Topic: Bitcoin Blockchain Transactions Per Second (Read 217 times)

its another network.. using another unit  of balance as payments requiring middle men to co-sign .. so nothing like bitcoin in form or function..

the proposal plan WAS where you lock btc up because bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin blockchain and you cant take it off the blockchain or out of the network.. as thats the whole point of blockchain monetary policy and security

and instead you use  the lock as a reference to then play 'pass the parcel' games around the sub network with IOU's of units called msats which are represented very weakly with a peg of supposed 1:1000. however they now have units even smaller because the lightning network has no fixed network wide rules of accountability to hold onto/stick to.. oh and due to lack of network wide cohesion/accountability/rule. when things go bad the lightning fans and devs will blame it on user error..

so just be careful. and dont lock your whole btc wealth up to use lightning. just play with coffee or pizza spend amounts

oh and be warned the weak peg thing.. others can crate msat balance and make promises to pay you with inbound balance.. thats not referenced to any locked btc.. so be very risk aware

I have read the link you have provided.  I don't really understand how those bitcoins layer 2 working.  But it's an amazing thing that it can process transactions tens of times faster than what the Solana network can do.  I used to think that Solana is the best and fastest network right now.  But this news changed my view.  But when was this applied?  Is it BTC or something other than BTC?

Payment networks always have more secure lower layers and higher less secure more efficient layers.

Banking system doesn't process 2000+ transactions, VISA's higher network layer does.

Just like Bitcoin can't process lots of transactions on-chain, but the Lightning Network can easily eclipse VISA tps many times over.

All payment networks are built in layers with final settlement and security on the lower layer and faster payments on the higher layers.

So if you're gonna compare Bitcoin to VISA, you have to do the comparison between Lightning Network and VISA, and the LN blows VISA away in speed of payment, tps, decentralization, and cost efficiency. LN of course is still a brand new technology and still has lots of work to be done on it, so I'd say security and reliability of payments and ease of use are still where its lacking, but in those other areas it already crushes higher level banking payment networks like VISA.

drama queen doomad has no argument so has to resort to meme creations
boring

how about spend 5 years learning bitcoin instead of promoting the crappy schemes you get paid to promote..
.. and not paid very well/not promoting successfully by the looks of it, if after 5 years you are still  having to stoop so low to even be doing sig spam adverts and selling scammy memes just to get by

but hey you like to waste other peoples time and tell them to wait forever for dreams and advertise crap to people instead of learning bitcoin.. so i expect in 2028 you will still be saying the same crap while scratching for pennys

2018 edition:



Source:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46792695

---

2023 edition:




It's been the same lame cry-baby bullshit from this pathetic infant for the last 5 years.

firstly i dont compare choice to rape
it is you that does not believe in consent.
its YOUR desires of lack of consent that causes rape...

dang YOU cant even understand that basic common sense real world usage of consent.. you cant even get that right.. which says alot about you.. you really are missing a few common sense morals in your mindset..

the blockchain is a list(dataset) of everyone agreeing on hotdogs

those that want burgers use monero.
those that want salad are litecoin

heck even you were saying just a couple months ago and also repeatedly for years if i didnt like hotdogs go fork off and start a new menu and see who follows

bitcoin unites people that want a certain protein. called bitcoin(your analogy of hotdogs)

if you tried to put litecoin(salad) on the table people will reject the (salad) litecoin transaction becasue its not bitcoin(hotdog)

do you understand consensus.. i do not think you do
you prefer networks without rules because you want to pretend your some wild west outlaw cowboy.. who likes jerky where you want to pretend your jerky is a hotdog just so you can scam people to give you their hotdog and you hand them your stale and cheap jerky

all you are trying to do is make everyone at the table hate hotdogs or find hotdogs to expensive so you can advertise your silly jerky plate of fat (lightning)

you want it to have a huge line of people waiting for hotdogs because you want less people doing hotdog payments thus causing a queue and then raising the price of hotdogs..


you would rather have some bloaty fat guy pay $20 for a hotdog than 100 lean fit people pay 10cent a hotdog .. even it it makes the same total income for the chef

i and many others want hotdogs without having to pay too much or waiting days in a queue.. and no we dont want your alternative jerky made on a greasy grill in another street cart... even if you hold up a fake hotdog sign.. there are too many bad things happening in your jerk wagon

your jerk wagon concept is to make people pay more for hotdogs and wait days to get it in their hand.. and then not keep it enjoy it for themselves but instead put it into your favoured jerk wagon so that you can then hand out jerky for them to consume for months with a fake advert that jerky is hotdogs and weak and easy to break promise(even jerky devs have lost hotdogs) by pretending they will get their hotdog back next year.. yet you know that once they consume the jerky they cant then cough the jerky back up to get the hotdog.
the only reason people close off the jerk contract is when they ran out of jerky and have none left to jerk around with.. thus nothing left to claim a hotdog back..

You have no clue about Opt-in.  Concensus is a group of friends agree to all go to a hot dog stand for lunch.  Opt-in is that they have the choice whether or not to put mustard/ketchup/relish/onion/chilli/etc on their hot dog.  They don't all have to have the same thing to reach consensus.

