Get the latest crypto news, updates, and reports by subscribing to our free newsletter.
Giấy phép số 4978/GP-TTĐT do Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông Hà Nội cấp ngày 14 tháng 10 năm 2019 / Giấy phép SĐ, BS GP ICP số 2107/GP-TTĐT do Sở TTTT Hà Nội cấp ngày 13/7/2022.
© 2026 Index.vn
The U.S. added an estimated 178,000 jobs in March, rebounding from unexpectedly large job losses in February, according to data released Friday morning. March’s gains were about three times what economists expected, and the unemployment rate edged down to 4.3%. Why the March jobs report matters Market watchers generally viewed…
Bitcoin’s network is limited to about 3 to 7 transactions per second (tps), far below mainstream payment systems. That throughput gap is tied to design trade-offs that affect fees, confirmation times, and user experience during periods of high demand. As a result, the scalability debate has focused on how to improve performance without undermining Bitcoin’s security and decentralization.
Bitcoin processes roughly 3 to 7 tps, while Visa handles over 1,700 tps on average and can reach much higher levels during peak periods. The difference shows up in real-world congestion: when demand exceeds Bitcoin’s capacity, transactions queue in the mempool and users bid higher fees to get processed sooner.
Bitcoin’s scalability limits are not described as bugs, but as deliberate trade-offs designed to preserve security and decentralization. Blocks are produced about every 10 minutes and are capped in size, meaning each block can only include a finite number of transactions. When block capacity is reached, the backlog drives fee competition.
The most straightforward proposed change—larger blocks—comes with risks. Bigger blocks can increase the attack surface and validation time, and they raise the resource requirements for running nodes. Higher resource demands can reduce the number of nodes participating in the network, weakening decentralization.
These trade-offs are often summarized as a three-way tension between:
Bitcoin scaling efforts are generally grouped into two categories: Layer 1 upgrades that modify the base protocol, and Layer 2 solutions that move transaction activity off-chain before settling on the main blockchain.
Layer 2 approaches aim to increase effective throughput by processing transactions off-chain and settling only when needed. The article contrasts Layer 1 and Layer 2 as follows:
Layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network and newer protocols like Bitcoin Everlight route payments through off-chain channels and settle to the main chain when necessary. The article frames this as a way to dramatically increase effective throughput without changing the base layer rules.
Scalability affects multiple stakeholders directly, especially through fees and confirmation delays. During high-demand periods, mempool congestion can make transactions significantly more expensive and slower, undermining reliability for everyday use.
For miners, congestion can increase short-term revenue through higher fees. Over time, broader Layer 2 adoption could reduce on-chain transaction volume, potentially lowering fee income. Protocol upgrades that improve efficiency may also reduce average fees per transaction. In addition, the article notes that block subsidy halvings make fee revenue increasingly important for miner sustainability.
The article provides a comparison of network conditions:
It also links fee spikes and slow confirmations to negative media coverage and reduced user engagement, noting that scalability bottlenecks during prior surges have affected adoption sentiment and network engagement metrics.
The article describes Bitcoin’s scalability roadmap as a decentralized process rather than a single planned program. It emphasizes that any change improving performance risks compromising decentralization or security, and that governance is slow by design because Bitcoin lacks a CEO, board, or formal voting mechanism.
Several directions highlighted include:
The article argues that attempts to solve Bitcoin’s throughput problem with single, sweeping changes often fail to address the full trade-off set. It points to the 2017 block size debate as an example that resulted in a fork without fully resolving scalability or preserving community unity.
Instead, it frames progress as incremental upgrades that preserve decentralization principles while expanding capacity at the edges. It also advises skepticism toward proposals promising dramatic scaling gains without clearly explaining what they sacrifice, emphasizing that the “trilemma” remains central to evaluating scalability changes.
Scalability refers to Bitcoin’s ability to handle growing transaction volumes quickly and at low cost. The article states Bitcoin processes about 3 to 7 tps, far below mainstream payment systems.
Larger blocks can increase throughput but make it harder for regular users to run full nodes, pushing the network toward centralization. The article notes that this could undermine Bitcoin’s security model.
Layer 2 solutions process transactions off-chain and settle them on Bitcoin only when needed, enabling fast and low-cost transfers. The article highlights Lightning Network as providing rapid, low-cost transactions without changing base protocol rules.
The article states that fee spikes and slow confirmations during high-demand periods have frustrated users and dampened media sentiment around Bitcoin’s growth potential, contributing to negative effects on adoption and engagement metrics.
In brief\n\nBitcoin dropped to about $93,000, falling back below the EMA50 and putting its recent golden cross at risk of invalidation. The global crypto market cap stands at $3.15 trillion, down 2.38% in 24 hours. On Myriad Markets, 82% of the money is betting on Bitcoin pumping to $100K before…
