20mb block increase = 20 times more transactions possible?

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Amph on May 28, 2015, 07:10:00 AM

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 27, 2015, 09:22:23 AM

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 27, 2015, 04:20:41 AM

As far I understand one transaction has around 200-250 Bits and it has to send two times (One from sender and one from recipient). That means, we could process with a 20MB block around 60-90 tx per second.

Is that right?

What do you think about that above?

yeah it's correct, you should count about 3 transactions for every 1mb of space(there are multisig too to be counted) so more near 60 than 90

A TX is ~180 Byte(! not bit) per input, ~34 bytes per output and additional 10 byte. If there would be only transactions with a single input and two output (one for change, one to spend) a TX would be 180+2*34+10 byte = 258 byte. Thus a 1MB block would contain up to 10⁶/258 = 3875 TX or 6.4 TX/second. A 20 MB block would contain up to 20*10⁶/258 = 77519 TX or 129 TX/second.

Keep in mind though that things like shared send and multi sig get more and more common and thus this is just a very rough upper bound.

Edit:

The corrected 8 and 4 MB blocks would contain up to 31007 TX (51/sec) and 15503 TX (25.8/sec) respectively

All values rounded down if applicable and 10 minutes between blocks assumed.

BlackJacky

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: SISAR on June 03, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: cellard on May 29, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

Quote from: Benjig on May 26, 2015, 10:48:08 AM

VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps), so call it a daily peak rate of 4,000 tps. It has a peak capacity of around 47,000 transactions per second, however they never actually use more than about a third of this even during peak shopping periods.

PayPal, in contrast, handles around 10 million transactions per day for an average of 115 tps.

Let's take 4,000 tps as starting goal. Obviously if we want Bitcoin to scale to all economic transactions worldwide, including cash, it'd be a lot higher than that, perhaps more in the region of a few hundred thousand tps.

The ideal, ultimate goal would be that Bitcoin can deal with a volume of transaction that encompasses all credit card transactions or the major ones (visa, mastercard... + all major bank transactions + paypal). This is the serious goal if we want Bitcoin to crush and deprecate his competition. The question is: Will 20MB of block size allow for this, or we need a bigger blocksize? Because if we need a bigger blocksize, why not calculate what amount of MB is needed and do it straight away? You don't want to hard ok anymore after the next blocksize increase, ideally.

"This is the way it's been done for billions of years, small moves."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6NNbFHjCc

I love the movie Contact

cryptworld

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 503

Yes,approximately, 20x more transactions than with 1mb block limit

But it would be highly difficult to reach that level of transactions

SISAR

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 518

Quote from: cellard on May 29, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

Quote from: Benjig on May 26, 2015, 10:48:08 AM

VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps), so call it a daily peak rate of 4,000 tps. It has a peak capacity of around 47,000 transactions per second, however they never actually use more than about a third of this even during peak shopping periods.

PayPal, in contrast, handles around 10 million transactions per day for an average of 115 tps.

Let's take 4,000 tps as starting goal. Obviously if we want Bitcoin to scale to all economic transactions worldwide, including cash, it'd be a lot higher than that, perhaps more in the region of a few hundred thousand tps.

The ideal, ultimate goal would be that Bitcoin can deal with a volume of transaction that encompasses all credit card transactions or the major ones (visa, mastercard... + all major bank transactions + paypal). This is the serious goal if we want Bitcoin to crush and deprecate his competition. The question is: Will 20MB of block size allow for this, or we need a bigger blocksize? Because if we need a bigger blocksize, why not calculate what amount of MB is needed and do it straight away? You don't want to hard ok anymore after the next blocksize increase, ideally.

"This is the way it's been done for billions of years, small moves."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6NNbFHjCc

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Benjig on May 26, 2015, 10:48:08 AM

VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps), so call it a daily peak rate of 4,000 tps. It has a peak capacity of around 47,000 transactions per second, however they never actually use more than about a third of this even during peak shopping periods.

PayPal, in contrast, handles around 10 million transactions per day for an average of 115 tps.

Let's take 4,000 tps as starting goal. Obviously if we want Bitcoin to scale to all economic transactions worldwide, including cash, it'd be a lot higher than that, perhaps more in the region of a few hundred thousand tps.

The ideal, ultimate goal would be that Bitcoin can deal with a volume of transaction that encompasses all credit card transactions or the major ones (visa, mastercard... + all major bank transactions + paypal). This is the serious goal if we want Bitcoin to crush and deprecate his competition. The question is: Will 20MB of block size allow for this, or we need a bigger blocksize? Because if we need a bigger blocksize, why not calculate what amount of MB is needed and do it straight away? You don't want to hard ok anymore after the next blocksize increase, ideally.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 29, 2015, 02:47:46 AM

Do you know why it is not possible to raise it again?

It's certainly possible to raise it more than once, but just problematic because you have to get (almost) everyone to agree each time you do it. There have been countless pages of heated discussion about this increase and there still seem to be some dispute in certain corners. Plus, if adoption does increase and more people start using Bitcoin, that's yet more people who need to reach an agreement. The more people involved, the more likely there's going to be a difference of opinion somewhere.

BlackJacky

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Do you know why it is not possible to raise it again?

Agestorzrxx

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Amph on May 26, 2015, 10:36:55 AM

but another question could be raised now, does 140 per second are enough if we reach fully adoption? or we need to raise it again in the future?

That's the problem we really care about. we can't raise it again and again. We should find a way to solve this problem forever. That's the real solution for us.

