Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain
⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do.
I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it).
That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough.
LN is not processing (166-7) 159 transactions a second. so bitcoin does not need to be 24x transaction capacity. to meet demands..
.. sorry but LN is not that popular
Lightning can definitely do that many transactions per second. It would be extremely easy: 160 users send a transaction to their peer at the same time. We have thousands of these channels already.... so if needed, LN can already provide that speed.
As I showed you, Mastercard + VISA perform roughly 5,000tx/s.
I find it a very weak argument that only because very few people use Bitcoin, it doesn't need a way of scaling.
Because that assumes Bitcoin usage will (and should) never change, and at most by a very small constant factor.
To set things clear: you don't want Bitcoin to replace / rival existing banking systems? Because to do so, it does need to reach at least VISA + Mastercard speeds. These 2 networks don't even include bank transfers, which can also be replaced by Bitcoin.
[/quote]
and also you have ignorantly tried to avoid the 'scaling bitcoin transactions' discussion by stating a silly 'stick at 1mb size' and then adding in an impossible scenario of transaction being 10 bytes.. to make it look like bitcoin cant scale.. which is another sweep under the carpet of actual utility of space.
Nononono I already showed how much data it will use if we scale block size. Then you said you want to reduce transaction size instead, so I gave you the best chance with my assumption that we can get a transaction down to incredible 10MB (that was in YOUR favour!!) and that it still only would do ~160tx/s.heres a real option.
4mb is deemed hardware safe.
so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb
Okay, so you want to simply incrase block size to 4MB, why did this require 12 pages? Everyone here's trying to figure out what you actually want / propose. Let's say you can then do around 4x the transactions of pre-segwit Bitcoin (7tx/s), that puts you at 28. This works if adoption only slightly rises.4mb is deemed hardware safe.
so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb
It also doesn't allow for micropayments which happen much more frequently than 'purchasing X things per day'. For example, when listening to a podcast on Breez, I can pay them 10sats/min (so 1tx/min). I would be sending 60 transactions a day if I were to listen for a podcast a day, opposed to the 1-5 transactions you are claiming. Of course you will say that microtransactions are unnecessary and stupid, but the fact is many people would like something like that. I accept your opinion that you don't need or like it though.
Just trying to say that since LN 'truly scales' (not 4x constant factor, that's not really scaling), you can do things that were not possible before.
other things can be done too. like limit the sigops of transactions. so that a block is not filled by just 5 transactions(if someone wanted to) and instead allow more of the space to share with more users.
also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block.
This all sounds simple and fun, but it's not a real scaling mechanism. It's small improvements here and there, that maybe bring you from 7tx/s to 28, 50 or maybe even 100. In the end, there will be a constant factor formula to get from block size to transactions/s.also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block.
However, if you get the load off the blockchain and people send commitments back and forth off-chain, the throughput will be completely independent from block- and transaction sizes. That's the beauty of it. With the same base numbers, you can handle 10, 100 or 1000s of users and transactions, because they're essentially limited by their internet connections amongst each other.
trying to make bitcoin the "reserve" where only hubs, exchanges doing batch withdrawals, and mixers doing spam transactions.. where everyone else is forced to use other networks.. is not the direction people should be aiming for
Wait, who is forcing anyone? Anyone can use whatever they want. In fact, I'm wondering why you're feeling so forced to use stupid Bitcoin with cludgy SegWit, silly LN developers and pruned-node-fanatics. There are Bitcoin forks out there with 4MB blocks, no SegWit and no LN.........I'm a little bit disappointed you showed no interest in my 7.5GB... numbers, since you like to post so many yourself, but no worries..
