Bitcoin scalability problem


The bitcoin scalability problem is the limited rate at which the bitcoin network can process transactions. It is related to the fact that records in the bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency.
Bitcoin's blocks contain the transactions on the bitcoin network. The on-chain transaction processing capacity of the bitcoin network is limited by the average block creation time of 10 minutes and the block size limit of 1 megabyte. These jointly constrain the network's throughput. The transaction processing capacity maximum estimated using an average or median transaction size is between 3.3 and 7 transactions per second. As opposed to that, when minimal-size transactions both in complexity and byte size are used for the estimate, the bitcoin's theoretical transaction throughput is 27 transactions/sec. There are various proposed and activated solutions to address this issue.

Background

The block size limit, in concert with the proof-of-work difficulty adjustment settings of bitcoin's consensus protocol, constitutes a bottleneck in bitcoin's transaction processing capacity. This can result in increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block. Various proposals have come forth on how to scale bitcoin, and a contentious debate has resulted. Business Insider in 2017 characterized this debate as an "ideological battle over bitcoin's future."

Forks

Increasing the network's transaction processing limit requires making changes to the technical workings of bitcoin, in a process known as a fork. Forks can be grouped into two types:

Hard fork

is a hard fork of bitcoin increasing the maximum block size. Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited each supported an increase to the maximum block size.
Bitcoin Cash is a separate cryptocurrency from Bitcoin ; and both trade at entirely independent valuations relative to each other, fiat currencies, and other assets.

Soft fork

is an example of a soft fork.
In case of a soft fork, all mining nodes meant to work in accordance with the new rules need to upgrade their software.

Efficiency improvements

Technical optimizations may decrease the amount of computing resources required to receive, process and record bitcoin transactions, allowing increased throughput without placing extra demand on the bitcoin network. These modifications can be to either the network, in which case a fork is required, or to individual node software.
The Lightning Network is a protocol that aims to improve bitcoin's scalability and speed without sacrificing trustless operation. The Lightning Network requires putting a funding transaction on the blockchain to open a payment channel. Once a channel is opened, connected participants are able to make rapid payments within the channel or may route payments by "hopping" between channels at intermediate nodes for little to no fee.
In January 2018 Blockstream launched a payment processing system for web retailers called "Lightning Charge", noted that lightning was live on mainnet with 200 nodes operating as of 27 January 2018 and advised it should still be considered "in testing".
On 15 March 2018, Lightning Labs released the beta version of its lnd Lightning Network implementation for bitcoin mainnet, and on 28 March 2018, ACINQ released a mainnet beta of its eclair implementation and desktop application.
In January 2019 the online retailer Bitrefill announced that it receives more payments in Bitcoin via the lightning network than any of the altcoins they accept.

Block size increases

Transaction throughput is limited practically by a parameter known as the block size limit. Various increases to this limit, and proposals to remove it completely, have been proposed over bitcoin's history.

Proposed

Bitcoin Unlimited's proposal is different from Bitcoin Core in that the block size parameter is not hard-coded, and rather the nodes and miners flag support for the size that they want, using an idea they refer to as 'emergent consensus.' Those behind Bitcoin Unlimited proposal argue that from an ideological standpoint the miners should decide about the scaling solution since they are the ones whose hardware secure the network.