Scaling and failing

Which currencies don't have this issue? Is it just XRP/STR?

 

When does scaling become a problem? I was speaking to a coin developer recently, and they told me that scaling would not be an issue until they are at least 10 times larger than Bitcoin. When it reaches 5 times larger than Bitcoin, he could scale them up immediately in 15 minutes. They would just need to double their blocksize or implement segwit. Thoughts?

 

I just scrolled up a month worth of messages. I cannot find any explanation, just comments saying that ETH does not scale.

 

After digging around, scaling narrows down to being able to handle the network capacity. Most currencies will never require an increase in scaling because they are only using like 0.01% of the network capacity at the moment, and it would take a decade for most coins to come close to requiring a solution to scaling. Certain alt-coins do not even require scaling until they are ten times larger than what Bitcoin is currently.

Here is what I got from a previous video you linked:

SegWit is a debatable approach to solving the scaling issue. Segwit allows the block sizes to be increased to up to 4MB by removing non-critical data. Unfortunately, SegWit is not a decentralized solution. It might be enough growth for several years, but eventually, the limit will be reached. To fix that, you can merge Segwit with Lightning Network technology because by removing data can make it secure enough to function without security hazards. That creates centralization that coins are supposed to be avoiding. Bitcoin has another option called Bitcoin Unlimited. Its flaw is that its way too slow. With a large blockchain, it would only be able to deal with three to seven transactions per second, compared to 24 thousand for second by Visa. All of these scaling solutions have been approached and argued about in the BitCoin community for years, and they still not have solved it. Each one has a downfall, except Ripple has a unique approach to scaling.​

The altcoin would need to be in the top 3 virtual currencies to require an effective scaling solution. Most of the existing solutions like segwit are already enough to allow growth for several more years. It will take more than a decade, for most coins, to reach that problem. In Ripple's case, they require a solution because they have a firm belief it will be a top currency during the next few years. Coins are always being replaced with better technology and designs. In a decade, there will most likely be plenty of solutions that can be applied to the coins that require them. New problems will arise, and coins will be fighting for competition in the top rank charts. Virtual currency will eventually be accepted globally in most locations.

As an investor evaluating new coin releases for huge gains during the next few years do, we even need to consider the scaling problem? As far as I can see, it does not matter unless it is one of the very top coins, which means we would be betting on that single currency (Ripple at the moment) to be in the top three most used coins of the next decade. Even if we are full believers of that, does that make every other coin in existence shit until coins that do not have a scaling problem begin releasing scaling solutions that they will not need for a very long time?

I am starting to see that maybe it is a better idea that most of the new altcoin development teams focus on the technology that makes them differentiate from the current supply of coins, and not worry about scaling until they foresee themselves becoming a top 3 coin. The people that are having a scaling issue like BitCoin and ETH already have a ton of resources put into finding scaling solutions for their coins. Most coins have approximately a decade to run into the scaling problem. So it seems silly to spend their limited resources on developing a solution to a problem that does not yet exist for them instead of developing newly innovated technology that will make it stand out from the rest. If someone created a copy of Bitcoin today with a scaling solution, it would have to be open source, and Bitcoin could just take their method. Then that coin will become useless because it is just a copy of the original coin that has a massive market.

• Why are you so concerned with scaling as an investor?
• Do you believe the big coins like BitCoin will find a solution to scaling before someone takes their place?
• Why do you believe development teams with limited resources should be focused on the scaling problem over prioritizing new technology that separate them from the rest?

 

That is a good analogy. I like reading them. In theory Ripple, or any coin with a modern scaling solution can easily be replaced because new innovative coins are always being created and once a scaling solution is found they will all have it implemented. Instead of investing on current providers of a relative solution, it would be more profitable to invest in impressive technology that differentiates from the current stock.


