Pages:
Author

Topic: Will we see the day... (Read 2520 times)

legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
January 25, 2013, 08:36:22 AM
#28
Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.
If Bitcoin grows to the point at which it is handling that many transactions per second the "average users" will be businesses. Currently these businesses are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars to move money around, so if they switch to bitcoin and spend just 1/10 of their previous costs on mining there will be plenty of resources available to solve the problem.

I concur, I only wanted to lay out, why we have to go this way in little steps. Right now the Network is still depending on Users to be Full Nodes, so it is necessary to ensure there are no more transactions in a block, than a normal internet connection can handle.

This may change in due time and than the blocksize restrictions can be lifted.

Quote
Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA. Transactions vary in size from about 0.2 kilobytes to over 1 kilobyte, but it's averaging half a kilobyte today.

That means that you need to keep up with around 8 megabits/second of transaction data (2000tps * 512 bytes) / 1024 bytes in a kilobyte / 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte = 0.97 megabytes per second * 8 = 7.8 megabits/second.

Currently the Blocksize limit allows for about 7tps.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
January 25, 2013, 08:22:59 AM
#27
Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.
If Bitcoin grows to the point at which it is handling that many transactions per second the "average users" will be businesses. Currently these businesses are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars to move money around, so if they switch to bitcoin and spend just 1/10 of their previous costs on mining there will be plenty of resources available to solve the problem.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 251
Dolphie Selfie
January 25, 2013, 05:30:31 AM
#26
The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.
Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.

I think so too, from a bandwidth standpoint it would already be possible for the network to handle the same amount of transactions that visa does (2000 per sec.) the limiting factor is the max. of the Block size.

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

For more see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

But with Block-Pruning implemented the requirements to run a full node are reduced. So I think it will be still possible for the average user to run a full node even with a 1000-fold increase in transactions/unspent outputs. The pruned size of unspent transactions is currently at about 150 MB, so with a 1000-fold increase (and asuming a linear dependency between transactions per second and size of unspent transactions) this would be 150 GB, perfectly acceptable for the average home user. (Well maybe not with a mobile phone or tablet...)
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
January 25, 2013, 01:21:43 AM
#25
The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.
Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.

I think so too, from a bandwidth standpoint it would already be possible for the network to handle the same amount of transactions that visa does (2000 per sec.) the limiting factor is the max. of the Block size.

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

For more see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
January 24, 2013, 09:54:52 PM
#24
If most users agree to the "upgrade" then sure, why not?
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
January 24, 2013, 05:12:08 PM
#23
The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.
Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
January 24, 2013, 05:09:50 PM
#22
The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.
hero member
Activity: 501
Merit: 500
January 24, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
#21
The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.
hero member
Activity: 661
Merit: 500
January 24, 2013, 01:52:44 PM
#20
where owning 1 BTC will mean that you're rich?

Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

With only 21 million BTC, it's not hard to predict that owning 1 BTC would be extremely hard and the decimal places will start to matter more and more.

How far are we of days where 1BTC will mean you are rich? I don't want to translate into $$$ amounts because maybe in 50 years one million dollars is what 50,000 dollars is today so. I just use the word "rich"



If it keeps going as planned, I don't believe 1 would necessarily make you "rich," but at the same time not entirely poor.  I think I saw a infographic somewhere stating for BTC to be 1% of the world economy, it would have to be priced around $10,000 for 1 bitcoin.  I'll try to find it again real quick.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
January 24, 2013, 01:49:30 PM
#19
BTC1 = BTC1, no matter if it's two half-BTC inputs, a thousand mBTC inputs or 100 million one-satoshi inputs. Or even a CASASCIUS coin. Or a brainwallet.

That is why the method used to exchange BTC is mostly irrelevant (except for security and convenience).

Smiley

I'm not sure 100 million inputs would fit in a block.  It would certainly require a very large fee.
New self-challenge: Create a transaction larger than 1MB.  See if Bitcoin network esplodes itself.

+1

If it does I'm going to be sad for the role I played in its destruction.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
January 24, 2013, 01:37:38 PM
#18
BTC1 = BTC1, no matter if it's two half-BTC inputs, a thousand mBTC inputs or 100 million one-satoshi inputs. Or even a CASASCIUS coin. Or a brainwallet.

That is why the method used to exchange BTC is mostly irrelevant (except for security and convenience).

Smiley

I'm not sure 100 million inputs would fit in a block.  It would certainly require a very large fee.
New self-challenge: Create a transaction larger than 1MB.  See if Bitcoin network esplodes itself.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
January 24, 2013, 01:32:45 PM
#17
BTC1 = BTC1, no matter if it's two half-BTC inputs, a thousand mBTC inputs or 100 million one-satoshi inputs. Or even a CASASCIUS coin. Or a brainwallet.

That is why the method used to exchange BTC is mostly irrelevant (except for security and convenience).

Smiley

I'm not sure 100 million inputs would fit in a block.  It would certainly require a very large fee.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
January 24, 2013, 08:13:12 AM
#16
BTC1 = BTC1, no matter if it's two half-BTC inputs, a thousand mBTC inputs or 100 million one-satoshi inputs. Or even a CASASCIUS coin. Or a brainwallet.

That is why the method used to exchange BTC is mostly irrelevant (except for security and convenience).

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
January 24, 2013, 08:06:15 AM
#15
Well, define currency? I hardly use paper "cash" nowadays, my ATM is my wallet.

USD, EUR, CAD etc etc...


1 USD = 1 USD, doesnt matter if it is pennies, nickels, a dollar bill or a debit card swipe.

That is why the method used to exchange USD is mostly irrelevant (except for security and convenience).
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 251
Dolphie Selfie
January 24, 2013, 07:39:19 AM
#14
Will we see the day...

I think that depends on how old you are now.  Grin

But seriously, I think it's possible within the next 20 years. The alterantive would imply IMO, that the fiat-system has been "fixed" (if that's even possible) or replaced by something else, which is regarded as more "fair".
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
January 23, 2013, 09:25:02 AM
#13
If we are still using an exchange named after magic the gathering when the price is 1000usd to 1 btc



LOL!

bitcointip lebing +BTC0,01
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
January 23, 2013, 12:46:38 AM
#12
If we are still using an exchange named after magic the gathering when the price is 1000usd to 1 btc

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
January 22, 2013, 07:10:27 PM
#11
If the global bitcoin economy is roughly the size of Salt Lake City, there is a fair chance the exchange price will be well above $1000 per BTC in today's fiat terms. Mt Gox (if it's still going!) may quote prices per mBTC/BTM instead of per BTC.

Notice how all the online games have already standardised the BTM? Very forward-thinking. Bitcoin does not have to get anywhere close to critical mass to justify an exchange price above $1000. But we are a long way away yet, and as that guy at the '11 Bitcoin Conference pointed out, there are lots of serious payment systems used on smartphones and Bitcoin can only really go big when it penetrates that market. But Bitcoin does not necessarily have to get that big to justify a price of $1k/BTC. In five years, I'll hazard a guess that BTC1 will either be worth >>$1000 or pretty much nothing. But what do I know? It's pure speculation, by any of us. Look how Bitcoin has developed over the past four years, though...
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
January 22, 2013, 07:05:38 PM
#10
1, possibly
10, probably
100, definitely

I'm definitely going to be rich!

 Grin Grin Grin

that is if smoking doesn't kill me b4...  Undecided
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
Drunk Posts
January 22, 2013, 07:00:42 PM
#9
1, possibly
10, probably
100, definitely
Pages:
Jump to: