on-chain scaling vs off-chain

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
hi guys

evan has given a detailed roadmap in which he says the block size would be increased to 400 MB with special hardware etc which is wonderful and a strong reminder that other coins can't even think of this

however he said that hes not in favour of off-chain scaling , i am not sure why is that ?
why cant we have both off-chain and on-chain scaling , i am sure no matter how big the blocks are , the off-chain transactions can offer ultimate micro transactions etc

any thoughts ??
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,253
795
183
hi guys

evan has given a detailed roadmap in which he says the block size would be increased to 400 MB with special hardware etc which is wonderful and a strong reminder that other coins can't even think of this

however he said that hes not in favour of off-chain scaling , i am not sure why is that ?
why cant we have both off-chain and on-chain scaling , i am sure no matter how big the blocks are , the off-chain transactions can offer ultimate micro transactions etc

any thoughts ??
If I may quote @toknormal from Dash Nation Slack earlier:
toknormal said:
Ask yourselves, what is an off-chain scaling solution ? It's just another network client for the core blockchain. It doesn't wrap it, it ADDS to the traffic that the blockchain has to handle. We have off-chain scaling right now:

• exchanges
• cryptocurrency-funded debit cards
• games and betting sites
• tip-bots on here

All that economic activity is off-chain scaling. They are networks which exchange either crypto-backed or crypto-denominated value where the granular traffic has been moved off-chain and only aggregates periodically on-chain.
 

TheSingleton

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Mar 27, 2017
277
141
103
right of course , i am talking about lighting network sort of sort , my question is why is that bad per se ??
The way Lightning works it is very likely to form a Hubs and Spokes network. Meaning most payments would go through a central hub that could be targeted by governments and can't track all your payments.

A fully decentralised version would require rooting technology that doesn't exist yet and might never. (I am following cjdns an attempt at a decentralised routing protocol for the Internet and they have real problems scaling their system)

And finally, it's problematic that it requires you to lock up funds. This would be fine if you did everything through the LN but because of the above-mentioned problems you really don't want to do that.
This could lead to issues where you have money locked in your LN-Channel but would need to spend it using a normal transaction.

I can see the use for Payment Channels in smart contracts (it might be worth it to setup a Channel for each use of a smart contract if it includes a lot of back and forth transactions.) And maybe LN for really tiny and frequent transactions with specific uses.
But it's not an overall scaling solution.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
902
525
163
right ofcourse , i am talking about lighting network sort of sort , my question is why is that bad per se ??
I'd imagine Dash is going to continue using the Bitcoin codebase so there's no reason it cant use both. Anything written for Bitcoin can be easily ported to Dash at it is so if/when segwit is established the Lightning network can also be ported. Can't see it competing with Evolution though, not a lot could come close to it for ease of use.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,834
1,052
1,183
And besides, being the core wallet is being phased out and all activity goes through the DAPI, I'm expecting all transactions will be set to instant and most transactions to be free. Who needs LN when we can do all that on-chain and in real time?
 

MizzyMax

Member
Feb 14, 2017
168
31
88
26
And besides, being the core wallet is being phased out and all activity goes through the DAPI, I'm expecting all transactions will be set to instant and most transactions to be free. Who needs LN when we can do all that on-chain and in real time?
How could the DAPI lower instant transaction fees by that much? To free? miners and masternodes and the treasury need paid. is it based on the more users the cheaper it gets because the fees are then spread across the network?
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,834
1,052
1,183
How could the DAPI lower instant transaction fees by that much? To free? miners and masternodes and the treasury need paid. is it based on the more users the cheaper it gets because the fees are then spread across the network?
I think Evan has previously indicated that 90% of transactions could be free and also the option for merchants to pay transaction fees.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,834
1,052
1,183
How could the DAPI lower instant transaction fees by that much? To free? miners and masternodes and the treasury need paid. is it based on the more users the cheaper it gets because the fees are then spread across the network?
As an MNO, I would always vote for the lowest possible fees.
 