Example:

You build a skyscraper on a solid foundation, but you do not have anyone to fill your building because other buildings nearby have five-star rooms. You can argue that your building is safer, but the other skyscrapers will not fall for another ten years. By the time they are going to fall, there will already be multiple solutions to keep them upright, and the towers will be altered to prevent them from falling. In the meantime, that tower with a solid foundation has been sitting there for ten years earning little amounts of money and eventually being replaced by new skyscrapers with much better grounds and five-star rooms. Not only is it being replaced by better foundation skyscrapers, but even if it wants to convert to a sturdier material it would still not have anything to make it better than the ones surrounding it.​

To me, it seems like you are putting a lot of faith that Ripple is the number one coin of the future. That no other building will have a foundation like Ripple, and by the time they do they will not be able to compete with their brand. That brings me back to your argument of kicking the can down the road. They created a scaling solution to a problem that does not yet exist for them. What happens with BitCoin or ETH or a random development team releases an open source solution? Ripple might have big banks backing them in areas in the world, but they are nowhere near the point of being irreplaceable in most locations around the world. It could quickly fizzle out once a scaling solution is found. Let's say Ripple reaches 5 USD per coin by the time a scaling solution is found, are you still going to have faith in their technology over the rest or would you immediately sell out? What gives their coin more value than the rest or more potential than a lot of these interesting ICOs being released? They require more than a strong foundation for longevity.

How long do you think it will take for them to find scaling solutions? It would take years for Bitcoin to fizzle out, and I cannot imagine them not finding a solution to rebuild that foundation at a faster pace than their decline.

Additionally, do you believe all altcoins require the ability to solve the scaling problem to become huge?


Example:

An altcoin called SytheCoin has incredible features and releases at 0.0001 USD, and it has enormous potential to get up to 1 USD after a few years. Scaling will not become a problem until it is like a hundred dollars or more for the coin. It is the best coin design ever, minus the foundation that will need to be replaced in ten years.

People are making millions of dollars on their original investment into that incredible SytheCoin, and it is increasing in value at the same rate of Ripple. Your primary defense is that Ripple has a strong foundation, so it will never stop, but I do not see why you feel so confident in their future when the only requirement to bring it down is a solution to the other foundations.

Keep in mind; I do have an investment in Ripple. I believe they have a strong presence right now, and their value will rise to at least a dollar before a solution is found. I just cannot see the reason all coins without a solid foundation could be considered a worthless investment when in reality they have an equal chance at success as Ripple. The numbers of banks are irrelevant right now. Honestly, that is one of the reasons most of the people on the BitCoinTalk community hate Ripple is because they are getting too close to the centralization that these coins are avoiding. If another currency implemented a scaling solution, wouldn't you envision a lot of people jumping ship because Ripple is so close to the banking industry?​

Example:

Bitcoin is the dog needing surgery, Ripple is the dog missing two back legs, and the other altcoins are the dogs that do not need surgery at the moment but might need it down the road.

You want to race the dog requiring surgery vs. the dog missing two front legs in a years time, believing the surgery will go bad and it will die. Professional vets say that it has an 80% chance of survival after surgery without any complications. You are sticking with the safer bet because your dog is 100% not going to die from surgery.

Two scenarios can occur. The dog dies in surgery, and the dog without two front legs wins the race by forfeit. Or, the dog survives surgery, and you take the dog missing two legs and shoot it behind your barn because now it is worthless to you.

If the dog dies in surgery, you have a line of young dogs with huge race potential that all have heart complications that will require surgery 5-7 years down the line. You plan on running your dog vs. all of these younger pups. You seem to have a firm belief all of these younger dogs are going to die. They might win the first few races, but you know eventually down the line they are going to pass out and your dog will still be alive and kicking.

In the meantime, that veterinarian that watched the original dog that went through surgery die has spent all of this time with a huge vet community with millions of dollars invested in research to find a pill or solution to dog heart problems.

Do you think the solution will not be located by the time these dogs die?

If the cure is found, your dog will have to race them. Your dog has a bunch of guys throwing him steroids, so that little bastard is going to Steamboat the shit out of that race because they have a bunch of money invested in the dog at the betting table.

