[ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 350.

CAMOPEJB

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: btc_artist on November 25, 2011, 01:46:15 PM

Quote from: notme on November 25, 2011, 01:37:45 PM

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 01:22:06 PM

Check out this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-proposal-for-a-scalable-blockchain-52859 Wink

It is just one and not only example Cool

Please read http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf . Block size is a solved problem. The solution just hasn't been implemented in the reference client yet since it's not a big problem yet. In the future, the regular user will only keep historical blocks with transactions involving their addresses, plus probably the X most recent blocks. Poof, each irrelevant (to this user) block is now 40 bytes.

I'm not convinced that's an unproblematic solution.

Well time will tell, right? Or you can just test the solution on testnetwork to convince yourself Wink

@bulanula: Ummm... are you sure that no one here is from poor country?

And really, if you can not afford 300Gig HDD and FLAT Internet please, oh please don't waste your time on any cryptocurrency!

As long as I can tell: Case closed. Period.

btc_artist

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 102

Bitcoin!

Quote from: notme on November 25, 2011, 01:37:45 PM

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 01:22:06 PM

Check out this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-proposal-for-a-scalable-blockchain-52859 Wink

It is just one and not only example Cool

Please read http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf . Block size is a solved problem. The solution just hasn't been implemented in the reference client yet since it's not a big problem yet. In the future, the regular user will only keep historical blocks with transactions involving their addresses, plus probably the X most recent blocks. Poof, each irrelevant (to this user) block is now 40 bytes.

I'm not convinced that's an unproblematic solution.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 01:22:06 PM

Check out this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-proposal-for-a-scalable-blockchain-52859 Wink

It is just one and not only example Cool

Please read http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf . Block size is a solved problem. The solution just hasn't been implemented in the reference client yet since it's not a big problem yet. In the future, the regular user will only keep historical blocks with transactions involving their addresses, plus probably the X most recent blocks. Poof, each irrelevant (to this user) block is now 40 bytes.

Edit: it's actually 80 bytes, not 40. The past four months have been hard on memory I guess.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

WOW. Then somebody really needs to come along and fix this blockchain bloat issue. For me ( in a poor country ) even a gigabyte is a lot to store permanently and the fact that it is growing every day without stopping makes it even more daunting. Also dowloading 1GB is a great hit to my monthly allowance so that is not good either. You have to accept there are some people that are that poor and much less privileged than you in the Imperial USA. If we want to go for mainstream adoption we need to get the poor people on board as well and not just the rich in the West. I think something like BTC or LTC really can thrive in the undemocratic East and other oppressed populations that really need anonymity from the police state. You over in the US can't even comprehend how much control the state has over here and yet you are still claiming your government is tyrannical. You can't even guess Undecided

.

CAMOPEJB

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Check out this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-proposal-for-a-scalable-blockchain-52859 Wink

It is just one and not only example Cool

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1080

Gerald Davis

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 10:14:40 AM

LTC is silver compared to BTC (gold) so I'm pretty sure that BTC block chain will grow faster and you can do compression of chain for old transactions.

Well that is very likely but it doesn't negate the fact that block chain growth will become very large for any meaningful transaction volume. That is just a reality for blockchains.

Quote

(also, don't expect THAT big number of transactions - LTC will never replace PayPal or Visa )

My example was for 1 tps (roughly 0.5% of Paypal's peak volume and 0.01% of VISA). I never said or thought LTC or even BTC will replace VISA. Any meaningful transaction volume is going to result in block chain growth measured in GB per year.

Quote

So, if LTC have problem with block chain growth, BTC has problem too and I'm pretty sure it will be solved before blockchain grows above 1 GB Cool

I never said LTC has a "problem" with block chain growth just pointing out your belief that LTC will NEVER exceed 50GB is pessimistic. If it enjoys even modest success it eventually will have a >50GB block chain. If it doesn't then it likely means it failed.

localhost

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

I don't see how stating the obvious is trolling. Block chain size is a monotonic function in its current state. And I'm not sure there's much left to compress in the chain. At some point we'll need to think of a way to prune some of it, kind of what SC did at the launch of SC2. It's nice to be optimistic that somehow the problem will be solved before it even becomes a problem, but it's all but guaranteed...

