3 ms·
Bitcoin alone is responsible for this reputation of slow transaction times among cryptocurrencies. Litecoin and Ethereum have the same blockchain architecture b
by joeyrideout 9y ago
Bitcoin alone is responsible for this reputation of slow transaction times among cryptocurrencies. Litecoin and Ethereum have the same blockchain architecture but are mined faster, so they are faster, but this linear improvement may not be sufficient for scaling. Minerless "DAG" coins like Nano may prove to be more practical in the long run because they scale exponentially.
re: Value change during a transaction: volatility is a fundamental problem with any currency. Adoption and volume will decrease volatility, which this announcement is moving towards :) Ripple's value-add to the banking industry, for instance, similarly relies on adoption in order to create an international pool of liquidity in order to facilitate efficient cross-border currency exchange. The more volume, the less volatility there is, which means less cost to banks using XRP as a payment "bridge". The same is desirable for merchants and consumers.
- Donzo 9y agoNano takes like 4 seconds to confirm and has zero fees for transfer. It's really a no-brainer, but unfortunately this Bitgrail thing is going to muddy the waters for a long time.
- joeyrideout 9y agoBTC survived Mt. Gox and Bitfinex, NEM survived Coincheck, and fiat currencies survived many a bank robbery. Investor perception is low because the theft hurt early adopters, but I think that the technology will shine through sooner rather than later.
- Donzo 9y agoI'm with you for the long hodl.
- kylell 9y agoyour logic is funny, is like having a busy site with a postgress db, and saying postgress is at fault, look at my mysql wordpress site with 1.3 visitors per day, how fast it is. Ethereum will colapse on itself sooner of later, no one managed to sync a node recently.
- charlesdm 9y agoHasn't the latest Geth update improved syncing? https://blog.ethereum.org/2018/02/14/geth-1-8-iceberg%C2%B9/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2018/02/14/geth-1-8-iceberg%C2%B9/
- xiphias 9y agoReading through the release description I'm really glad for the thorough hard work the Bitcoin Core team is doing (and the fact that they didn't disable full verification by default). I still don't understand people putting billions of dollars in a system that crashes and hard forks multiple times a year while there's a stable alternative.
- joeyrideout 9y agoWhere exactly is my logic funny? Mined blockchains scale linearly. Increasing block size, etc. can increase speed temporarily but can still only scale linearly. Busy site or not, the ledger needs an architectural change to handle exponential growth. Your busy Postgress db would also need to change in architecture from a single resource to something more distributed in order to scale exponentially. A less busy website of the same architecture also wouldn't handle exponential growth. What am I missing? Edit: To clarify, yes, some mined blockchains feel faster now simply because they are less busy. They are still doomed to Bitcoin's fate at scale unless distributed systems techniques like sharding (or Nano's block lattice) are used. I'm not saying that the less busy blockchains are any better.
- hobofan 9y ago> To clarify, yes, some mined blockchains feel faster now simply because they are less busy. Yes, and for now it's not proven in practice that Nano will also stay responsive when it hits the same scale/busyness.
- joeyrideout 9y agoFair enough. In theory Nano's design can handle something like O(2^n) transactions per second where n is the number of nodes, while mined blockchains can handle O(n) transactions per second where n is roughly the block rate multiplied by block size. In practice who knows. The former has a fighting chance, at least.