At the end of the day, you took a safer bet because the dog with two legs was not going to die of heart problems. That is a much bigger risk in my perspective because the solution was eventually going to be found. Unless that two-legged dog finds an incredible solution through robotic legs that can make it run incredibly fast, it is going to lose.
​

Can you see the perspective I have right now? The two-legged dog WILL eventually have to compete. Ripple will have to compete with the same or better scaling solutions and coins that have much better designs or technology. What does Ripple have going for them, besides the scaling and banks? The banks are actually a negative promotion to most in the virtual currency community, and their scaling is not a breakthrough. There are plenty of new coins that must much better designs without the scaling, and they can potentially obtain scaling before they even require it during the next several years. Keep in mind, they will not even require it until they are in the top 3. The scaling solution will be completely irrelevant for them even if they have it in their foundation.

I already know you will still be in support of Ripple, and I am not trying to bash it. It does have potential to expand its design and stay a top competitor, but it needs to do it quickly. It does solve scaling. It is a great coin right now. I just do not see how it is any better than a lot of these new coins because the firm foundation is not technically required for its success and it can be upgraded.

 

If Bitcoin begins a downward spiral without control over the market due to its inability to scale, what stops it from adopting similar solutions that Ripple has applied by removing the non-trusted part of the network to protect its identity? I believe the technology is open source, so I do not see how they would not have it as a backup plan if necessary to stay afloat. They have plenty of time to make that change before other currencies built with scaling factors become challengers.

It will be challenging to make the change due to the size of the network, but it is feasible given the amount of time it will take any other currencies to reach Bitcoin's growth. Keep in mind that Bitcoin is already being used on Facebook, Steam, Microsoft, Google, and most industries in the technological world. The price has grown over a thousand dollars in just the last few months. It is still growing even with the scaling problem, which is very well-known in the cryptocurrency space. That growth is the reason there is a scaling problem for them. At what point will that growth turn into a decline, and at that point would it be highly unlikely for them to adapt to a solution, even if it is using trusted nodes?

Yes, scaling is a future requirement for altcoins, but not right now. It is a waste of time and effort for them to create a brand new scaling solution instead of focusing on their coins differential concept. I doubt alt coins would deflate that far. People are moving toward other altcoins because of many different reasons. It is not only hype and marketing. Keep in mind that Bitcoin has thrown out the level of anonymity that started the venture to virtual currencies. Individual coins are becoming popular because of their anonymity, and connections they have with other ideas. If an entire social media network became large enough with a scaling solution, its success and technology could potentially overshadow both Ripple and Bitcoin. Anonymous coins will never completely phase out because many people desire them. If coins begin making deals with companies like Steam, Facebook, etc.; they could easily grow even if Bitcoin did not have a scaling problem.

Scaling is an issue. It is not the currencies value or purpose.

It will not stop individual alt coins from controlling a part of the cryptocurrency market. If Bitcoin solved its scaling issue, other alt coins would begin implementing the same concept in their starting source code. Once again, altcoins have plenty of time to apply scaling, and it does not have to be their foundation. Their buildings can float and have the base added later.


Market Environment:

You have to realize that the market is drastically changing every year. The environment of investors and the virtual currency sector is consistently evolving. People might not have given a shit about smart contract or multisigs a few years ago, but the type of investors and altcoins have completely changed. The market space is in a transitioning stage from purely tech-savvy investors or businesses to worldwide adaptation by the average population. More people are in the space, and the desire for a lot of these new altcoins concepts is high. Right now the biggest problem is my mind is that most of these coins do not have a real purpose. I consider coins that are copies of pre-existing coins without enough relevant change or other technology to support them are shit coins.

Scaling itself will not kill altcoins because they do not require it for another decade, and Bitcoins adaptation to network verification or Ripple's advancement to first place will not change their value if they have more going for them than just being a duplicate. Even if you believe Bitcoin will drown, and Ripple will surpass them in a few years; at that point, there will be hundred of millions or billions of dollars invested in altcoins. They are not all going to suddenly drop their interest and transfer all of it into Ripple. They have a purpose beyond just their ability to scale.

