Quote from: knight22 on September 24, 2015, 04:17:19 AM

Quote from: erik777 on September 24, 2015, 04:14:14 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 24, 2015, 03:45:03 AM

Quote from: erik777 on September 24, 2015, 03:43:11 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 24, 2015, 03:12:28 AM

Quote from: erik777 on September 24, 2015, 02:59:52 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 24, 2015, 02:14:26 AM

Quote from: erik777 on September 24, 2015, 02:06:59 AM

I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:

Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well.

Yes, and that is sort of my point. You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking.

I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking.

At the cost of decentralization. This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa. Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking.

We agree on the primary point. So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread.

Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency?

No because these issues did not arise yet so there is no incentive to solve them yet?

It is if you want to increase TPS while preserving decentralization. I think most people support increasing the block size. We just want to see a hard fork that addresses scalability holistically, not just one element of it, only to require yet another hard fork to finish the job.

To be sure, there are some good proposals for improving network efficiency while preserving decentralization and security. They just require a hard fork, as does increasing the block size. Let's have ONE hard fork that truly paves the way for scalability.

XT does not offer the holistic scalability solution we need, and definitely introduces too many risks we don't need.

Which are those proposal? Any doc?

Standardizing efficient block propogation
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#O.281.29_block_propagation

Protecting security while scaling
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/578.pdf
"our findings show that the countermeasure adopted in
Bitcoin XT to prevent the double-spending of fast payments can be
easily circumvented by a resource-constrained adversary."

Ultimate blockchain compression w/ trust-free lite nodes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0

Do we have a complete holistic proposal yet? No, but we know that XT isn't it, and we have some idea what that holistic approach needs to include. Let's focus on building that holistic consensus proposal, and THEN consider how to introduce it with a had fork, rather than setting us up for many hard forks with a lot of unnecessary risk.