3 ms·

Why ether and bitcoin cash would be superior alternatives? They don't solve the scalability problem and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot

Why ether and bitcoin cash would be superior alternatives? They don't solve the scalability problem and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS now and it is probably going to help on that front, but it is still an experiment and comes with drawbacks. Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
> They don't solve the scalability problem There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... Bitcoin cash tested full blocks 32x bitcoin's max block size a long time ago. There is no issue with having more transactions. Bitcoin was just crippled to make people think they need a second layer. What numbers do you have that makes you think there is a technical problem with scalability? > Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. > Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. Like what? > You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. What 'risk assessment' are you talking about? With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. The only risk is when you have some hacky 'layer 2' nonsense that needs to be always on. > I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain. What framework and what features are you talking about?
- rafaelero 6y ago
  > There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. > That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. I guess you are right. The mining method is orthogonal to the total transaction that can be validated. > Like what? I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments, but it can be hindered by liquidity shortages on the network and less clearance certainty. If you are okay with that, you can then proceed to use this network. If not, then another option may come up that satisfies your risk assessment. > With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. Sure, and that is indeed how bitcoin works. I think you are criticizing the fact that bitcoin does it very slowly, but then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. > What framework and what features are you talking about? The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain.
  - splintercell 6y ago
    I am trying to open a LN channel, it says that I need at least $50-$100 to open a channel (100k-200k Satoshi), is true? This makes it an instant deal breaker for third world users. BCH is Rs 0.16
    - rafaelero 6y ago
      My understanding is that opening a LN channel is the same as making an on-chain transaction, which is subject to fluctuations depending on how busy the blockchain is. Right now, according to mempool, the transaction costs are around $1, which I expect would be the cost of opening a channel. I don't know for sure, but I guess there are also some methods for opening more than one channel at once, reducing substantially the cost of opening channels when there is coordination (which could be built by a wallet app). Not entirely sure of that, though. But exciting times ahead.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        The mempool is transactions that haven't been included. That is not the place to look. The average bitcoin transaction is $13.72 USD. Two weeks ago it was $31 USD. The median is now $6.31 USD. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Looking at transactions that are not going to make it in does not mean anything. This person actually looked at the real information. You are making a guess based on something irrelevant. > I don't know for sure, but I guess there are also some methods for opening more than one channel at once, reducing substantially the cost of opening channels when there is coordination (which could be built by a wallet app). Not entirely sure of that, though. But exciting times ahead. What are you basing that on? Transactions are priced by the bytes they take up. Larger transactions cost more.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    > Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. No it isn't. It is 628 GB. This comes out to about $11.50 USD of hard drive space, which is about the cost of a single ethereum transaction. https://bitinfocharts.com/ https://bitinfocharts.com/ > It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. There is no point in making sure everyone can run a full node. Even so, it is trivial. A few of the biggest steam games are the size of the entire chain. > I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments They aren't instant, your transaction doesn't make it to the main chain. You might as well use a different cryptocurrency instead of a hacky second layer. > then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. What numbers are you basing this on? I see people repeat this but they can never back it up with numbers. Bitcoin right now is 1.5KB/s. Watching a single low resolution youtube video ends up being 100x the bandwidth of bitcoin. The average transaction value of bitcoin is over $50,000 USD right now. That's not a network that everyone is participating in. People are buying claims on exchanges because the transactions are $12-$32 USD. That's centralization. Sending more than 1.5KB/s is not centralization. > The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain. I asked what framework and features a second layer would give and your answer is 'a second layer'.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

> They don't solve the scalability problem There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > and will quickly run into the same problems the moment a lot of people start using it. Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... Bitcoin cash tested full blocks 32x bitcoin's max block size a long time ago. There is no issue with having more transactions. Bitcoin was just crippled to make people think they need a second layer. What numbers do you have that makes you think there is a technical problem with scalability? > Ethereum is trying to migrate to POS That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. > Layer 2 solutions gives you optionality. Like what? > You can make your own risk assessment and choose the best solution for you. What 'risk assessment' are you talking about? With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. The only risk is when you have some hacky 'layer 2' nonsense that needs to be always on. > I think this is a much superior framework than incorporating all these features into the blockchain. What framework and what features are you talking about?

rafaelero 6y ago
> There isn't a scalability issue from a technical perspective. Block size limits were originally just to protect against spam. > Ethereum and bitcoin cash already have more transaction throughput than bitcoin. Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. > That is a mining method, transaction throughput is a matter of blocksize * block generation time. I guess you are right. The mining method is orthogonal to the total transaction that can be validated. > Like what? I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments, but it can be hindered by liquidity shortages on the network and less clearance certainty. If you are okay with that, you can then proceed to use this network. If not, then another option may come up that satisfies your risk assessment. > With any decentralized cryptocurrency you sign your transaction and wait for it to be included in a block. It is simple and there is no risk. Sure, and that is indeed how bitcoin works. I think you are criticizing the fact that bitcoin does it very slowly, but then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. > What framework and what features are you talking about? The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain.
- splintercell 6y ago
  I am trying to open a LN channel, it says that I need at least $50-$100 to open a channel (100k-200k Satoshi), is true? This makes it an instant deal breaker for third world users. BCH is Rs 0.16
  - rafaelero 6y ago
    My understanding is that opening a LN channel is the same as making an on-chain transaction, which is subject to fluctuations depending on how busy the blockchain is. Right now, according to mempool, the transaction costs are around $1, which I expect would be the cost of opening a channel. I don't know for sure, but I guess there are also some methods for opening more than one channel at once, reducing substantially the cost of opening channels when there is coordination (which could be built by a wallet app). Not entirely sure of that, though. But exciting times ahead.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      The mempool is transactions that haven't been included. That is not the place to look. The average bitcoin transaction is $13.72 USD. Two weeks ago it was $31 USD. The median is now $6.31 USD. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Looking at transactions that are not going to make it in does not mean anything. This person actually looked at the real information. You are making a guess based on something irrelevant. > I don't know for sure, but I guess there are also some methods for opening more than one channel at once, reducing substantially the cost of opening channels when there is coordination (which could be built by a wallet app). Not entirely sure of that, though. But exciting times ahead. What are you basing that on? Transactions are priced by the bytes they take up. Larger transactions cost more.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  > Sure, but consider the size of the blockchain of Ethereum. Right now, it is around 6.5 terabytes. No it isn't. It is 628 GB. This comes out to about $11.50 USD of hard drive space, which is about the cost of a single ethereum transaction. https://bitinfocharts.com/ https://bitinfocharts.com/ > It is a 'scalability problem' if you take the premise that everyone should be able to verify the blockchain with a normal residential computer. If you don't think that that is important, then there is indeed no issue. There is no point in making sure everyone can run a full node. Even so, it is trivial. A few of the biggest steam games are the size of the entire chain. > I used the Lightning Network as an example. You can use for instant payments They aren't instant, your transaction doesn't make it to the main chain. You might as well use a different cryptocurrency instead of a hacky second layer. > then consider again that doing it quicker would increase the total blockchain size and possibly jeopardize the decentralization. What numbers are you basing this on? I see people repeat this but they can never back it up with numbers. Bitcoin right now is 1.5KB/s. Watching a single low resolution youtube video ends up being 100x the bandwidth of bitcoin. The average transaction value of bitcoin is over $50,000 USD right now. That's not a network that everyone is participating in. People are buying claims on exchanges because the transactions are $12-$32 USD. That's centralization. Sending more than 1.5KB/s is not centralization. > The idea that Bitcoin (as a network) will be composed of building blocks on top of the blockchain. I asked what framework and features a second layer would give and your answer is 'a second layer'.