4 ms·
Sure. I simply meant that the assumption that an average person participates only in 2 chains per year and performs 3650 transactions in one chain is really far
by sharpneli 12y ago
Sure. I simply meant that the assumption that an average person participates only in 2 chains per year and performs 3650 transactions in one chain is really far fetched.
Consider the amount of transactions you do. Basically every party becomes a single side channel which requires some activity in the actual blockchain. It would reduce the amount of transactions that are the style of "My local supermarket which I visit every other day" but not anything else.
- pash 12y agoThis technique can be applied to created side channels among any connected sub-network of Bitcoin users, so if we're able to build good technology to figure out when to create a side channel (and with whom), it's likely that a large fraction of all transactions could be moved into side channels. It really does have very good potential for scaling the Bitcoin network by an order of magnitude, or two or three. Combined with increases in the block-size limit, this technology and others are increasingly making it seem like scalability is unlikely ever to be a real problem for the Bitcoin network. (And file that under great problems to have.) Recently I've seen scalability cited as a demerit of the Bitcoin network more and more by people who don't keep up with the technology and the community developing it—and less and less by people who do. Good progress is being made. But I agree with you that the rough assumptions the authors used to quantify this technique's potential to scale the network don't make much sense.