>> (p.1)
    Author Topic: Limit on transaction speed  (Read 3131 times)

    • genjix (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    expert
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1232
    Merit: 1082


    View Profile
    May 07, 2011, 12:33:22 AM
    Last edit: May 10, 2011, 10:06:49 AM by genjix
     #1
    Hey,

    I met a web designer guy who last night made a point about the number of transactions being limited because of the block size. I did some calculations. Can somebody confirm these numbers for me?

    MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000 bytes

    Average transaction = ~200 bytes (conservative lower limit)

    Average number of tx per block = 1000000/200 = 5000

    Each block has an interval of ~10 mins

    that means 5000 confirmed tx 10 mins OR 500 tx min OR
    8 tx s

    ---------------

    Visa must do thousands of tx a second or maybe more.

  • Garrett Burgwardt
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 406
    Merit: 256


    View Profile
    May 07, 2011, 12:34:36 AM
     #2
    When we start bumping up against the top of the block size limit, we can raise it. Until then it's just low to prevent spam.

  • slurch
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 70
    Merit: 10



    View Profile WWW
    May 07, 2011, 12:36:36 AM
     #3
    Here's a good article on the wiki:

    https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
    Donations accepted at: 1AXKzVc1tTmfC6VkWwBNSzKqThqhwsC5mY
    For what, I have no idea...

  • genjix (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    expert
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1232
    Merit: 1082


    View Profile
    May 07, 2011, 12:41:08 AM
     #4
    Quote from: Garrett Burgwardt on May 07, 2011, 12:34:36 AM
    When we start bumping up against the top of the block size limit, we can raise it. Until then it's just low to prevent spam.

    Wouldn't this fork the chain? And don't you need the mutual agreement from loads of differing clients that might not upgrade simultaneously?

  • Garrett Burgwardt
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 406
    Merit: 256


    View Profile
    May 07, 2011, 12:47:34 AM
     #5
    There was an upgrade before, where the software was set to change to the new protocol after block XXXXX, and it was far enough away that most people upgraded before then.

  • genjix (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    expert
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1232
    Merit: 1082


    View Profile
    May 07, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
     #6
    I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

    But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

    Take a look at ipv4 and ipv6 today. The internet runs slower, less secure and is running out of addresses but nobody upgrades. Eventhough there's been many years to enable ipv6 and the running out of ipv4 addresses was well predicted in advance.

  • grue
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2058
    Merit: 1474



    View Profile
    May 08, 2011, 12:27:29 AM
     #7
    Quote from: genjix on May 07, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
    I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

    But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

    Take a look at ipv4 and ipv6 today. The internet runs slower, less secure and is running out of addresses but nobody upgrades. Eventhough there's been many years to enable ipv6 and the running out of ipv4 addresses was well predicted in advance.
    that's because ipv6 required an hardware upgrade.
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

    Adblock for annoying signature ads | Enhanced Merit UI

  • genjix (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    expert
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1232
    Merit: 1082


    View Profile
    May 08, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
     #8
    How about banks though that are all running decades old software from the 80s?

  • caveden
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1106
    Merit: 1005



    View Profile
    May 08, 2011, 03:40:46 PM
     #9
    Quote from: genjix on May 07, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
    I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

    But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

    I share your concern, that's why I proposed this: http://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1865.0

    It would still need one backward incompatible change, but just one. Gavin once showed himself open to the idea, if somebody manages to implement it safely. Now we "only" need somebody good enough in C++ willing to give it a try...

  • Mike Hearn
    Legendary
    *
    expert
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1526
    Merit: 1147


    View Profile
    May 10, 2011, 03:37:35 PM
     #10
    I'm not planning on implementing block size checks in BitCoinJ. Most users will end up on lightweight clients that don't implement every single check, so it'll probably be OK.

    That said I think we should be bumping up the block size sooner rather than later.

  • gigabytecoin
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 280
    Merit: 252


    View Profile
    May 11, 2011, 10:24:58 AM
     #11
    Quote from: [mike] on May 10, 2011, 03:37:35 PM
    That said I think we should be bumping up the block size sooner rather than later.

    Agreed.

    Why not build Bitcoin so that it doesn't need to scale from the start?
    Pages: [1]
      Print  
Page 1
Viewing Page: 1

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com