You think consensus means you get to order people to only have plain hot dogs, because you don't like mustard/ketchup/relish/onion/chilli/etc.  You are just a fascist cunt.  That's all there is to it.  You compare 'choice' to 'rape' because you despise freedom.  

you have no clue about hard or soft.. nor fork vs consensus

hard = rules
soft=lack of rules(backdoors)

fork=split the network via disagreement
consensus=unite the network via consented agreement

read things again and learn
nodes dont have influence anymore consensus has been softened by core

core dont need mass consent for their changes.. but users cant just stop it individually because they would just be rejecting blocks of their own node making themselves out of sync with the rest of the network

it would require the hardening of the consensus rules to be done via core and the masses.
in short a reverse of the mechanisms that caused the soft consensus.

which if a dev team outside of core tried such a proposal will 100% guaranteed be REKT by doomads flock of friends and idols

Thank you.

I am not concerned about the number of transactions. I think the current one is fine for use as a store of value. Whether mass use as a currency is given as a second layer solution and whether those solutions are more centralised or not is another matter.

I don't think bitcoin will ever come close to exterminating the rest of the fiat currencies and shitty altcoins, so it is normal that it will coexist at least for daily payments with these worse currencies and that people will prefer to use them, holding bitcoin over time.

Why don't you softfork a blocksize increase, then?  Troll.

nodes dont have influence ANYMORE.. thats the point of your favoured "backward compatibility" nodes dont need or get to vote anymore. things are pushed through without node mass agreement..
you have been promoting that feature for a while. so why pretend its the opposite now

you love how core decide without consent. you have been promoting that too how devs shouldnt be told what to do or be censored from doing things they want

you know deep down its core devs that control future decisions not user nodes. they shouldnt have gained that power. but you love that they have

YOU are the guy that doesnt want more transactions but loves the idea of 1 tx having 4mb of bloat in the form of a image file

hey if you think one image file being 4mb in 1 tx is fine for the network.. then please stop crying when others want 4mb of 8000tx, which you cry by saying/suggesting its bad for the network

we are not in the era of 1999 where computers are slow and cannot cope with it.
its 2023 computers can cope with more then you pretend they can

if you truly think 4mb of genuine utility of thousands of transactions(packets of data) is bad. then how come many many other data services to clients of different serves do not have a problem.. EG online gaming. livestreaming, torrents

i do laugh how you want blocks to have 1tx of 4mb but dont want 4mb of 8000tx

users dont have the choice because the only main dev of protocol level coding is core. thus everyone is WAITING and begging for CORE to allow more transaction count, becasue any other brand trying to do it will get REKT. and core as you know have a roadmap of wanting to push people off the network into other networks(you favour) as their plan.. and as you keep saying for the last 6 years "be patient" yet all of these topics over the years made by thousands of people wanting transaction scaling on bitcoin shows its not just a minority asking for more tx count onchain

stop pretending its user decision or user fault for no upgrades.. core have become the only party offering ability to upgrade and yet they are not offering the upgrades the people want and only offering upgrades corporations want(gateway formats to lock people into other networks for middlemen rewarding of facilitating payments)

It's not just about code, it's about compromise.  Throughput has a cost.  Those who secure the chain have to bear that cost.  They have to store and relay the information contained and updated within the blockchain.  Even at the present rate of throughput, this cost increases all the time.  If you wish to increase throughput it subsequently means increasing the rate at which that cost increases.  If you run a node, you can have a small amount of influence over what level of throughput you are prepared to support.  When most nodes are prepared to support more throughput, then it can increase.     

There is still room for improvement, a possible BIP will be made soon for such kind of scalability issue.
Comparing bitcoin transaction to VISA's are irrelevant. Wait until most online services uses bitcoin as a form of payment, like what VISA is now.

It seems that the community still has got mixed feelings. After so many years and we are still arguing about scalability issues. Like, one says we have low transactions, one says we can use a lightning network while some debate about the liquidity issues in a lightning network. I don't know but this definitely makes me think, bitcoin has not been developed properly nor has the issue been resolved fully.

The VISA, definitely we cant compare them with the bitcoin because let us face it, we are missing that piece of code that will make the original bitcoin faster or at least comparable to it. Let us face it, VISA is good thought their settlement is said to be real-time, the money transferred is netted after hours of time on the server but it works just fine!

That is a useless comparison.

I don't want to use a payment method with a chargeback option. With VISA, it can be up to 120 days which would be a period I can sleep well.

If you paid with a Visa debit, credit or pre-paid card, a chargeback is an option. If you need to make a chargeback claim, make sure you do it within 120 days of purchase.

With Bitcoin, 3 confirmations are good to go and if it is a transaction with big amount, 6 confirmations are enough for me to be safe. 6 confirmations equal to about 1 hour that is much shorter than 120 days.

Choosing between two options, sleep well after 1 hour and can not sleep well within 120 days. Make your choice!

How many Bitcoin confirmations is enough?

Yes, I was talking about the BTC blockchain specifically.
Also, "It is not possible to receive any funds over the Lightning Network without first having secured receiving liquidity from someone else's node".
Is this accurate? This seems like a HUGE limitation. Any ideas if this can be remedied?

I've read that lightning has liquidity issues though?
If true, that will be a problem as more consumers use the network.

lightning has many scalability issues. they have liquidity problems in regards to routing which only get worse the more popular it gets

as for bitcoins tx/s
bitcoin does 2016 blocks a fortnight meaning 1 block every 600 seconds average
bitcoin only does about 2300tx a block

2300/600=3.83per second
3000tx a block would be 5tx/s


the 7tx/s was the "expectation" of the old 1mb limit and lean 226byte tx
but even at todays 4mb blocks it still is not getting much above 5tx/s

Prove it. The last article I read some months ago stated that bitcoin can process seven transactions per second. If you have big transactions to make, you can make use of the onchain network.

With lightning network, scalability issue is solved to an extent, but using lightning network for only small transaction amount is advisable.