[kylell]

your logic is funny, is like having a busy site with a postgress db, and saying postgress is at fault, look at my mysql wordpress site with 1.3 visitors per day, how fast it is.

Ethereum will colapse on itself sooner of later, no one managed to sync a node recently.

[joeyrideout]

Where exactly is my logic funny? Mined blockchains scale linearly. Increasing block size, etc. can increase speed temporarily but can still only scale linearly. Busy site or not, the ledger needs an architectural change to handle exponential growth. Your busy Postgress db would also need to change in architecture from a single resource to something more distributed in order to scale exponentially. A less busy website of the same architecture also wouldn't handle exponential growth. What am I missing?

Edit: To clarify, yes, some mined blockchains feel faster now simply because they are less busy. They are still doomed to Bitcoin's fate at scale unless distributed systems techniques like sharding (or Nano's block lattice) are used. I'm not saying that the less busy blockchains are any better.

[hobofan]

> To clarify, yes, some mined blockchains feel faster now simply because they are less busy.

Yes, and for now it's not proven in practice that Nano will also stay responsive when it hits the same scale/busyness.

[joeyrideout]

Fair enough. In theory Nano's design can handle something like O(2^n) transactions per second where n is the number of nodes, while mined blockchains can handle O(n) transactions per second where n is roughly the block rate multiplied by block size. In practice who knows. The former has a fighting chance, at least.

[charlesdm]

Hasn't the latest Geth update improved syncing? https://blog.ethereum.org/2018/02/14/geth-1-8-iceberg%C2%B9/