Can Bitcoin Scale on Today's Computers? Do We Need 2nd Layer Solutions to Compete with VISA?
TPS - Transactions per second
Visa on average handles 2,000 TPS reaching a daily peak of around 4000 TPS.
As the Bitcoin Core (BTC) network is now throttled at 1MB it can handle around 3TPS with no working 2nd layer solution.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) can currently handle 100 TPS on-chain without the need for any 2nd solutions. The block size is 32mb for BCH.
The bitcoin scaling debate has gone on for a long time. It's important to understand the facts.
Can the Bitcoin Cash network increase block size further using hardware that exists today? To reach 1,000, 2,000 or even 10,000 TPS?
A lot of Bitcoin Core (BTC) supporters will say that scaling on chain with bigger blocks in not a long term solution and we will hit a ceiling because of hardware. I break down the facts in the above video.
As always I enjoy hearing your thoughts and comments.
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@jdh7190/bitcoin-is-already-much-faster-than-a-credit-card
I wrote about how cryptos are already faster than credit cards as a common misconception is that Visa is actually processing transactions.
They are processing authorizations only - no money is changing hands. Crypto is already ahead as the funds change hands within an hour (in most cases).
To me the scaling solution in the short term is solved via bigger blocks.
2nd layers can be explored at some point in the future if they become necessary.
Technology is growing much too fast these days to not implement the quick and dirty solution that works and can scale effectively.
Great point. It's really easy to compare apples to oranges with this stuff. Hypothetically, there's nothing stopping Visa from doing what they're doing now using btc instead.
I doubt we'd actually want credit card companies in a full cryptopia, but probably reputation could accomplish the same thing. If Bitcoin is too slow to buy a coffee, you include your identity with the transaction and it's safe to take it on 0 confirmation.
That's why it isn't up to you -- because you chose poorly.
https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62
ETH, EOS, BCash -- they all share the same problem. Guess who is having problems? Oh that's right, ETH is crawling because of their shitty scaling solutions, and bigger blocks don't help. EOS is imploding because of bad scaling decisions, and BCash is going to be next -- if they get any usage at all.
Which they haven't -- just empty blocks with 30-some odd transactions in an hour. (Outside of the Bitpico Cash fork efforts that are ramping up.)
Your mad dash to "solve" it with pushing out larger blocks is technically flawed and reveals a personality that favors "easy" fixes when the long term implications of that choice are dire and systemically dangerous.
BCash can't even DO second layer, because they decided to fight Segwit, and by extension, Lightning. Its like watching neo-luddites argue why busting all the machines apart are really a good thing short term.
Complete idiocy.
Imagine sending a valuable present to a friend. You can send it by the most secure, simple and cheap method, or you can get all fancy and send it via a complicated route that has a high probability of not reaching its destination. Majority of population want to KISS, Keep It Simple, Stupid, they don't want to mess around with a full node and lightning node which must always be on.
Roger hasn't programmed in his life, and has no in-depth technical knowledge. He's a salesman, and all he knows how to do is push his "product" with little else backing it.
Consider this article, which goes into depth about why Roger's ego-fork is a mistake, and his assumptions about scaling are dead wrong.
https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62
Some excerpts:
Roger makes assumptions about the difference between "light" nodes and full nodes, and he barely knows the distinctions between them. If he does, he simply lies about the rest - because he knows his arguments are based on belief, not facts.
Roger is out of his depth, yet again, because highly technical people who understand blockchain mechanics better than he does actually "get it" when it comes to the relationship between bloated blocks and resource requirements vs centralization.
Funny fact, 49% of BCash's nodes are run in the same Alibaba (Chinese Colocation Space) server racks -- https://twitter.com/realLudvigArt/status/1016578569093332992 This means centralization in the Cashie network is already happening, and their blocks haven't even been stuffed full yet.
But what else do you expect from someone that uses lies and underhanded mimicry and deception to promote his altfork. Roger is a con-man, a scammer, and an outright liar when it comes to pushing his scheme on to unsuspecting newbies.
Some history on his lies -- https://archive.fo/XfYDP
In the blockchain space, there is a saying "Don't trust. Verify." -- All I ask is you read and verify what I'm saying, and don't trust documented liars like Roger Ver.
Wrong. He's coded a little and has a professional background in Information Technology. More importantly if you actually listened to his arguments you'd realize his understanding of the economics and architecture of bitcoin is among-st the best in the field. Might be worth while doing a detailed investigation about someone next time before you spread false rumors to try to discredit them.
[Citation Needed]
I know what his "arguments" are. They're all shit. Roger Ver is losing supporters, like Erik Voorhees, because of his constant tilting-at-windmills when he's obviously wrong.
Vitalik called out one of his partners, Craig "Faketoshi" Wright, for being a fraud and technically incompetent.
