Sort:  

I didn't? I thoughts it's obvious. It has the liability of a 4mb block, but it only advertized itself as a 2 MB throughput, when in fact if you do the calculations it only gives like 20% bonus.

So it's effectively an 1.2 MB throughput with a 4MB liability.

We'd be better off with a 8MB block size increase then, if we go by this logic.


And don't give me that hardforks are dangerous. They aren't if they are executed properly. And the dangers of not acting are possibly worse than the risk of hardfork.

So by itself it is not an answer to scalability. I am thinking of a way to create a sidechain that gives you 32 MB blocks and parity with bitcoin wiyhout waiting for sidechains and without a bitcoin hf.

You can't really do that without sacrificing security. Most of what LN does is centralizes the transactions by coupling them into 1 pile and just using the hash on the chain.

This is an extreme form of compression, but it sacrifices security and transparency. It's horrible.

Either you have onchain transactions or your have IOU crap that can be easily sabotaged.

If it comes to that level, I will leave Bitcoin.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.13
JST 0.028
BTC 57614.45
ETH 3097.31
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.57