Topic: Blocks are full. - page 13. (Read 14985 times)

The best way to do this is to calculate how many transactions can be put inside a 1 GB block and then compare it to TPS of Paypal or Visa.
If you assume that at 1 MB the tps is on average 3, that means that in a 1 GB block the tps is 1000 higher, so 3000 TPS (because 1 GB = 1000 MB). In theory a 1 GB block has a TPS rate of 7000, but in reality it is ~3000. According to the Visa website they handle on average 150 Million transactions per day which equals to 6 250 000 transactions per hour which again equals to a TPS rate of ~1 736. However, this is only on an average day. Their website says that they can handle a TPS rate of over 24 000 and in order to come close to that we would need (min.) 8 GB blocks. Scaling this way is very inefficient and problematic.

I think people hate it is because it could cause the community to divide if most people don't switch to the new version.

isn't visa 2k tx per second? we are currently stuck at 3 per sec as average, so you do the math, 600mega minimum

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

has anyone calculate how much block size we need to have paypal transactions or visa transcaction. Is more than 1gb block size. Is this ever will happen? I dont think so

I think it's not needed to invent everything new since already thousands of thousands of work hours flew into the code. It would be sufficient to review code to be implemented, change code who is not working properly and so. Then all bitcoiners would have a way to chose the implementation they feel is the best at the moment.

Though this will die quickly since one of the first decisions will be 1mb block or 2mb block, which will mean 2 different blockstreams and the same bitcoins on different addresses in each blockchain.

Though that would only make sense when all clients would work on the same blockchain. For sure that will only be the case for a certain time. Though until a fork happens, depending on the setup of the clients, it might be a good idea. They would work on the same blockchain but clients are coded by different groups.

That's why we need the lightning network, even as a temporary solution while Core devs patch up a perma fix.

Which makes it effectively no improvement on the bitcoin network anymore. It would be a solution besides the bitcoin network, using bitcoin transactions in some way. A crutch to make bitcoin work while it is held crippled intentionally.

Well i guess you now will claim again that it's all bitcoin. I won't answer if you do.

The 10 minutes would stay the same after everything settled. The size of the blocks doesn't really matter for the confirmation time.

The only problem on this topic that is time related is, when the blocksize ist NOT raised. Because that will mean that legit transactions will NEVER be included into a block because all blocks are always full and only the transactions with the highest fees get included. So if you included a lower fee then you have bad luck. Bitcoin won't work for you and you won't even know that it will be that way. You will wait only to find out that nothing happened. The fees will rise because everyone will fear that his transaction will not get included and so on.

Obviously that is true to any actual approach. At the end it is absolutely inevitable to raise the blocksize at some point in time.

And yes, after implementing that arbitrary spam protection it was clear that a problem was solved but another born. Even LN or segwit are nothing more than kicking the can down the road a bit.

This is practically a non-issue since what we see is showing only that mining is still so profitable that we have too many miners. We have so many that the network is 100 times more secure than it would need to be. Even when 99% or the miners would drop out the network would still be safe enough. Though in turn this would mean that the remaining 1% of miners would earn around 100 times what they earned before. Which would make more miners switching their miners on.

So in general, there is ZERO need to pay more to the miners now. There is no right on mining profitable. Everyone starting with mining has to know the risks involved. And the reward the miners receive is fully depending on the market laws. Enforcing higher fees for the miners simply would mean an intervention into the free market. The rules how the rewards should develop were laid out pretty clearly already. No need for intervention.

The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.

I always hear this comparision. The 21 million bitcoins was a core stone on the fundamental of the protocol. Mainly to ensure a protection against inflation. And now there really are a lot of people who dare to compare the 1mb temporary spam protection setting with this fundamental? And they even claim it's on the same level. Really unbelieveable.

I see this fight, way too often fought with fears, the problem is nobody knows the future and only can guess about it. So everyone feels strongly he is right because his reality has come to realization for sure.

