it does need to scale, but to claim it has failed is ridiculous. Bitcoin development (or developers) will not implement something that isn't vigorously tested and could jeopardize the network. It isn't as simple as change 1mb to 8mb. If you can provide a technical case for why its so simple or that its safe to do so please post below! I'd be happy to review.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      >The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong. Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episode-708-bitcoin-divided http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo... I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109. If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you.
      - TGilmour 10y ago
        > Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo.. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo.... The "market" didn't fail NPR, a single transaction took longer than expected due to the transaction fee being too low at the time being sent. That's how markets work, and it's OK if you don't understand markets, but don't run around claiming that something has failed because you haven't taken the time to learn. > I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109. That's not "failing to scale" because you don't know the end result. If bitcoin implemented those bip's and failed as a network it also "failed to scale" but even more it now failed as entirely. > If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you. Show me the current market for beanie babies, and I'll show you bitcoin's CURRENT tx volume, price increase over time, and market cap. It's not existence as proof, it was to show you that one needs patience. Bitcoin's utility is increasing. These other projects have 0 utility. If you disagree please show me anytime other blockchain projects real utility, that's not speculative.

by bduerst 10y ago

stale2002 10y ago

Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.

tlrobinson 10y ago
You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
- bduerst 10y ago
  Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
  - tlrobinson 10y ago
    Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      So it's an alt-coin that still requires bitcoin?
      - tlrobinson 10y ago
        No, you're still transacting in Bitcoin, it's just using fancy smart contracts to allow you to do it (mostly) off the blockchain in a secure way.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Exactly, that is one of the "clever solutions" that I was referencing.
bduerst 10y ago
Right, but Litecoin hasn't repeatedly hit it's transaction cap yet. Litecoin is still unproven as to whether or not it will fail to scale, which Bitcoin has already proven to fail at. You're splitting hairs and ignoring ZCash. The point is that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations of a blockchain than Bitcoin, even with regards to the block size.
- TGilmour 10y ago
  The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong. The point that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations is moot, bitcoin is 8 years old and still working very well. I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect and complete, it does need to scale, but to claim it has failed is ridiculous. Bitcoin development (or developers) will not implement something that isn't vigorously tested and could jeopardize the network. It isn't as simple as change 1mb to 8mb. If you can provide a technical case for why its so simple or that its safe to do so please post below! I'd be happy to review.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    >The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong. Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episode-708-bitcoin-divided http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo... I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109. If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you.
    - TGilmour 10y ago
      > Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo.. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo.... The "market" didn't fail NPR, a single transaction took longer than expected due to the transaction fee being too low at the time being sent. That's how markets work, and it's OK if you don't understand markets, but don't run around claiming that something has failed because you haven't taken the time to learn. > I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109. That's not "failing to scale" because you don't know the end result. If bitcoin implemented those bip's and failed as a network it also "failed to scale" but even more it now failed as entirely. > If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you. Show me the current market for beanie babies, and I'll show you bitcoin's CURRENT tx volume, price increase over time, and market cap. It's not existence as proof, it was to show you that one needs patience. Bitcoin's utility is increasing. These other projects have 0 utility. If you disagree please show me anytime other blockchain projects real utility, that's not speculative.