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 -
Not sure what you mean by obviously false. - Transmitting 8GB every 10 mins between well connected miners is not challenging. - Some of that data can be pruned (discarded). - A miner getting millions of dollars in fees can afford some big hard drives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But if you assume those things, then you don't need BitCoin anymore, because now you're just talking about a small network of banks. Which is what we already have. The point of BitCoin was for _anyone_ to be able to transact and validate the ledger.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @coinline and
Obviously if you only care about a few hundred massively capitalized operations who can afford arbitrarily large bandwidth and storage, then sure, maybe this makes sense - but then you don't need cryptocurrency anymore, either. Because you've regressed back to today's banking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @coinline and
With the PoW rate limiter, BitCoin really does still live up to the promise of anyone can validate, right. I mean right now you could presumably set up a node and validate the entire history of BitCoin, as a basic user.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @coinline and
Without the PoW rate limiter and/or with arbitrarily massive blocks, then that all goes away.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course I would probably argue that this will happen either way, because I think frankly none of these "designs" really solve distributed transactions any better than the current system anyway. But for the sake of argument, the rate limit _is_ important.
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.