Well, time will tell and i think the development of bitcoin will move on lastly based on the user bases wishes. And the past has shown that the users rarely want to adopt sidesystems beside of bitcoin. They want bitcoin, when bitcoin isn't working then they will take the fix offered. Well, that might be an alternative payment system where you have to bind your bitcoins into some payment channels or the promise of another bitcoin client who fixes the problem. I think it's not hard to guess what most users will chose.

It's way too hard to argue what bitcoin was meant for. For me it's clear that satoshi wanted to empower the people to be freed from the power of banks. Which only makes sense with adoption. Even his plans on how miners will be rewarded make very sure what he thought should happen. Miners will be paid from the fees coming from a growing amount of transactions. The block reward will go down and slowly fees from the rising amount of transactions will take over the reward system.

For me it's pretty much unthinkable that he implemented a temporary spam protection with the thought in mind to bring inflation to the transaction fees, blocking adoption, blocking not so wealthy people from bitcoin and finally make bitcoin a system used as a setting layer for another network which at the end can turn to be a system that makes that only big corporations will use bitcoin at all. Because the costs would be too high for the average user.

It's so perverted to think that this could have been his plan. It's the full opposite of everything he claimed he wanted to achieve with bitcoin.

But again... these points often enough are impossible to convince someone already having decided on a front. Well in fact not everyone is that way yet. There are way more users that only are wondering why bitcoin is not working anymore.

Well, if you want to be taken serious then you can't really add a new attack vector to the 2 mb block solution when you already know that it is no problem anymore with a fix existing.

---

You told me in the old, now closed thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13634824

that you did not get what i was asking. The question was, segwit blocks can't be verified by non-segwit nodes(miners) but the nodes are forced to accept them anyway to enforce that segway will be able to create the blockchain without having >50%. Right so far? You claim that in no way 10% can create a fork. But wasn't it said that the blocks have to be accepted by nonsegwit nodes even when they can't check if the transactions are valid?

And miners need to check if the last block was valid by checking if all the transactions are valid and check if the hash for the block is valid. With segwit blocks only segwit miner nodes can check, non segwit nodes accept it even when the transactions would be bogus.

So what is wrong? That non segwit nodes can not check if a segwit block is valid and so would accept corrupt segwit blocks too because it was built this time for this fork this way?

You did not say what happens when someone spams the network with segway blocks that are not valid but have to be accepted by the non segwit nodes.

---

Then you claimed that the 2mb attack vector is no danger to 1mb blocks. Because the validation time is quadratic. The same transaction on 2mb could mean a 10 minute solve time, on 1mb only 20-30 seconds. But wouldn't the risk be the same the when someone simply creates 20 to 30 of such transactions, maybe in different blocks? These blocks would have to be checked all. So why is it no problem with 1mb blocks?

---

And again you claimed the internal movement of bitcoins inside of lightning network are real bitcoins. Guess you don't even get why people prefer to buy material gold instead owning a paper that gives you the right on gold. Theres a clear difference and since you seem to not even get to think over your claim when everyone else tells you that your view on the topic is wrong, i will stop here like i said i will. It seems to make no sense to discuss this with you.[/list]

Where did you pull that figure from? 99% of blocks are not full? I had a tx last week with more than adequate fee that took over 3 hours to confirm, and the tx i sent after that with an even higher fee took about an hour and a half.

it is when the bankers want FREE

transactions, can you fkn believe it!!!!!!

they close our bank accounts block our money

transfers, but are soooo cooookeeddd

they think we wont see them blatantly

pushing mike and gavin around like
 
ladyboys calling for free transactions

ohhhh revenge is so sweet   

nowadays, it is very usual to have full blocks, it is not only in the rush hours ! I was thinking like you but It is a real issue, because even when you pay the proper fees you may wait two hours or more to get confirmed

I really didn't know that the blocks were that full that there is a back log. What are we going to do?

With the alleged backlog of transactions, how many of those have really small or absent tx fees? Because my transactions don't have to wait very long. I just use whatever fee bitcoin core calculates for me and it just works.

What is the common thread with transactions that are not making it into a block in a timely manner?

Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

Not an issue. For now