Topic: Bitcoins 7 Transaction Per Second Limitation (Read 3196 times)

There is no guarantee about anything, only a probably. With a high enough fee and a standard transaction, then it is extremely likely, almost guaranteed that a transaction would be included in the blockchain. However, in theory, if a miner had a thing against you, he could choose to not include your transaction in a block. That doesn't mean that other miners wouldn't (or that that would happen at all) but it is a possibility (however still unlikely).

Also, it isn't instant incorporation of a transaction into the blockchain, you still need to wait for a block to come out with the transaction for it to actually be there.

Sorry for the holi-delay. Earlier you painted what was to me a rather alarming picture of the process of transaction-confirmation:


But to further make my counter-assertion that the 7-transactions-per-second limitation is and will be irrelevant to many users; and that all legitimate and fully fee'd transactions will be always be routinely confirmed, go to:

http://allcoinsnews.com/2015/12/28/uproov-first-to-offer-mobile-proof-on-the-blockchain/

and look for the statements "There is virtually no time lag between the taking of the photo, video, audio and its encryption to the Blockchain for any manipulation to be performed, it is instant," and "This ground breaking technology means it will be very difficult to argue against a Uproov photo or video, as an encryption key is permanently time-stamped instantly into the blockchain, making it unchangeable and the perfect court evidence if need be." What is lacking is any discussion of a delay in confirmation-time or a fear of a random chance of non-confirmation. Clearly what matters to this for-profit business -- what is essential to their service -- is the instant broadcast (publication) on the bitcoin ledger of a transaction that will -- not probably -- be confirmed. (You can also go to the website https://uproov.com/)

Other business are already depending on the same thing. I think that if your description was accurate, then these businesses could not exist because they could not guarantee instant and permanent incorporation of a transaction onto the blockchain. Claiming they could might make them liable for damages caused by a randomly failed confirmation and the possible excision of a critical transaction from a majority of miners' block-hashing.

No, I never said that. How do those articles lead to your conclusion? Please explain how I those contradict me (if in fact they do, then I probably missed something or you misunderstood something) and how those lead to the conclusion that the 7tps limit is irrelevant.

I thought they did, but since you are apparently in agreement with them, the matter is settled: the 7-transaction-per-second limitation is and will be irrelevant for many present and future users of the BTClockchain.

 

How do they contradict me?

I didn't mean that for certain purposes (such as archiving and smart-contracts) the institution would try to spend the bitcoin prematurely or indeed at all. They might be sending a minimal amount of bitcoin (with a sufficient/generous fee) to an address just to get that address on the BTClockchain. That done, the address might represent a database of Visa transactions (basically acting as a notary); or the address might be part of the computer code that a smart contract would look for before starting or completing.

On the matter of transaction confirmation by individual miners, I found two sources which contradict your position. At http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/16607/if-a-block-chain-is-considered-invalid-how-about-transactions-in-this-block-cha?rq=1 look for the answer to the top question "If a block chain is considered invalid, how about transactions in this block chain?"  At http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30452/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-transaction-with-0-fees-to-be-confirmed-or-rejected look for the statement "No transaction can be rejected though, there's just no such thing in the protocol."

My original point was that, for certain purposes -- purposes that will continue to expand in volume and scope -- the alleged 7-transactions- per-second limitation does not and will not exist as a practical matter. Instant or near-instant publication (broadcast) will be as good as confirmation for those in no hurry to spend the token bitcoin that was sent for the sole purpose of establishing an address on the BTClockchain.

It is so declared: All legit and properly-fee'd transactions will be instantly broadcast and routinely confirmed.

Bang the gavel.

is that not one of the great things about bitcoin it can be programmed to be what the community agree it should be......

I think they are talking about number of transactions accepted in a block per second to be confirmed...
If this is it, then it's a very less number as compared to previous numbers, and even the fees have now been increased...

Limit to what part of transactions? Confirmation speed? Transaction size? Please specify.

