Topic: Bitcoins 7 Transaction Per Second Limitation - page 2. (Read 3248 times)

Proof : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12391362







Pay the network, Pay the fees ... and all will be good.
http://bmkbucket.objects.cdn.dream.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/free2playgif.gif

imagine it as if funds where debited out of your account instantly. but the recipient cant use them yet as they havnt been credited to him until its confirmed.
many people can still mess around and cause issues before its confirmed. and so for large purchases its not enough to rely on the publishing of a tx, but rather wait till its confirmed.

bitcoin is still not perfect in regards to the limbo between publishing a tx and having it confirmed.. however there are many idea's in the woodwork that are all aiming to sort that out.
that way payment systems can have 100% trust that once a transaction is published, its then locked in the waiting list to be confirmed. and any attempt to respend the same origin funds elsewhere will be ignored

No. Even if a transactions is broadcast, there is no guarantee that it will confirm and thus become irreversible. Sometimes transactions have some issues like low fees or dust outputs which prevent that transaction from being confirmed. With the upcoming Opt-In RBF feature, it may not be safe to take unconfirmed transactions if it has opted in to be able to be replaced by another transactions with a higher fee.

use Litecoin to pay for the coffee and candy, or Dogecoin, it confirms faster too 

Well, actually I don't know how Visa manages its systems, but I've used my cards in many different countries, so the databases must be linked somehow. Besides, even when compared to one single country, BTC is substantially inferior to Visa. I'm sure that in the UK only, Visa handles way more transactions that the blockchain could handle.

I think one day VISA is going to integrate bitcoin payment for micro transactions. From their view, it is just another foreign currency that they need to integrate into their payment network, nothing more. And from bitcoin's point of view, it will save lots of work that VISA has done. VISA is currency independent, it works with all the currencies

Since it is bitcoin, they don't need to cooperate with banks, but bitcoin exchanges/online wallet providers. Since most of the user in each country usually only use domestic currency, the merchant need to install a special bitcoin POS terminal so that you can get a bitcoin quote to charge your VISA bitcoin cards (, maybe people would still like to be quoted in local currency, then using bitcoin works like traveling abroad: you only get a quote in local currency anywhere around the world)

Exactly.

To anyone with a hint of foresight it was always clear that Bitcoin would not support all of the world's financial infrastructure on its own blockchain. In order to provide us with a decentralized protocol layer Satoshi had to make considerable design compromises, often at the cost of efficiency and flexibility.

By enabling the creation of this quasi-trustless source of monetary value Satoshi allowed for an unprecedented, permissionless development of financial tools creating true market competition for more open-source, efficient & trust-minimizing platforms supported by Bitcoin's liquidity.

While the notion of "being your own bank" is a cool marketing gimmick it really isn't practical considering the effort one has to go through to make actual, proper use of Bitcoin. Yes, that involves running a full node. No, "bitcoinating" has nothing to do with web wallets, consumer-friendly "killer apps" & "merchant processors".

Consequently, if you decide to trust your "Bitcoin" business with such entities then it would seem to me other similar "users" should have no problem relying on second-level layers for their VISA payment network pipedreams.

Fortunately the trade-off really isn't as bad as I make it sound. The market-lead demand for these solutions will necessarily lead to valuable innovations in true open-source fashion. Lightning, side-chains are early demonstrations of this and more is to come.

It's not handing processing to Blockstream at all. All Blockstream are doing is writing software protocols, so the actual operating of all side chains or lightning hubs will be open to competition. We'll see how competitive the incentive structures are when the details get firmer.

Unfortunately Bitcoin will never be able to scale as a world global payment network without compromising at a certain level, either by handling transactions into a private company (blockstream) whose will deal with transactions that don't pay an enough high fee, or by becoming totally centralized since the node will be way enough for the average joe to deal with, so I would rather have the blockstream solution. This is all better than what we have now.

Sounds like more that Bitcoin has 7 transactions per second, not limited to .

Depends on what kind of exclusivity you're talking about. I can see how keeping low value transaction off the main chain would work, so that's one type of exclusivity.

But making the Bitcoin userbase exclusive? Bad idea. Some other crypto will just fill the gap.

The problem I'm having there is that anything a few select individuals think is a great idea is something I'm going to be inherently skeptical of because I don't trust them or their rather extremist views of what the future of Bitcoin should look like.  The more they express their preference towards an elitist and exclusive chain, the less I want to share a chain with them.  I want consensus, but not if exclusivity is the ultimate outcome.

brg444 reports from the scaling workshop that there are a whole plethora of angles to come at the transaction throughput problem from, without changing (aka 1MB). I'd be surprised if it's possible, but I'm not gonna write it off without hearing the details. That even Adam Back doesn't mind compromising with the 2-4-8 schedule suggests otherwise, but I'm gonna have to look at it all alot more closely from here on in

I'm saying if anyone tries to fight the tide and go against the 2-4-8 or whatever we end up agreeing on, they'll be in the minority.  If hdbuck wants to keep fighting and try to dismiss even moderate and reasonable increases, he's going to get left behind.  I bet a few of them desperately try to cling on to 1MB.  At least watching them marginalise themselves will be a fun spectacle, though.

Yeah, that seems like a pretty sober assessment of what's actually likely to happen here and now.


Eh?

How can you switch from agreeing to the most significant consensus position right now (2-4-8), and then still argue in favour of a minority blockchain fork?

You did the switch in the same post, am I missing something? Are we both crazy?

I'm confident that after the second scaling conference in december, we'll be gravitating towards some sort of break in the deadlock.  Probably the 2-4-8 thing, but we'll see if anyone comes up with something better in the meantime.  I'd still like to see something a little more flexible and dynamic.



We will.  We're just waiting for the right moment.  We're going to take the merchants, miners and vast majority of users with us and leave you to run a hollow shell of a network all by yourselves.  A few MP fanboys acting in isolation does not constitute a consensus network.  You need the rest of the world to agree with your abhorrent views and they're not going to do that, so have fun trading your altcoin amongst your fellow converts in complete obscurity while the rest of the world happily ignores you.

Yes the number of transaction that can be included depends upon the transaction size not on the no. of transaction only. So what you said is absolutely incorrect. Bitcoin will be future, without limitation and complete ananomous.

You took my post out of context. I was replying to someone who was speculating on what Satoshi would have done.

But I personally don't see any harm in speculating what Satoshi would do since he was after all the original creator. It doesn't mean his views on a particular subject would have been ideal, but in a way it helps us stay true to the spirit of his original vision.

There are many quotes from which we can see that the limit was supposed to be temporary. Like I said, all of this was already talked about many, many times in the many threads over the last 3 months. Go and dig through them. I don't have time to do such a thing. But the quotes do exist from 2010 if my memory serves me well.

The Fedwire system which handles transactions between thousands of banks in whole US works at 4 tps. It's much more than enough right now if you don't fill the blockchain with coffee and candy transactions (they usually do not end up in blockchain anyway). In fact the larger the transaction, the greater the benefit of using blockchain