MizzyMax

Member
Feb 14, 2017
168
31
88
26
I think Evan has previously indicated that 90% of transactions could be free and also the option for merchants to pay transaction fees.
I know about the merchants being allowed to pay the fee, but just don't understand how 90% of transactions could be free. But aye I'm not complaining! That's awesome haha
 

chenriquelira

New Member
Jan 21, 2016
21
5
3
How could the DAPI lower instant transaction fees by that much? To free? miners and masternodes and the treasury need paid. is it based on the more users the cheaper it gets because the fees are then spread across the network?
Masternodes and miners are paid already for their services - in fact transactions should be free right now - I see a problem by the time all the coins have been mined because of this, by that time is when the fees should come into play. Having fees by now till there, what will be the incentive to keep running a masternode/colateralized masternode when all the coins had been mined?
@mastermined @GrandMasterDash @Dashmaximalist @jimbursch @stan.distortion
 
Last edited:

bhkien

Active Member
Mar 31, 2014
465
287
133
Canada
vietriches.com
Off chain leading to centralized. It is contradicted to the value of decentralization.

Why blockchain & decentralization? Because we don't want to depend on any centralized authority.
 

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
796
398
133
And besides, being the core wallet is being phased out and all activity goes through the DAPI, I'm expecting all transactions will be set to instant and most transactions to be free. Who needs LN when we can do all that on-chain and in real time?
Sending cheap microtransactions and streaming money are different things. Like emailing 1-sec video clips vs youtube experience.
 

MizzyMax

Member
Feb 14, 2017
168
31
88
26
Masternodes and miners are paid already for their services - in fact transactions should be free right now - I see a problem by the time all the coins have been mined because of this, by that time is when the fees should come into play. Having fees by now till there, what will be the incentive to keep running a masternode/colateralized masternode when all the coins had been mined?
@mastermined @GrandMasterDash @Dashmaximalist @jimbursch @stan.distortion
I see, so all/majority of the coins will then be created rather then taken from the users to pay off masternodes + miners + treasury.

To respond why the decreasing amount of coins created doesn't matter, the Dash price continues to increase. 1 coin can payout a lot more then before, so over time price increases as the amount decreases. It's also just a demand market as well, if the price drops off their will be less miners and masternodes to support the network so it's all balanced.

I think when 2300 hits 1 coin will support miners, masternodes, and the treasury. If crypto is even still around by then haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chenriquelira

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
I think segwit lighting is a must , here's why , imagine lot of machine to machine payments that can happen at almost zero cost , the only way is lighting , it doesnt matter if its centralized , decentralized debate ,

The point is 95% of people want low cost payments and dont mind taking a centralized approach and the rest 5% might prefer an decentralized having said that

thinking lighting would lead to centralization is over-thinking , there will be always be competition who will want to cut down the costs and offer better service , lets say an existing network asks for your KYC details , then people will simply switch over to another hub its as simple as that
 

martinf

Member
Aug 21, 2015
70
38
58
I think segwit lighting is a must , here's why , imagine lot of machine to machine payments that can happen at almost zero cost , the only way is lighting , it doesn't matter if its centralized , decentralized debate ,

The point is 95% of people want low cost payments and dont mind taking a centralized approach and the rest 5% might prefer an decentralized having said that

thinking lighting would lead to centralization is over-thinking , there will be always be competition who will want to cut down the costs and offer better service , lets say an existing network asks for your KYC details , then people will simply switch over to another hub its as simple as that
I agree. One often hear the "cup of coffee" as an example of a trivial and small transaction. But in fact that's a transaction significant enough for us to bring up our physical wallets for today. I imagine that in the future we will see that the majority of the transactions are with amounts far smaller than that. Like you mention automated machine-to-machine transactions.

Also, I don't quite follow footnote 17 in the roadmap. It states:
17: Base two log-linear growth model, based on mathematically model of crypto-sphere economy and historical growth of the space.
So we get linear growth in block size to support an exponential growth in number of users. That might hold true for Bitcoin etc, but I fail to see how that could be true for a system which is actually used as cash by the majority of the users. 1024TX/S would support 5B daily users?

Storing a transaction history on thousands of nodes, forever, is never going to be close to free. We could subsidise it through our treasury, but we would need some kind of cleaver anti-abuse system to prevent malicious users from draining our budget.