4 ms·
> Well, you don't do LN transactions on a blockchain at all, that's where the speed improvements come from. Yes, but I meant using a blockchain for the decentr
by wellboy 9y ago
> Well, you don't do LN transactions on a blockchain at all, that's where the speed improvements come from.
Yes, but I meant using a blockchain for the decentralised aspect of things.
> Multiple blockchains could mitigate this issue, but they can't really talk to each other very well, not without incurring further losses of efficiency. In that scenario we'd need four transactions to send our $5 - one to open the channel, one to close it, and two to jump blockchains. Ack!
Is it bad to use 4 transactions for 1 transaction when it makes your transaction througput 100000x higher?
> These are just really hard problems and hopefully they can be solved, but right now there are no even proposed solutions which can fix this.
Aren't there already altcoins that have solved the transaction scalability problem?
- annabellish 9y ago>Is it bad to use 4 transactions for 1 transaction when it makes your transaction througput 100000x higher? Not really. It'll increase latency on commit confirmation and that might suck, though. >Aren't there already altcoins that have solved the transaction scalability problem? Nope. There's ones that can scale better than bitcoin, but in the end there's only so many parameters you can tune and an actual solution requires more than just tuning block size / block rate.