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 sacrificing 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?
Right Exactly!
the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue.
the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load" or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible.