This is (but one) of the reasons "blockchain" is not a particularly good idea. People want low-latency, high-volume transactions, but the designs of these systems preclude that possibility entirely. They are, by design, not able to do the thing you wanted them to do.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
Throughput isn't a problem if block size scales (on BTC, notably, it does not). Latency remains, but various chains have addressed it with e.g. opt-in 0-confirmation transactions, where the payee accepts the double-spend risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moistgibs @TimSweeneyEpic
It's unclear what "block size scales" means here, though. Block sizes can't be scaled arbitrarily because they are universally replicated state. The VISA volume would crush most nodes on the BitCoin network, etc., just for storage.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
For example, BTC blocks are limited to 1MB. BCH 32MB. BSV blocks are variable and uncapped, and blocks >1GB have been mined. Throughput scales proportionally. This has storage implications for nodes of course - large block advocates contend that storage is cheap.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moistgibs @TimSweeneyEpic
That is kind of obviously false, as is well-covered in the original Lightning Network paper.pic.twitter.com/LYRhULDJqS
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
Visa averages ~1.7K/sec according to quick google search. Yes storage still a problem, but divide TB/year by 25 or so. I'd expect some innovation if/when storage becomes a bottleneck. LN whitepaper may not be the best citation source, some would call it small-blocker propaganda
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moistgibs @TimSweeneyEpic
In theory it could be that if that rate doesn't increase, and storage does, in ten years or so it might be feasible to consider (eg., one 16TB drive per year of transactions right now would be unwieldy; in 10 years that may not be unwieldy because a single drive might store 64TB)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But again, not really a very compelling argument for adopting this technology. It's very inefficient either way, and this is just storage, to say nothing of how you actually go about efficiently validating transactions over a 16TB-per-year backing store.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
Are we limiting the discussion to proof-of-work chains? There are proof-of-stake chains doing Visa-level transaction throughput today, e.g. Solana. One of the tricks they use is distributing storage across nodes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moistgibs @TimSweeneyEpic
Well, as with all things crypto, it's hard to have a broad discussion because different currencies do things differently, usually each with its own set of weaknesses that people like to pretend aren't there.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
So it's hard to switch from talking about one to talking about another, because yes, the other coin will not have the same drawback, because it "fixed" the problem, but it usually "fixed" it by just creating a different problem somewhere else.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.