Yeah. I think that there is a limit, but it is very high. If I am wrong please tell me. This is what I have heard, I may be wrong.

Bitcoin transaction to my knowledge there is no limit.
Maybe it was just the issue that has not been accurately

Very true. You can't tell how many transactions are going to be in 1 block. Hopefully in the future, bitcoin will be able to handle more transactions a second.

and thats my point, people can send millions of unconfirmed bitcoin tx's and then let the blocks bottleneck for 8 days.. which would actually be on par with visa..

but we bitcoiners are too honest. our 7tx/s is based on fully settled transactions where the recipient is fully funded(confirmed) to then spend them funds.

infact with Visa USA being one database for the dollar. visa UK being another database for the pound. Visa europe for the euro, Visa asia, blah blah blah..

what we could do is claim bitcoin as equivelent to the US ledger, feathercoin for uk, litecoin for europe and dogecoin for asia... and then add up all the tx/s of all them chains..
but no.. we like to be honest and stick with the main principal of bitcoin and the real statistics of international use

this mean that every merchants that accept visa, is accepting an uncofirmed transaction each time, so why they should not do the same with bitcoin?

double standard much?

Your are wrong. First, a bad transaction would completely invalidate a block, and if that happens then so properly functioning bodes will not remove the UTXOs spent in that block from their UTXO set.

Secondly, it is completely possible for a legitimate (meaning valid and confirmable) transaction to not be confirmed. Miners could simply choose not to add a legitimate transaction to a block. If could be because they don't want to, the transaction having a low fee, or having a dust output, among other reasons. All of those simply means that a valid transaction may not be confirmed once it is broadcast. You can be fairly certain if a transaction will confirm by checking a few things, but it is not guaranteed. You can check the fee and for dust outputs, but even if the fee is high and there is no dust, there is nothing that guarantees that it will confirm. All you can say is that it probably will.


Yes, they could. And actually most clients do just that. Most bitcoin clients will allow you to spend unconfirmed UTXOs if the transaction they come from originated from you because it knows how it made the transaction and it can trust itself to not double spend against itself.

Maximum no of transaction depend on the volume or size of transaction. You can see in blockchain no any block is over 1mb, that is the size limit for every block. You can find lots of development are going on to increase this size limit. I think satoshi haven't thought bitcoin will go this big. 

I'm not sure I understand you both. Knightdk, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you may have meant to say that even if a legitimate transaction is broadcast, because of the possibility of a bad transaction within that same block there is no guarantee the block will confirm and thus become irreversible.  Franky1, I think you may have meant to say that many people can still mess around with their own transactions and cause issues within their blocks, thus causing them to be orphaned. But as I understand it, should there be a bad transaction, the revised block belonging to the first miner to solve the new hash will be the one used thereafter and the fork will continue from there, orphaning the block with a bad transaction or miner's error. But the legitimate transactions within that orphaned block will surely not destroyed or ignored -- even the slightest practical possibility of such an outcome would invalidate the BTC system completely and it would never have been tried.

What I think I am saying is that because an institution will have full control of its own BTC transactions and will ensure that each one obeys the rules, once they are published they are as good as confirmed for the institution's own purposes, and so can immediately be used for a range of internal reasons, including initiating or concluding smart-contracts.

which is where visa has also failed in its calculations..
especially when visa is not one database, but infact several databases.. so each database which can take days to confirm means it actually has a very lower tx/s..

bitcoin is actually closer to visa tx/s than we think

... and VISA/MASTERCARD take 8 days to confirm transaction ...  
yes, i have read my 200 pages of bank note for electronic payment.

transactions relayed is a meaningless statistic, especially if it takes 3 hours until they are confirmed.

so even if there are 60,000 tx in a 10 minute timeline, does not mean bitcoin can handle 100tx/s

because those tx's are left in limbo for hours. because if only 4000 can be confirmed per 10 minutes. it will take them 60,000tx's, 15 blocks (2hours 30minutes) to confirm

which 60,000 over 2hours 30 minutes (9000seconds) is still 7tx/s