CAMOPEJB

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 25, 2011, 10:09:34 AM

Not sure why you think that is wrong or what your link "proves". Looks like about 250 bytes per transaction. Remember LTC is young. Most transactions involve only 1 or 2 inputs and a few outputs. As the number of addresses grow the number of addresses per transaction will grow and the transaction size will grow. Today BTC is about 512 bytes per transaction. There is no difference between LTC & BTC blockchain.

Still even if LTC always remained 1 or 2 addresses per transaction, never added contracts, smart property, or more complex transactions it is roughly 4 million transactions per GB. While that might sounds like a lot if LTC achieved even 1 tps that is 8 GB per year. The point is if any block chain achieves any reasonable success (1% of Paypal) the block chain will be growing at GBs per year.

I wasn't trolling.
Your claim that LTC blockchain will NEVER be 50GB is saying LTC will never have any meaningful transaction volume.

LTC is silver compared to BTC (gold) so I'm pretty sure that BTC block chain will grow faster and you can do compression of chain for old transactions.
(also, don't expect THAT big number of transactions - LTC will never replace PayPal or Visa )

So, if LTC have problem with block chain growth, BTC has problem too and I'm pretty sure it will be solved before blockchain grows above 1 GB Cool

@mrx: +25kb so now it's 314M? Don't see problem here

mrx

member

Activity: 86

Merit: 10

Hate to point that out, but:

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/81fc7036c24b5ea1dc9173c01226ee5850b65e14f5a1c892b1e5d8f022516e55
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/b7f1abf8f52a4d69d568b130f92994d6ef47d83a46c6e308a69ba238befb77ef

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1080

Gerald Davis

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 10:01:34 AM

No mister troll - yure wrong

pls. check any LTC block for its size
for example: http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/1fdd1fb08e64731f6341097b9c341ce0eff4695289b6b02ef3f0810ae74ce4d3 (last one)

Not sure why you think that is wrong or what your link "proves". Looks like about 250 bytes per transaction. Remember LTC is young. Most transactions involve only 1 or 2 inputs and a few outputs. As the number of addresses grow the number of addresses per transaction will grow and the transaction size will grow. Today BTC is about 512 bytes per transaction. There is no difference between LTC & BTC blockchain.

Still even if LTC always remained 1 or 2 addresses per transaction, never added contracts, smart property, or more complex transactions it is roughly 4 million transactions per GB. While that might sounds like a lot if LTC achieved even 1 tps that is 8 GB per year. The point is if any block chain achieves any reasonable success (1% of Paypal) the block chain will be growing at GBs per year.

I wasn't trolling.
Your claim that LTC blockchain will NEVER be 50GB is saying LTC will never have any meaningful transaction volume.

CAMOPEJB

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

No mister troll - yure wrong

pls. check any LTC block for its size
for example: http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/1fdd1fb08e64731f6341097b9c341ce0eff4695289b6b02ef3f0810ae74ce4d3 (last one)

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1080

Gerald Davis

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 25, 2011, 06:13:35 AM

So, it will never be 50Gigs - trust my words Wink

Never? Well stop mining now because it is worthless.

Avg transaction is about 500 bytes. With contracts, and more complex transactions expect that to rise. Say 1K per transaction.

50 GB = 50 million transactions.

If LTC ever got to 1 transactions per second and 1KB per transaction (Paypal is 100 tps, Visa is more like 5000 tps) it would be 31 GB per year.

CAMOPEJB

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: bulanula on November 24, 2011, 05:12:48 PM

Indeed. We don't really know how scalable this whole blockchain method is. How much can it handle ( in terms of TX per second ? ) and how much can it scale ?
Right now the TX numbers are very low and we are all happy but nobody has done a through assessment on the testnet to see the upper limit of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies.

C'mon people, are you even reading this thread or you just put coblee on ignore list? (or just trolling the thread)
TX per second for network is not an issue - TX per second for WALLET it is (for now)
Litecoin network like Bitcoin can handle thousands TXes per second without a problem but when all those TXes are going to same wallet... well, wallet will freeze/crash depends on hardware it is running.

For example, Litecoin wallet needs 1 sec. to process each income TX. If in one moment spammer sends to the same address dust spam = 5k TXes Litecoin wallet needs 5K sec = 83 mins to process them all so it cannot handle it.

If nobody send dust spam to your LTC address you will never experience those wallet freeze/crashes.
And now it is too expensive to dust spam people. Cool

Quote from: btc_artist on November 24, 2011, 11:57:27 PM

Yep. Downloading a 50Gig blockchain would not be fun.

