BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: clayop on July 22, 2015, 03:06:39 am
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3e2ta9/how_and_when_will_ethereum_be_scalable/
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e3otj/ethereum_is_going_to_support_115000_tps_can_we/
I think this competition is good for both...
-
115,000 is theoretical
-
Why not 115,376? :)
First Ethereum should release something working and useful then we will see. :)
-
115,000 is theoretical
Right. They did not mention system requirements and network bandwidth.
-
I can also "argue for" large amounts of TPS.
-
To be fair, our 100k tps is also theoretical. I think we're quite a bit closer to implementation than etherium. Either way we have no where near the demand for 100k tps .
-
(http://www.preparemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/How-to-Figure-TP-1024x1024.jpg)
-
Here is the paper https://github.com/vbuterin/scalability_paper/blob/master/scalability.pdf
The abstract at least is fairly understandable.
Someone out there that has understood it enough to explain what the limitations / shortcomings of this approach are and where the benefits are?
And is "stacking" (section 8; acc. to the paper it would bring "infinite" TPS) not opposed to Bytemaster's assumption that blockchains are inherently single threaded?
-
Shouldnt we, as the cryptoland dwellers, first reach 1k TPS first as a milestone. I mean what TPS does bitcoin process? seven??
The question is what TPS do we need in the foreseeable future. This 115k transactions thing seems to be no more than a pissing contest to me. What do you think?
-
Shouldnt we, as the cryptoland dwellers, first reach 1k TPS first as a milestone. I mean what TPS does bitcoin process? seven??
The question is what TPS do we need in the foreseeable future. This 115k transactions thing seems to be no more than a pissing contest to me. What do you think?
Pissing contest. That's the only possible explanation for the announcement.
-
Shouldnt we, as the cryptoland dwellers, first reach 1k TPS first as a milestone. I mean what TPS does bitcoin process? seven??
The question is what TPS do we need in the foreseeable future. This 115k transactions thing seems to be no more than a pissing contest to me. What do you think?
Pissing contest. That's the only possible explanation for the announcement.
totally
-
I wish ethereum would work more closely with bitshares. I wonder if they might reconsider merging with bitshares.....would be great for both projects.
-
I wish ethereum would work more closely with bitshares.
+5%
-
I wish ethereum would work more closely with bitshares. I wonder if they might reconsider merging with bitshares.....would be great for both projects.
IMHO, at least our consensus scheme is superior
-
I wish Ethereum would work.
TPS are their least concern as far as I know.
-
To be fair, our 100k tps is also theoretical. I think we're quite a bit closer to implementation than etherium. Either way we have no where near the demand for 100k tps .
At least BitShares 100k TPS was tested in ideal network environment.
Sure in real life it's will be less but at least we know it's possible and will work.
-
I wish ethereum would work more closely with bitshares. I wonder if they might reconsider merging with bitshares.....would be great for both projects.
IMHO, at least our consensus scheme is superior
Certainly seems that way (i love our devs,) but I would take a lot more joy out of any success bitshares may have in the future if we are able to take a bunch of great, smart people with us and many thousands of their community members. I don't want bitshares to succeed and ethereum or any other genuine project to fail. If every major or interesting project decided to sharedrop on every other right now, that would be just the best......even though I believe bitshares has a leading edge.
-
next news ripple will be able to handle 115,001 tps
-
"
No, this is long term Ethereum research and development Skunk Works kind of stuff. Highest txps we've reached on the current implementation is 40.
The work the researchers are doing now is for future iterations of Ethereum in 1/2 years or so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So we have test nets that don't break a sweat at 500 tps and theirs max out at 40.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Using a sharding approach bts could also increase its tps linearly with the number of shards.
Our pre-optimized code can process 180,000 on average hardware. Upgrade the cpu and add a few optimizations and I bet bts hits 500000 tps without all of the down sides of sharding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
all of the down sides of sharding.
What are the downsides of sharding besides the obvious ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1PnA698Zc#t=2m45s)?
-
all of the down sides of sharding.
What are the downsides of sharding besides the obvious ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1PnA698Zc#t=2m45s)?
In V's blog about the hypercube approach the cost is confirmation time. The other problem is that everyone focuses on scalability of TRANSFERS while ignoring the issue of scalability of MARKETS or "smart contracts in general".
-
all of the down sides of sharding.
What are the downsides of sharding besides the obvious ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1PnA698Zc#t=2m45s)?
In V's blog about the hypercube approach the cost is confirmation time. The other problem is that everyone focuses on scalability of TRANSFERS while ignoring the issue of scalability of MARKETS or "smart contracts in general".
Can you say what the limitations of "stacking" are (see also https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17671.msg225225.html#msg225225 )?
-
all of the down sides of sharding.
What are the downsides of sharding besides the obvious ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1PnA698Zc#t=2m45s)?
In V's blog about the hypercube approach the cost is confirmation time. The other problem is that everyone focuses on scalability of TRANSFERS while ignoring the issue of scalability of MARKETS or "smart contracts in general".
Can you say what the limitations of "stacking" are (see also https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17671.msg225225.html#msg225225 )?
The model presented assumes there isn't high sequential contention on the same data. I don't believe it will work in practice.