Delek

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Salí para ver

We can just add a compress_block -> send -> decompress_block to mantain the 1mb limit while having space for more transactions?

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 27, 2015, 09:22:23 AM

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 27, 2015, 04:20:41 AM

As far I understand one transaction has around 200-250 Bits and it has to send two times (One from sender and one from recipient). That means, we could process with a 20MB block around 60-90 tx per second.

Is that right?

What do you think about that above?

yeah it's correct, you should count about 3 transactions for every 1mb of space(there are multisig too to be counted) so more near 60 than 90

BlackJacky

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

I guess its right...

BlackJacky

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: BlackJacky on May 27, 2015, 04:20:41 AM

As far I understand one transaction has around 200-250 Bits and it has to send two times (One from sender and one from recipient). That means, we could process with a 20MB block around 60-90 tx per second.

Is that right?

What do you think about that above?

SISAR

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 518

Quote from: e1ghtSpace on May 27, 2015, 06:55:43 AM

Quote from: SISAR on May 26, 2015, 05:11:04 PM

1 block up to 20MB in size every 10 minutes on average is cool but it could be a dissaster if couple of such blocks are generated just few seconds appart by the same miner or miners that agreed on longest chain. It also does nothing in terms of speeding up the process of transaction confirmations, waiting over an hour for 1st confirm would still occur so how about 5 blocks up to 4MB in size every 2 minutes on average? Makes perfect sense to me but feel free to debate, I might be missing something with this whole deal.

Having blocks come quicker provides no advantage over 10min blocks. Why?

The same hashing power; faster blocks means more orphans and if we had 1 block every minute, we would have 10x less security from a double spending attack. Right now a doublespend would take ~ 2 hours, if 50% hashpower was used. (actually i'm probably wrong, its longer)

Now if we reduce blocks to 1 minute blocks it will take far less power to doublespend and a quicker time.

Basically, faster blocks will be less secure, cause more orphans and pretty much just bloat the blockchain. So yes, you are missing something.

An attacker with 51% or more hashpower will own the network regardless of block time. If we drop block time to 1 minute that same attacker would still need 51% or more hashpower to successfuly double spend. The only way to "protect" from double spends is to wait certain period of time, not number of new blocks added to blockchain. If I wait 1 day and only then send you whatever you bought from me it is almost impossible you'll double spend on me, block times can be 1 second or 1+ hour.

The same goes for orphans, it makes no difference how many of them will be created if you wait long enough. I think you are underestimating the traffic volume and existing bottlenecks when it comes to moving 20MB blocks around especially if they are spread just seconds appart (not orphans but blocks that add on top of each other). Few such blocks would basically stall any nodes except very fast ones and that does not really work toward more decentralization because over time there would be less people running full nodes.

e1ghtSpace

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1001

Crypto since 2014

Quote from: SISAR on May 26, 2015, 05:11:04 PM

1 block up to 20MB in size every 10 minutes on average is cool but it could be a dissaster if couple of such blocks are generated just few seconds appart by the same miner or miners that agreed on longest chain. It also does nothing in terms of speeding up the process of transaction confirmations, waiting over an hour for 1st confirm would still occur so how about 5 blocks up to 4MB in size every 2 minutes on average? Makes perfect sense to me but feel free to debate, I might be missing something with this whole deal.

Having blocks come quicker provides no advantage over 10min blocks. Why?

The same hashing power; faster blocks means more orphans and if we had 1 block every minute, we would have 10x less security from a double spending attack. Right now a doublespend would take ~ 2 hours, if 50% hashpower was used. (actually i'm probably wrong, its longer)

Now if we reduce blocks to 1 minute blocks it will take far less power to doublespend and a quicker time.

Basically, faster blocks will be less secure, cause more orphans and pretty much just bloat the blockchain. So yes, you are missing something.

BlackJacky

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

As far I understand one transaction has around 200-250 Bits and it has to send two times (One from sender and one from recipient). That means, we could process with a 20MB block around 60-90 tx per second.

Is that right?

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Amph on May 26, 2015, 10:36:55 AM

as far as i know the 1mb isn't fully saturated, so expect more than x20 the current number of transaction/s

the limit is around 7 so it will be 140

but another question could be raised now, does 140 per second are enough if we reach fully adoption? or we need to raise it again in the future?

Well, we should be praying that we will need to raise it again Tongue

The real question is: will the new block size be fully saturated?

Nagle

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tokeweed on May 27, 2015, 12:11:28 AM

I'd say Gavin and co just go for it. The majority wants it, let them have it.

The big miners have to approve. They control the block size and the minimum fee.

tokeweed

legendary

Activity: 3976

Merit: 1421

Life, Love and Laughter...

I'd say Gavin and co just go for it. The majority wants it, let them have it.

Gladdy

sr. member

Activity: 318

Merit: 250

20MB in size maybe needed in the future 5 - 10 yrs from now when majority of merchants start accepting bitcoin as payment....then TPS will shoot up to match credit cards transaction per day.

SISAR

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 518

1 block up to 20MB in size every 10 minutes on average is cool but it could be a dissaster if couple of such blocks are generated just few seconds appart by the same miner or miners that agreed on longest chain. It also does nothing in terms of speeding up the process of transaction confirmations, waiting over an hour for 1st confirm would still occur so how about 5 blocks up to 4MB in size every 2 minutes on average? Makes perfect sense to me but feel free to debate, I might be missing something with this whole deal.

Topic: 20mb block increase = 20 times more transactions possible? (Read 1762 times)