5 ms·

Which is funny because you always hear how fast crypto transactions are. What everybody seems to leave out is that fully settling on the blockchain is slow and

by 101011 5y ago

Which is funny because you always hear how fast crypto transactions are. What everybody seems to leave out is that fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly.

SkyMarshal 5y ago
> fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly. That depends on which blockchain you're fully settling on. There's more than one, Ethereum != "the blockchain".
- yvdriess 5y ago
  Fundamentally, the more popular the chain, the more expensive transactions are going to be.
  - spopejoy 5y ago
    Not if the chain can scale -- ie not "fast finality" but being able to throw more resources at the problem as adoption increases (unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum and most single-chain POS systems however). Gas' true function is to stop griefing, the fact that it sends tx costs through the roof is because immature tech.
- oblio 5y ago
  How can they ever solve the fundamental problem of slow worldwide, globalized, decentralized consensus? Have I missed some Turing Award discoveries while I was away?
  - basicallybones 5y ago
    Several newer blockchains have made significant progress on transaction speed and throughput. Solana probably is the most notable example, but there are others. https://medium.com/solana-labs/how-solanas-proof-of-history-is-a-huge-advancement-for-block-time-178899c89723 https://medium.com/solana-labs/how-solanas-proof-of-history-....
  - TimJRobinson 5y ago
    > Have I missed some Turing Award discoveries while I was away? Yes. ZK Rollups - https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-data-shards-scale-in-2030-14-million-tps-933b87ca622e https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da... If you don't understand this post he has many more explaining the technologies behind it.
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    > the fundamental problem of slow worldwide, globalized, decentralized consensus? That's not necessarily a problem. Slow is ok if it's highly secure, reliable, and inexpensive relative to the amounts being moved or compared to other alternatives.
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
> What everybody seems to leave out is that fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly. What do you mean?
- Closi 5y ago
  I assume they mean that the major cryptocurrencies have fees to clear transactions, and the more you pay the faster they clear. At the moment the transfer fee for Bitcoin/Eth is about $1.80/$4, so if you are buying a $5 coffee it’s not really cost effective to do that on chain. The main issue that drives up cost is that Bitcoin has a scalability problem for transactions, particularly as the market cap/difficulty has gone up. This is why the lightning network was introduced - although that comes with its own drawbacks compared to “pure” crypto.
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    So if transferring cryptocurrency isn’t free, then how is it ever going to replace cash, theoretically? Right now I can buy a coffee for cash and the exchange of currency is free if I hand over the bills right then and there. I guess the alternative would be to actually transact on the exchange instead of the blockchain? But then we’re just back to centralized banking? What’s the ideal scenario here? Transactions on chain eventually become free and then we truly have a useful distributed currency?
    - kasey_junk 5y ago
      The exchange of cash in your coffee example is definitely not free. Vendors spend a lot of money in cash management. Compliance costs, loss prevention, storage & movement etc. They price that in to the $5. But frankly that’s besides the point. There are very few physical transactions in the “cash” world. Crypto can become very successful and never touch those transactions if it can work to standardize & disintermediate the electronic movement of money it could be a massive change. I don’t know if that will happen and it’s not a goal of the crypto diehards I’ve met, but that’s a path to success that allows for fees along the way.
mdoms 5y ago
Blockchain settlement is far too slow for small payments and far too fast for very large payments.
- Laforet 5y ago
  As long as all transfers are final it has achieved the intended goal - no chance getting your money back at all!
  - SXX 5y ago
    Unless you're omniscient owner of said chain who just been robbed. Then decentrzlization wont stop you from reverting said event.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    For sufficiently large transfers, there’s the good old “I’ll track you down and break your kneecaps”. Which often results in most, but not all, of the funds returned.
SEJeff 5y ago
Fast and cheap on solana, slow and expensive on ethereum. Not all blockchains are directly comparable.
jorams 5y ago
> you always hear how fast crypto transactions are Where do you hear that? One of the big criticisms of the biggest cryptocurrencies as currencies is that transactions are glacially slow for most practical uses (small transactions). Improving on that seems to be the main selling point of Solana.

by 101011 5y ago

Which is funny because you always hear how fast crypto transactions are. What everybody seems to leave out is that fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly.