You say there will only be 2-3 major coins with the ability to scale that will consume 80% of the market, yet there are many more combinations of using coins that people desire than that low number.



Let us talk in theory:

Let's say one of them is Ripple, the standard virtual currency. Ripple might stay at the top of the market due to its generalized purpose. Another coin is Monero, an anonymous currency.

Right now the anonymous cryptocurrency world is dealing with many different approaches to anonymity. There is not a single anonymous currency that is considered the best in every situation. There are certain advantages to the different variations that cannot be mixed due to conflicts in protocols.

Another coin is LBRY, a media currency. Can LBRY become the single currency that will be used for all video streams, blogs, advertising, gaming, and the other million sources of media around the Internet?

( I am using those names as examples and not trying to say they will be the standards seriously.)

I just cannot imagine all of the other coins be pushed out of the market because they already have their foot in the space. The ones that are unique will keep their placement, even if a scaleable leader emerges. The coins that are shit will fall out of the market. Ripple can scale, but it cannot cover all of the desires of cryptocurrency users.

The world is changing, and currency will work differently in the future.



Here is my opinion on the status of the cryptocurrency world:

It will not be running on a single currency like a lot of people would want to believe, but it will be running on an exchange system of virtual currencies. It is already running on this system. People can keep their money in an anonymous currency if they're always using that for transactions. If someone needs to buy something from Microsoft, they can transfer it to Bitcoin to make the purchase. Bitcoin can be that single base point, but there will always be side currencies that focus on some areas of the market due to their unique protocols and relations to particular technology or media. It is impossible to infuse all of these concepts into one single coin, or even three coins. That is particularly the case because millions or billions of dollars will be invested in different coins that have influence in different spaces.

Imagine a new "YouTube" website is created that is paid in a new YouCoin. Advertisers can pay YouTube in their choice of currency; YouTube can pay content creators in YouCoin. YouCoin can be used to purchase video streaming services, Google products, online storage space, games, etc. That currency will have a value, and it will not disappear because there is a standardized coin which can be used to purchase groceries. The value of that coin will be independent of the price of Ripple or Bitcoin or whatever is the major coin. Nothing can remove that value except its ecosystem.

It is like USD and CAD. Why would CAD be impacted by the worth of USD? CAD has its purpose in Canada, and its value is based on that nation's treasury. YouCoins price would be affected by the revenue system, amount of content providers, the number of coins in circulation, the exchange points, etc.

Right now Bitcoin changes the market drastically because altcoins are not exactly at the point in which they are entirely dependent. Bitcoin is still the iconic symbol for virtual currency, and most altcoins do not have their purpose fulfilled. Once they get running, they will no longer crash when Bitcoin crashes because they do not need to exchange over to Bitcoin to purchase their products.

Certain coin concepts have the ability to break away and form their own economy. Certain coin concepts require the standard coin like Ripple or Bitcoin, yet they are never disappear because they are accomplishing something Bitcoin and Ripple can never give them. I do not know at what point these altcoins need to scale. I believe we can both agree that the top coins require the ability to scale. I just do not agree that every other coin except the top three would be considered shit and that they do not require scaling because they are shit. They still have purpose. If they do not have that purpose, then yes they are shit.

 

Miners must allow it if the coin is going to die without it. You have a point about it basically being a new coin. I still doubt that they will not find a solution before the coins death.

Unless the problem will never exist for them because they are a branch of the standard that does not require that much scale. I still have my doubts that it is impossible to scale it within the next decade. I think we might have to agree to disagree on the success of coins being dependent on their ability to scale.

I do not agree. That is not a fact, but a matter of perspective based on opinions of the future. Cryptocurrency can be valuable without the ability to scale because certain branches do not require it. A coin can be accepted without the ability to scale. They already exist. Coins can be quickly and cheaply be traded without scaling if they do not require scaling. None of them will require the ability to scale for many years. Ripple will not even need the ability to scale for most likely the next year, if not longer. Which brings us around in a circle to whether or not scaling can be added to coins. I agree that it might be a horrible process for Bitcoin that may never occur unless new developments arise, but altcoins can transition into better scaling strategies after their release without creating a whole new coin. They have to do it before they have grown too large and expect to reach the level of standard.

