Quote from: Kakmakr on July 18, 2018, 06:22:04 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on July 18, 2018, 02:24:44 AM

Let's leave rank out of this for a moment, because I think it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's get back to the topic and what you think the LN is. In my view, the LN network solves a part of the scaling problems, by taking some of the micro transactions and placing them off-chain.

Ok, just for you Wink

LN, as a second layer protocol is suspected to centralization as it has been extensively discussed up-thread and plus a very primitive axiom I believe in: Any second layer protocol on top of bitcoin is vulnerable to centralization, no matter what.

I believe bitcoin is the ultimate and the state of the art decentralized system and as I'm used to emphasis and argue, and have tried to prove regularly, bitcoin's current situation with pools and ASICs is not inherent and MUST be resolved by means of an evolutionary approach.

Any utility, UI, browser, navigator, analyser, ... that uses bitcoin protocol to lubricate user interaction with the system, remains decentralized as long as it has not wrapped it in a new protocol and abstracted users from the actual system.

Although, Bitcoin is open and it is definitively any developper's right to invent such protocols/abstraction layers, we should be aware of the implications and threats involved and by no means such a protocol deserves to be advertised as a solution to scaling problem in bitcoin.

For instance, I can trivially design and implement a protocol for traditional banks to keep track of bitcoin deposits of their customers, providing very fast and 'secure' transaction processing utilities for in-bound transaction processing plus a simple clearance system for inter-bank/out-band transactions.
Obviously it would project parts of transaction burden off the blockchain, but do I deserve any merits? Is it wise to consider my system as an scalability solution for bitcoin?

Right now we have centralized exchanges that transact billions of dollars a day without any overhead for bitcoin network, are they parts of a scalability solution?
They are mostly dangerous wild scammers. Bittrex as one of the biggest ones, few months ago, deliberately seized and scammed millions of dollars worth of user deposits.

My other concern here is the sole protocol stacking approach. A protocol above bitcoin protocol is evil, imo. People are joining bitcoin because of its beauty and its transparency, such abstractions and wrappings, alienates people from the system.

Quote

People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.

It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.

Core guys are biased toward LN. Right? It is wrong from the beginning. A 'core' developer should take care of the core protocol instead of commercializing a second layer protocol, shouldn't s/he?
I mean, you just start asking them about sca... and observe that they have already pointed to LN for scalability. So, this is it. It is their ultimate scaling solution that users have no choice other than to adopt.

Quote

Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution.

Wrong! Block size debate is not over, I've showed it in other thread how poor is reasonings behind Core's weird approach to this debate. Mining scene is already centralized by pools and even a 100 times increase in block weight won't change the scene in this regard a bit!
I've suggested a block time decrease earlier as a better version than block size increase, tho.

Reducing block time is a complementary cure for on-chain scalability and should be considered a serious part of any improvement for bitcoin because it has a similar effect on reducing pooling pressure and centralization problems involved.

Quote

Give us a short explanation of your solution and let's debate this as responsible grownups. This name calling and swearing is so juvenile. Wink

Edit : I bumped into your thread dedicated to your idea and it looks interesting - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0

Outlines of my solution:

1- Adopting a Proof of Collaborative Work algorithm, eliminating pools
2- Reducing block time to help the above de-pooling agenda
3- Revising transaction format to make it more smart and compact
4- Making room in blocks/transactions for low level support of sharding strategies

Parts of this solution has already been published in the topic you provided a link for, others are spontaneously discussed in other topics.
Note that eliminating pools is the most critical and urgent step to make sharding as an ultimate scalability solution, feasible.

For now, I'm integrating the most important parts in the second version of my PoCW proposal, due to be published in few days.