Jimmy Song, a leader in the space -- and a highly technical guy -- has called out Roger for being disingenuous in his statements. For instance, claiming to be Austrian in his economics when Roger is clearly a Keynesian.
I've been following this space since 2011 - and I don't need you trying to tell me what is going on.
I already know. That's why I'm taking Roger to task, because useful idiots like you don't know the difference.
More reading for the misinformed -- https://archive.fo/XfYDP
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that Roger is a Keynesian. If your evidence is Song's recent video, then you just don't have much of an argument. Song might be a great technical guy, but he seems to misunderstand Keynes and/or Roger.
As usual, the BTC supporters seem to be low on economics knowledge. The video is on Youtube if anyone is interested.
Oh look, another Cashie spouting off with no references, citations, or any kind of in-depth description.
Its just "wrong". Suuuuuuure Cashie, sure.
For the smarter among you, here's the video the Cashie doesn't understand:
Yes, that's the video. It makes my point (for anyone who has the most basic knowledge of Keynes' theories). I thought this was obvious.
If it wasn't: Mr. Song is conflating currency debasement as a means to spur spending (Keynes) with currency being useful in commerce.
Roger has (to my knowledge) never supported "forcing" people to spend. He just wants people to have that option.
A crypto with only SOV and no MOE is not going to work. People will just move their funds to cryptos that have both qualities.
Again, Cashies seem to have trouble isolating important concepts.
In the video, Jimmy immediately defines why he is posting it:
(In the same point, talking about Roger Ver)
This is precisely what he's talking about - Roger espouses this notion that you NEED to spend, or else it isn't worth anything.
That is a KEYNESIAN strategy -- centered around spending to boost economic growth.
But again, I'm arguing with a Cashie that doesn't care what Roger says, as long as it aligns with the view that Bitcoin is "bad" and your alt-fork is somehow the answer.
It isn't, and from every metric I can see -- a majority agree with me.
No. He espouses the notion that you need to be able to spend. At least that is my take on his opinion.
Once again, network effect in a vacuum has no value.
Hi Roger. What would you say is the major downside of doing it off chain? Just added complication? Or something worse?
I think it's hard to know how much TPS you'd truly need.. 1K, 2K, and 10K seems like it would just be scratching the surface. If Visa does 2K, then all credit cards would be what maybe 5K?
Add in China and Africa and all the unbanked.. and now things like employers sending salary over to employees.. you owe your friend 20 bucks.. here's my rent money.. yadee yada, every use case out there for a transfer.. spammers and population growth.. I don't know, I don't think Visa has a lot to do with the amount of TPS you'll actually need.
Not saying I think there's no way to do it on chain. (I personally have no idea. Just a rube trying to wrap my head around it.) Just that what amount we need seems borderline unimaginable, like you have to be ready for basically any number.
And so if it's the kind of thing where it's hard to perfectly know whether you can meet the volume.. to me it seems like avenues of doing it off chain gives it some pliability and cushion.
I guess in my mind, whether it's BTC or BCH, off chain seems like it will need to be a thing either way? is my point/question.
Thanks.
Interesting points.
Firstly, I don't think either BTC or BCH will ever take the whole market. There will be a whole range of coins and tokens used for various transactions.
Second, I've heard @rogerkver say a few times that he is happy to support a second layer solution for BCH if and when it is ready. At the moment, lighting network looks like a great idea, but not ready for primetime
@kabir88
Thanks for the info and feedback.
Cool. So it isn't about never wanting an off-chain layer, but I suppose more just that he wants the built in TPS to be as high as possible.
Why do you think that?
Some people may want privacy, so if Bitcoin doesn't build a way to do that, then maybe Monero wins a little share.
But outside of that, transactions don't usually necessitate that the money has different properties. Whatever is the best way to pay for a tomato should usually be the best way to pay for a bicycle. So people should prefer whichever has the network effect.
It may take a while to settle and reach the long-term conclusion. And always someone somewhere will accept whatever. So technically I imagine you're right in the sense that it won't be 100%. But I think it becomes the brunt of it, over time.
[Meaning, as far as payment/transfer goes. Not disputing that Steem and other blockchains can succeed at doing things outside of payments.]
Great question, it's long to explain. Let me see if I can do a video as it will be quicker
Here you go
https://busy.org/@kabir88/1d600c80-8572-11e8-adb2-bf4283a63cb9
nice! I'm gonna give it a look.
Hey Roger, just a quick heads up, my bots are now only upvoting
dtubeordliveposts ...This is to discourage steemians from using Youtube since it adds zero value to the blockchain ...
Keep up the great work!
Good idea, I always wondered why people who want rewards and recognition on steem, drive traffic away from here to YouTube.
Ps. Thanks again @fulltimegeek for all your support!
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.