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 -
The point of BitCoin is not for anyone to be able to transact and validate the ledger. Larger server farms were always the end goal. The point is to transact without a trusted third party / institution in the middle, reducing fees to practically zero.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "a few large server farms" and "trusted third party in the middle", if edge nodes cannot independently verify the ledger.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @coinline and
If edge nodes can verify, then you don't have to "trust" miners, because you can see double spends yourself. If edge nodes can't verify, then miners can conspire to do as much double spending as they want, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
There is of course the open question as to whether edge nodes will ever be able to verify a real, functional world-wide transaction system anyway. But in order for any of these cryptocurrencies to have a point, we have to assume that the goal is that they can.
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.