Topic: Transaction capacity and non-mining full nodes (Read 103 times)

Topic derailment in the Development & Technical Discussion subforum is frowned upon, so continuing the off-topic discussion here:

A user has disingenuously queried why Bitcoin's overall transaction capacity is lower than other coins.  The answer is simple.  In practice, the other networks in question process fewer transactions than Bitcoin does, even though they have the potential to process more.  There is a cost to be paid to broadcast all this transaction information to other users on the network, so it stands to reason that users running nodes for other chains have a smaller cost to bear.  Overall throughput in Bitcoin will increase only if/when those who secure the chain are prepared to carry a heavier burden.  

---

* PROTIP:  If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, try to make it a challenge your opponent hasn't already completed. *

Is your cognitive impairment so severe, you can't recall that I have explained this to you already?  The coins you refer to do not come close to utilising their full capacity.  If they did, the fees would not be as cheap as they currently are.  If the blocks on those chains were consistently full over a period of several years, the total size of the blockchain would be larger than Bitcoin's, meaning there would be very few, if any, non-mining nodes to enforce consensus rules.  This would make a chain highly susceptible to corruption due to weak network governance (as already explained in that D&T topic before you got it locked).  

You say Litecoin has 4x the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, but if we look at today's figures:

Litecoin Transactions avg. per hour   2,524
Bitcoin Transactions avg. per hour   11,878

So in reality, Bitcoin actually processes 4x the number of transactions Litecoin does.


The novelty of highlighting your profound mental deficiencies is starting to wear thin.  Why don't you stick to what you're good at?  Which is peddling proof-of-stake detritus that no one cares about in the altcoins boards.  It's obvious why you continually attack Bitcoin with your intellectual dishonestly.  Only problem is, your ability to create false narratives is feeble at best.  If you genuinely believed that non-mining full nodes are not crucial for the continued health and stability of Bitcoin's network, then you would merely be a fool.  But instead, I'm going to work on the assumption your posts are, in fact, malicious.  You can't honestly maintain the contradiction that mining centralisation in Bitcoin is a problem when your arguments against non-mining full nodes would only give miners greater influence to weaken the protocol by implementing undesirable changes.