4 ms·

your 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

by kylell 9y ago

your 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 ago
Hasn'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 ago
  Reading 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 ago
Where 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 ago
    Fair 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.
    - xiphias 9y ago
      ,,Nano's design can handle something like O(2^n) transactions per second where n is the number of nodes'' Wow, we should stop trying to build quantum computers, this Nano thing sounds much better in theory
justAnotherNET 9y ago
This is wrong and i’m shocked to see it on HN. ETH is currently do 3-4x the daily transactions of bitcoin and doing it for far less/much faster. The only people who aren’t aware of this spend all their time on highly censored platforms like /r/bitcoin

by kylell 9y ago

charlesdm 9y ago

Hasn'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 ago
Reading 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 ago

Where 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 ago
  Fair 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.
  - xiphias 9y ago
    ,,Nano's design can handle something like O(2^n) transactions per second where n is the number of nodes'' Wow, we should stop trying to build quantum computers, this Nano thing sounds much better in theory

justAnotherNET 9y ago

This is wrong and i’m shocked to see it on HN. ETH is currently do 3-4x the daily transactions of bitcoin and doing it for far less/much faster. The only people who aren’t aware of this spend all their time on highly censored platforms like /r/bitcoin