I have been doing some research lately on the scaling issue with blockchain technology over the last year or two. I have been invested in Dash since before this was as big of an issue as it is today or rather before it was realised to be the magnitude of issue it is. I decided some time ago now that the incentivised two tier Masternode model is the best-known method to resolve the scaling issue. I see it as a hardware issue really and no software update can to my knowledge ever fix the issue the same way a hardware fix could. I see it as comparing improving a photo you can either buy a better camera for a higher resolution photo or add a filter, you tell me which improves the photo more.
Bitcoin Cash seem to be on the right track but it puzzles me that they haven’t foreseen the issue that if they do not have incentivised nodes on their network that by increasing the block size the costs incurred running a node will increase and because altruism only stretches so far the number of nodes ran will subsequently decrease. They in my opinion have either under estimated the size requirement of a mainstream adopted network, over estimated altruism aspects or don’t really believe crypto currency will reach mass adoption.
Bitcoin core, while I admit my knowledge on blockchain technology is rudimentary so as far as the complex mathematics that goes into it, so I rely on market experts like Evan Duffield to confirm with the legitimacy of the software behind the scenes. Everyone in this space is predominantly here because of the blockchain, the ability to validate information between multiple parties in vastly differing geographical locations in a trustless manner without using a third party and in a decentralised way is why cryptocurrencies fundamentally hold the value they do.
If someone could then explain to me why LN (Lightning Network) being a centralised database where transactions are confirmed using smart contracts which is obviously neglecting to use the blockchain is considered to be an update? It sounds to me that the LN main focus is to essentially hold 1000's if not 100,000's of transactions in smart contracts when the mempool is oversubscribed until there is a lull. However surely as the network receives more adopters the window of opportunity will completely close and we will end up in much the same position we are in now, with potentially millions of transactions confirmed through smart contracts but unable to be populated through the blockchain ledger due to backlog.
I’ve read that transactions can be consolidated thus reducing the number of transactions that will need to be added to the blockchain. Has any research been done on the potential reduction? Has this been put into practice now with Litecoin having LN?
Let’s assume that Bitcoin fixes the scaling issue with the LN. Why are they not willing to concede the fact that the LN being centralized isn't a cause for concern and opposite to the philosophy of what Satoshi Nakamoto intended. Surely this central repository being in a localised place leaves it open to being taken out. What provisions are in place for the subsequent loss of data through an attack?
I just felt with all of the trolling I’m seeing lately from Bitcoin core, Litecoin and Monero towards Dash that I had to have my two cents on this. I’d be happy to have a debate on this with anyone or indeed educated on where I’ve gone wrong in my understanding of this issue. This is just one of the many reasons why I’m invested in Dash and thankfully through the hardwork of our great team and an amazing community we have already achieved amazing things and after attending the recent London conference I’m more excited in our future than ever.
In regards to the poll, I understand that the responses will likely be biased towards Dash's solution but I think it'll be interesting to see the results.
Thanks
ANAEDV | Ancapzero
Twitter: @Ancapzero
Bitcoin Cash seem to be on the right track but it puzzles me that they haven’t foreseen the issue that if they do not have incentivised nodes on their network that by increasing the block size the costs incurred running a node will increase and because altruism only stretches so far the number of nodes ran will subsequently decrease. They in my opinion have either under estimated the size requirement of a mainstream adopted network, over estimated altruism aspects or don’t really believe crypto currency will reach mass adoption.
Bitcoin core, while I admit my knowledge on blockchain technology is rudimentary so as far as the complex mathematics that goes into it, so I rely on market experts like Evan Duffield to confirm with the legitimacy of the software behind the scenes. Everyone in this space is predominantly here because of the blockchain, the ability to validate information between multiple parties in vastly differing geographical locations in a trustless manner without using a third party and in a decentralised way is why cryptocurrencies fundamentally hold the value they do.
If someone could then explain to me why LN (Lightning Network) being a centralised database where transactions are confirmed using smart contracts which is obviously neglecting to use the blockchain is considered to be an update? It sounds to me that the LN main focus is to essentially hold 1000's if not 100,000's of transactions in smart contracts when the mempool is oversubscribed until there is a lull. However surely as the network receives more adopters the window of opportunity will completely close and we will end up in much the same position we are in now, with potentially millions of transactions confirmed through smart contracts but unable to be populated through the blockchain ledger due to backlog.
I’ve read that transactions can be consolidated thus reducing the number of transactions that will need to be added to the blockchain. Has any research been done on the potential reduction? Has this been put into practice now with Litecoin having LN?
Let’s assume that Bitcoin fixes the scaling issue with the LN. Why are they not willing to concede the fact that the LN being centralized isn't a cause for concern and opposite to the philosophy of what Satoshi Nakamoto intended. Surely this central repository being in a localised place leaves it open to being taken out. What provisions are in place for the subsequent loss of data through an attack?
I just felt with all of the trolling I’m seeing lately from Bitcoin core, Litecoin and Monero towards Dash that I had to have my two cents on this. I’d be happy to have a debate on this with anyone or indeed educated on where I’ve gone wrong in my understanding of this issue. This is just one of the many reasons why I’m invested in Dash and thankfully through the hardwork of our great team and an amazing community we have already achieved amazing things and after attending the recent London conference I’m more excited in our future than ever.
In regards to the poll, I understand that the responses will likely be biased towards Dash's solution but I think it'll be interesting to see the results.
Thanks
ANAEDV | Ancapzero
Twitter: @Ancapzero