SkyMarshal 5y ago

> fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly. That depends on which blockchain you're fully settling on. There's more than one, Ethereum != "the blockchain".

yvdriess 5y ago
Fundamentally, the more popular the chain, the more expensive transactions are going to be.
- spopejoy 5y ago
  Not if the chain can scale -- ie not "fast finality" but being able to throw more resources at the problem as adoption increases (unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum and most single-chain POS systems however). Gas' true function is to stop griefing, the fact that it sends tx costs through the roof is because immature tech.
oblio 5y ago
How can they ever solve the fundamental problem of slow worldwide, globalized, decentralized consensus? Have I missed some Turing Award discoveries while I was away?
- basicallybones 5y ago
  Several newer blockchains have made significant progress on transaction speed and throughput. Solana probably is the most notable example, but there are others. https://medium.com/solana-labs/how-solanas-proof-of-history-is-a-huge-advancement-for-block-time-178899c89723 https://medium.com/solana-labs/how-solanas-proof-of-history-....
- TimJRobinson 5y ago
  > Have I missed some Turing Award discoveries while I was away? Yes. ZK Rollups - https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-data-shards-scale-in-2030-14-million-tps-933b87ca622e https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da... If you don't understand this post he has many more explaining the technologies behind it.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  > the fundamental problem of slow worldwide, globalized, decentralized consensus? That's not necessarily a problem. Slow is ok if it's highly secure, reliable, and inexpensive relative to the amounts being moved or compared to other alternatives.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago

> What everybody seems to leave out is that fully settling on the blockchain is slow and costly. What do you mean?

Closi 5y ago
I assume they mean that the major cryptocurrencies have fees to clear transactions, and the more you pay the faster they clear. At the moment the transfer fee for Bitcoin/Eth is about $1.80/$4, so if you are buying a $5 coffee it’s not really cost effective to do that on chain. The main issue that drives up cost is that Bitcoin has a scalability problem for transactions, particularly as the market cap/difficulty has gone up. This is why the lightning network was introduced - although that comes with its own drawbacks compared to “pure” crypto.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  So if transferring cryptocurrency isn’t free, then how is it ever going to replace cash, theoretically? Right now I can buy a coffee for cash and the exchange of currency is free if I hand over the bills right then and there. I guess the alternative would be to actually transact on the exchange instead of the blockchain? But then we’re just back to centralized banking? What’s the ideal scenario here? Transactions on chain eventually become free and then we truly have a useful distributed currency?
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    The exchange of cash in your coffee example is definitely not free. Vendors spend a lot of money in cash management. Compliance costs, loss prevention, storage & movement etc. They price that in to the $5. But frankly that’s besides the point. There are very few physical transactions in the “cash” world. Crypto can become very successful and never touch those transactions if it can work to standardize & disintermediate the electronic movement of money it could be a massive change. I don’t know if that will happen and it’s not a goal of the crypto diehards I’ve met, but that’s a path to success that allows for fees along the way.

mdoms 5y ago

Blockchain settlement is far too slow for small payments and far too fast for very large payments.

Laforet 5y ago
As long as all transfers are final it has achieved the intended goal - no chance getting your money back at all!
- SXX 5y ago
  Unless you're omniscient owner of said chain who just been robbed. Then decentrzlization wont stop you from reverting said event.
- oefrha 5y ago
  For sufficiently large transfers, there’s the good old “I’ll track you down and break your kneecaps”. Which often results in most, but not all, of the funds returned.

SEJeff 5y ago

Fast and cheap on solana, slow and expensive on ethereum. Not all blockchains are directly comparable.

jorams 5y ago

> you always hear how fast crypto transactions are Where do you hear that? One of the big criticisms of the biggest cryptocurrencies as currencies is that transactions are glacially slow for most practical uses (small transactions). Improving on that seems to be the main selling point of Solana.