Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 234 posts

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#71

Post by meowkit »

chromaton wrote: post #42
pa7x1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethereum layer 1 is processing closer to 20 per second. In particular, it did 1716000 in the last 24 h. Ethereum's layer 2 can handle tens of thousands transactions per second. These are then settled on chain as a single transaction. There are multiple layer 2 solutions already working and more are coming. It's not a pipedream anymore they are live.

How many transactions per day are currently being run on Ethereum layer 2? I can't find this info.

Because layer 2 is nebulous.

You’ll have to look up the transactions for each ERC20 token with volume. Volume is much higher than the base chain, but we are still waiting on rollups and sharding to supercharge TPS.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#72

Post by rawtxapp »

itsdsmurrell wrote: post #69
rawtxapp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some very important changes happening in bitcoin (taproot, eltoo, lightning). Devs aren't opposed to protocol changes, they are opposed to ill-thought changes that make it less decentralized and weaker.

Wrong, they are opposed to changes that will stop them from profiteering off higher layer solutions they provide.

Devs are not profiting from 2nd layers, people who commit capital to these payment channels do! And even then it's tiny amounts.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#73

Post by itsdsmurrell »

dylkil wrote: post #23

its a pity bitcoin devs are so opposed to changing the protocol. So much research has been done showing the feasibility of increasing bitcoins throughput. Xthinner for instance is capable of compressing bitcoin blocks by up to 99% using bloom filters [1]. Much of this research was conducted on the bitcoin fork, bitcoin cash, by people ostracized from the bitcoin community for wanting to explore these ideas. [1] https…

For anyone who joined late: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/61mxuj/block_size_limi...

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#74

Post by itsdsmurrell »

dylkil wrote: post #49
scotty79 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why many low fee transactions were not chosen?

You'll get many different responses to this question depending on who you ask. If you want to read into further i recommend you read the great scaling debate[1]. Its pretty long but does a fantastic job of summarizing the history. In short the most popular reason for not having a block size increase (to allow many low fee transactions) was that it would increase the cost of running a full node, in turn centralising t…

They (the devs that control the repo that almost all miners run code from) chose to stifle the base layer to profit from higher layers using 'goat herders should be able to run a full node' as the excuse.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#75

Post by itsdsmurrell »

lottin wrote: post #53
djschnei wrote: post #14

Bitcoin doesn't need to increase its throughput. This is what layer 2 (3,4,...,n) solutions are for. This is like saying "Well, the dollar is useless because Fedwire TPS doesn't accommodate all transactions." If you compare apples to apples, Bitcoin is more than adequate to replace something like Fedwire with a zero trust decentralized system. Layer 2 solutions for Bitcoin can look something like The Lightning Networ…

Sorry but bitcoin is peer-to-peer cash system. If it can't handle peer-to-peer transactions then it's an utter failure.

Correct, BTC is not peer to peer cash, try the real Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#76

Post by crazypython »

homakov wrote: post #31

Bitcoin dominance is fading this year only because it has bet on LN with fundamental inbound capacity problem. LN rejected my proposal to solve it and extend channels with credit lines: XLN https://medium.com/fairlayer/xln-extended-lightning-network-...

Interesting.

> Also, uninsured balances are enforceable onchain, which is very different from a trusted balance.

Does this mean XLN is implemented with a smart contract that withdraws the money from an address if you fail to pay? Or automatically cancels the channel if you withdraw more than what you have in the channel?

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#77

Post by dboreham »

pa7x1 wrote: post #18
chromaton wrote: post #11

Here is the real world, Bitcoin is currently running a blazing 3.3 transactions per second. Etherium dwarfs that at a mighty 14 transactions per second. Meanwhile, PayPal crawls along with a pathetic 488 tps. https://www.statista.com/statistics/730838/number-of-daily-c... https://www.businessofapps.com/data/paypal-statistics/

Ethereum layer 1 is processing closer to 20 per second. In particular, it did 1716000 in the last 24 h. Ethereum's layer 2 can handle tens of thousands transactions per second. These are then settled on chain as a single transaction. There are multiple layer 2 solutions already working and more are coming. It's not a pipedream anymore they are live.

"already working" hmm.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#78

Post by wmf »

rawtxapp wrote: post #64
brighton36 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, crypto indexers beat Bitcoin maximalists. But, the evidence for indexing performance will never see the light of day . :)

Not sure what you mean by crypto indexer, you mean people who buy a basket of crypto? Sure, in the short term, they might outperform BTC, over long term 70% will die, 90+% won't recover to their ATHs. If you indexed back in 2017 into top 10 coins, only like 3 of them crossed their old prices from 2017, rest are as good as dead.

Usually you'd rebalance periodically.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#79

Post by thegreatpeter »

wmf wrote: post #78
rawtxapp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean by crypto indexer, you mean people who buy a basket of crypto? Sure, in the short term, they might outperform BTC, over long term 70% will die, 90+% won't recover to their ATHs. If you indexed back in 2017 into top 10 coins, only like 3 of them crossed their old prices from 2017, rest are as good as dead.

Usually you'd rebalance periodically.

Seems like stuff folks say in a bubble. 90% of it will disappear once ethereum fixes this/that.

Re: An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks

#80

Post by Taek »

mullingitover wrote: post #67
Taek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some senses it's not a lot, in other senses it is a lot. Large systems (like the US banking system) only do a few intra-bank settlements per day, 100 tps is well beyond what you need for nation states to do business with eachother. And then down at the consumer level it's nothing at all. During peak hours of the peak season (Christmas), Visa does something like 50,000 tps. What makes Bitcoin interesting is the tru…

> What makes Bitcoin interesting is the trustlessness of the transfers, and that tends to be more interesting higher up the stack (at the inter-bank and inter-national levels) than at the consumer level What's interesting about that? Higher up the stack, trustlessness is not compelling at all - if I'm transacting with you on the scale of six-plus figures, I absolutely won't transact with someone I don't trust, and an…

The whole point of a trustless transaction is that you don't need to worry about who the counterparty is. You don't need the leverage to sue somebody because fraud is not possible. For digital transactions, the lack of trust can be two-way - two mutually distrusting people can confidently exchange Bitcoin for Ethereum in a transaction, because the software and math behind the blockchain prevents fraud from happening at all.

For meatspace the best you can do is one-way. If I'm buying a car with Bitcoin, I still need to trust the car manufacturer to deliver, but the car manufacturer does not need to trust me. They don't need to know who I am or how deep my credit line is, as soon as the bitcoin hits their wallets they have extreme confidence that the transaction won't be reverted. No bounced checks, no chargebacks, etc. It's a zero fraud system, and there's also no intermediate party (like PayPal or a bank) that can decide the transaction shouldn't happen. Whether or not the payment is accepted is at the sole discretion of the recipient.

Post reply on HN