Just look at BTC: its Chain Size is 736M, LTC Chain Size is 314M.
Now, when dust spam is over, I don't see any reason for rapid growth of chain.
So, it will never be 50Gigs - trust my words Wink

btc_artist

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 102

Bitcoin!

Quote from: sd on November 24, 2011, 04:31:54 PM

Quote from: bulanula on November 24, 2011, 04:20:31 PM

If the network can't really handle all the TX spam how will it handle when real volume starts working and the spam is actually real transactions. Is this system scalable ? We don't really know. TX spam is quite useful in a way. Test the reliability of our systems. Many were down etc.

Totally agree. Whoever is sending this spam is giving this blockchain a good test. It's also really nice that he/she is giving out 4 litecoins in transactions fees to everyone that finds a new block. However the current level of transactions plus this transaction spam still can't be anywhere near the volume of transactions Visa or Mastercard process. I'd like to see a BitCoin like blockchain tested with that kind of transaction volume.

Yep. Downloading a 50Gig blockchain would not be fun.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: amazingrando on November 23, 2011, 09:29:16 PM

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 23, 2011, 05:16:53 PM

And it WAS Design contest so please read thread up Wink

PS. Background is transparent and it represents lightness of Litecoin Grin

Guess I haven't been following it as closely as I should! I understand the new logo now. But somehow I don't think it captures the awesomeness of litecoin. Grin

Should have added my two cents when I could!

In case you were curious

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-me-pick-the-litecoin-logo-49509
then
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-me-pick-the-litecoin-logo-final-round-between-2-logos-49563

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: sd on November 24, 2011, 04:31:54 PM

Quote from: bulanula on November 24, 2011, 04:20:31 PM

If the network can't really handle all the TX spam how will it handle when real volume starts working and the spam is actually real transactions. Is this system scalable ? We don't really know. TX spam is quite useful in a way. Test the reliability of our systems. Many were down etc.

Totally agree. Whoever is sending this spam is giving this blockchain a good test. It's also really nice that he/she is giving out 4 litecoins in transactions fees to everyone that finds a new block. However the current level of transactions plus this transaction spam still can't be anywhere near the volume of transactions Visa or Mastercard process. I'd like to see a BitCoin like blockchain tested with that kind of transaction volume.

Indeed. We don't really know how scalable this whole blockchain method is. How much can it handle ( in terms of TX per second ? ) and how much can it scale ?

Right now the TX numbers are very low and we are all happy but nobody has done a through assessment on the testnet to see the upper limit of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies.

sd

hero member

Activity: 730

Merit: 500

Quote from: bulanula on November 24, 2011, 04:20:31 PM

If the network can't really handle all the TX spam how will it handle when real volume starts working and the spam is actually real transactions. Is this system scalable ? We don't really know. TX spam is quite useful in a way. Test the reliability of our systems. Many were down etc.

Totally agree. Whoever is sending this spam is giving this blockchain a good test. It's also really nice that he/she is giving out 4 litecoins in transactions fees to everyone that finds a new block. However the current level of transactions plus this transaction spam still can't be anywhere near the volume of transactions Visa or Mastercard process. I'd like to see a BitCoin like blockchain tested with that kind of transaction volume.

localhost

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: bulanula on November 24, 2011, 04:20:31 PM

If the network can't really handle all the TX spam how will it handle when real volume starts working and the spam is actually real transactions. Is this system scalable ? We don't really know. TX spam is quite useful in a way. Test the reliability of our systems. Many were down etc.

Indeed. There's a double issue there:
- first, the many tiny transactions grew the block chain with junk, plainly blocking them by a fee like it was done is good enough, it's fixed alright.
- second, it seems that those many transactions made some clients become slow as hell or even crash, and here we can ask ourselves what will happen when we actually have that many legitimate transactions...

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

If the network can't really handle all the TX spam how will it handle when real volume starts working and the spam is actually real transactions. Is this system scalable ? We don't really know. TX spam is quite useful in a way. Test the reliability of our systems. Many were down etc.

amazingrando

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: CAMOPEJB on November 23, 2011, 05:16:53 PM

And it WAS Design contest so please read thread up Wink

PS. Background is transparent and it represents lightness of Litecoin Grin

Guess I haven't been following it as closely as I should! I understand the new logo now. But somehow I don't think it captures the awesomeness of litecoin. Grin

Should have added my two cents when I could!

Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 350. (Read 1467474 times)