Wait, what? Bitcoin was not built with the intention to provide anonymity to transactions? Everything I read talks about how Bitcoin is throwing away its original concept of anonymity to provide faster and cheaper transactions. There seems to be quite a large portion of the community pissed about it and they do want it.

You are correct. The standard will be a coin with those traits, but it will not provide large portions of the community with what they want out of a virtual currency. It is almost like you are pretending like that people do not exist, when they are literally spamming the largest virtual currency forums about it. The fact the people are spending millions of dollars on these new coins with interesting technology proves that there is a demand for those branches.

You might turn out right. That is all speculation. My perspective is that there are a lot of business models that are not crap which have entered the cryptospace, and they have hundred of millions of dollars invested in their growth. They have a niche that a single standard currency will never solve or contribute.

I have a question about the Ripple approach to scaling. The trusted nodes, how are they determined and would it ever be possible for individual trusted nodes to lie due to corruption? Can the mistrust of a single node wreck the chain, causing people to lose a ton of money? I am not certain how that works.

The point of Honda dollars is that you can earn them in way you cannot earn CAD. You can spend them on Honda products that cannot be purchased with CAD. If you can release media content on Honda's, and receive Honda dollars to purchase Honda products or transfer Honda dollars to CAD, then it would create a new economy. The key is having content that only Honda dollars can provide their customers. It has to be unique, and it cannot be a car brand lol. It has to be something like YouTube because the incentive will come from the media.

Hey. Stop that, lol. I will always read post directed at me, a tldr; is never required. I am not debating this because of the coins I own, that is not my motivation at all. I am motivated because I want to analyse your perspective to see if I am wrong with the way I am thinking about the virtual currency market right now. To be honest, I do agree that coins can be much more valuable and successful with they start with scaling. I do not believe that is the only way to make a successful coin.

Honestly, I really do not see Bitcoin fading out. They have to come up with a solution to altering their scale problem. I am going to read a lot more about it tomorrow.

Have you ever considered starting the development of a community driven altcoin, or do you not find the need due to Ripple existing? You could always start a real "SytheCoin" and re-brand it if it ever becomes anything!

 

Dial-up was replaced by several brands of faster speeds with better technology, not just a couple. That technology has been upgraded several times, yet keep the major brands in the business. If you are comparing BitCoin to dial-up, then Ripple would be the start of high-speed Internet.

There is a downside to a coin becoming popular without the best technology implemented. If you consider a coin unable to expand to better technology or it would be considered remaking the coin; then Ripple is as temporary as Bitcoin except Ripple will probably not even make it to the mainstream deployment of the general population because better coins will most likely be created by that point. That is true unless you believe that scaling is the only part of cryptocurrency that is a base foundation requirement, and the rest of the modifications can be deployed without the recreation of a coin. As an investor, why would an investment be better in one temporary technology vs. another temporary technology? If one coin has a social media platform backing it, and one has excellent scaling that it does not even require; what coin are people going to gravitate toward?

In any case, I understand your perspective. It might be a safer bet to place your money on that high-speed Internet, rather than to gamble it on new dial-up replicas. I am not saying it is the wrong option, but I believe diversifying a portfolio to increase profitability and provide risk distribution is an important factor to succeeding in such an unstable market.

I see. Are you waiting to see how it turns out with other altcoins or are you applying for the license? I read a news article recently that an exchange owner was placed in jail for operating a coin exchange without proper permits.

I noticed a few other altcoin communities set up a Github that people can fork out then apply for their changes to be accepted into the master edition. I am trying to study the code of them because I would like to contribute some code to one of my invested coins. It would be a great portfolio piece. If you ever start-up a coin, I would like to try making small contributions.

 

You have made your points. I do not really have anything of value to add to my argument. Cryptocurrency technology is difficult to understand. I started learning about the space around three weeks ago. I do not claim to be a cryptoguru, I just take a logical approach to all of my hobbies.