Bitcoin Forum

My question is simple. How much block size we need to have transactions like visa or like paypal etc or to compare with all of them together? Is this real that we need to have a block size above 1gb only to have the visa transactions?
Is ever this possible to happen? And how many forks we need to have to get to this block size?
I think the fork system to correct the block size problem for transactions is in the wrong way. We all know that bitcoin was not creating to replace every day payment and we cant to do this unless we drop it decentralized system. Only with a big central database bitcoin can handle so many every day transactions.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.  Lets just deal with this 2mb Bitcoin Classic Fork, get some experience and real-world data with a relatively minor and simple hardfork, and THEN we can move on to tackling even bigger scaling issues.

And it may very well be that Bitcoin NEVER reaches those dizzying heights.   But my guess is that as long as we can get through the current period of brief stagnation - and we can begin to move forward in slow and sure steps, carefully and learning as we go,  then as time goes by we will step with a clearer footing, more surefooted, and then at a quicker pace, a brisk walk, soon jogging, and maybe eventually at a runners pace.

But let us not get bogged down in contemplating steps that are not even in sight yet.  Slow and steady, ever forward.
inline signature removed

visa worldwide is not one system.. they have separate databases and networks per country.
for instance worldwide figures calculated and lumped together to get 2000 a second..
but if you cut it down into things like visa europe.. who do 570tx a second,

bitcoin could handle 7tx/s at 1mb blocks..if each tx was lean, but the reality is more like 3tx/s at the moment at 1mb blocks, so to compare bitcoin to visa europe would be about a 180mb block.

but dont worry bitcoin is not going to be world dominating solo currency. there will be free choice. bitcoin can happily work along side other payment methods. so dont expect bitcoin to bloat up to 180mb blocks overnight

Bitcoin's ongoing tx per second hasn't reached to that level. We don't need that size yet. What we need to do is to increase it to 2MB, then 3MB if needed to contain current tx volume.

Yes, it is a real problem because I don't know how the size of transactions are determined, if they are deterministic.

And you can use several combinations of inputs and outputs, will be hard to know what quantity of inputs/outputs would be better for such transaction, if you want to do all the transactions using the least block size possible

and what will happen in the next years? Every time we need a block size increase we have to go to the same hard fork drama or to have another ragequit Hearn story?

There are many type of tx and situations that can be solved with other tech as the incoming Open Transactions and Lightening Network.

But still users will need to be always able to freely choose if making the tx on-chain or off-chain.

They will probably choose to use off-chain solutions because they will be faster (costing less "time", few seconds instead of 10 minutes) but not cheaper (trying avoiding virtual forced higher costs)

And then, blocks will be naturally smaller. (without using tricks/force)

check2fire:

According to this chart, a block size between 500 MB and 1 GB would be sufficient to achieve 2000 transactions per second (which was only Visa's average throughput several years ago now).  We would have hit this point in the year 2032 following BIP101's trajectory and assuming a high rate of adoption.

https://i.imgur.com/QoTEOO2.gif

well hopefully not,.. if developers are brave enough to do this

https://i.imgur.com/cGt2eL5.jpg

then we will not have to rely on dev's making a new update each time.. as we can manually do things ourselves (decentralized style)

can ever happen to have a system with so much high block size. What node will handle this and who will run that nodes? We will talk about 10-20-30 nodes or 100 and no more.

lol

2032 is 16 years from now..
so lets talk about 16 years ago..

everyone was on dialup. or if lucky 512k basic broadband.. so back then if i told you that you could download a song in 2 seconds and watch movies in higher than DVD quality over the internet without any lag... what would you have said..

Franky, this is exactly what we already did with Bitcoin Unlimited (http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download.html).  There are already 120+ nodes (http://xtnodes.com) running it.  Have you seen it yet?  

Our next release will also have a feature where the node advertises its block size limit in the user-agent string, so that sites like bitnodes (https://bitnodes.21.co) can scan the network to help to identify where consensus may lie.  

i agree with you but how many hard forks we need to go there? Are bitcoin ready for one ore two maybe three hard fork drama for every years and for the next 16 years? Can Developers create a code in bitcoin core for the block size to autoscale with the number of transcactions and with a proper solution for the spam attack?

