bitcoinThroughputAnalysis VS solana

I did an analysis a while back that concluded that we should be able to safely increase the block size to a degree where we can see a 5-10X increase in transactions per second in the next 15-20 years because of proposed scaling improvements and increased average machine resources.

I agree. But that's unrelated to the points I was making.

Hileman is completely wrong here. Pretty sad to see the head of research at blockchain.com get this one so wrong. The choice of consensus protocol does not affect transaction throughput or "capacity" ("capacity" as far as I can tell is not different from throughput in this context). What affects transaction throughput is the size of your transaction data and the limits placed on the blocks that hold that data. You can increase the size of your blocks to increase throughput, but as a result you inherently increase the computing resources required to participate in the network. The larger your blocks, the fewer people will be able to participate, which is one kind of centralization pressure a blockchain can create for itself. Fundamentally, distributed consensus is limited by the speed of light and physical size of the network. There are many ways to increase throughput of a blockchain like Bitcoin's, but they all boil down to reducing the data per transaction or making it more acceptable to increase the amount of data allowed in a block.

I wrote a paper a while back on bitcoin throughput. Basically, we need as many people to run public full nodes as possible. Probably around 5 million would be enough. However currently we have orders of magnitude less than that. So until we have enough, we need to keep it easy to run a full node - as easy as possible.

Some really good points in there. Bottle necks are basically whack a mole. I wrote a related paper on scalability in the context of bitcoin: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis

If you want to discuss that, I'd be happy to. You might be interesting in reading this paper I wrote on the subject of blocksize and throughput: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis

The number of public full nodes. Bitcoin still has only about 10,000 public nodes. An attacker would only have to spend $1 million per year to eat up all the public node bandwidth that is likely available. That's only $160k per month. If someone wanted to disrupt bitcoin, that's the way to do it.

Solana (9700 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/solana-labs/solana

EIP Core standards: Changes to Solana’s core code go through “feature gates” in the Solana repo. Yes, it’s much less organized than the EIP pages you are used to, and a headache to understand or keep up with. A cost of the speed of development, I’m told.

I visited the project on github (https://github.com/solana-labs/solana), and tried to get an overview of the ~800 open issues and ~100 open PRs.

Solana

With the introduction of new and advanced blockchain platforms in the Web 3.0 scene, the narrative around Ethereum has slowly shifted towards its younger “Ethereum Alternatives”. Solana, Avalanche, and MultiversX (former Elrond) are some of the crypto blockchains that are given this terminology, as they share similar features but are comparatively cheaper and better than Ethereum.

I understand this initiative is connected with Solana network [1] in some way?

[1] https://solana.com/

They do, actually: https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/security/policy

Not sure I understand your question, but if you want the source code you can find it on github (https://github.com/solana-labs/solana)

Some topics that may be discussed in the next call include @ShinobiSystems Timely Vote Credits proposal (https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/blob/master/docs/src/proposals/timely-vote-credits.md), @elusivprivacy new built-in cryptographic operations to accelerate ZK verification (for privacy tech), and feature activation coordination standards.