You have to be sure that the drama is also "real", after the next hard fork, maybe users will have a more open mind, or more into the reality.

Also, after some next hard forks, maybe there will be a dynamic size solution.

Again, I think that the "common user", between the choice of making the transaction on OT/LN off-chian solutions or on-chain (at the same price, example: 0.0001 BTC), he will prefer the off-chain solution the majority of the times. (because faster)

as i said in last post.. if bitcoin clients allowed people to change settings manually instead of relying on downloading update implementations.. then the drama would be far less..

as you can see by the posts on other topics.. the whole blocksize debate is not really about 2mb.. that amount came to an easy consensus.. but now its arguing about which developer group to trust. which group snuck in extra code that may do damage, blah blah blah..

so without having to worry about downloading anything again and simply changing a setting. all that dev group trust arguments disapear and then its a simple poll of numbers and people vote..

My guess is that an intelligently automated scaling option will be forthcoming at some point.  But for now the task at hand is sufficient.

i dont think and a vote is a solution. We need to keep trust to mathematics like bitcoin do and not to the human desires

im using my own implementation, ive looked into bitcoin core, bitcoin classic, xt but not got round to BU.

to be honest it shouldnt matter what 'brand' it is as long as it does the job. so if your sourcecode is clean (as that the main debate everyone is having about all brands) then it solves some future debate issues by not having to keep downloading new versions for every fork debate

If you think a bit more, you can see (or remember) that the core of Bitcoin is based on human desires :)

is really based in human desires or to mathematics? Satoshi really create a system to trust humans or to remove humans from the trust systems?

It's mainly based on human desires, without there weren't miners and then no Bitcoin.
This is the real magic.

If you wrongly touch them (their incentives) you are really going to break the core of the system.

true.. but if lets say its fully automated to increase the limit, if lets say 4 blocks in a row are over limit X. then some tx spammers can abuse that to force the limits up..

so i still prefer my manual tweaker feature so i can cut them off if the increase was due purely to tx spammers flooding generous block rules. or increase it now that i see alot of people are open to 2mb as an acceptable increase.

after all the purpose of the limit in the first place was to prevent tx spamming.. so while i now have my node at 2mb.. i dont have to worry about tx spammers trying to push generous block miners to 3.. as my node wont accept blocks over 2mb unless there is a big call for it.

so i prefer it to be a consensus decision to increase based on users opinion. but without having to then argue which dev team to then trust to implement that increase.. as people can do it themselves

for that i have say that first of all we need to find a solution to the root of tha drama we have today. And this root of the block limit is spam attack. I dont see a real solution to this problem

we dont need humans to decide what the block size will be but we need mathematics to decide for this

spam attack is not a big deal if limits are fixed(moving only by consensus).. the drama is mostly about which dev group to trust to have clean code..

but a totally unlimited system would be risky as spammers would push it as far as they can. so having a fixed limit that only increases based on consensus is better

sorry but it does need a human element..
maths cannot tell very much about the real world..
maths cannot tell very much about things that are not inputted into the equation... it requires an outside entity to input what is needed for maths to work

after all
1
2

without me telling you if it is add, subtract, multiply or divide... its just number..
maths is great but it cant solve everything unless its provided with everything it needs.

part of that is understanding the difference between genuine demand increase vs spam attacks which is best judged by humans.

part of it is knowing the capability of 90% of other users systems.. again some dont have 100mb internet. and so 2mb became the favourite to keep people happy.. vs growing exponentially purely based on maths would cause bandwidth bottlenecks as maths does not understand some outside limitations exist

The block size limit is not going to change in the near future. The 1mb block limit was put in place to stop people spamming. It is working fine at the moment but when more people use Bitcoin, then maybe it will go a bit higher.

This is like asking how many roads you need to build for cars to have the same passenger traffic capacity as subway. You will have layers and layers of road in the city that you barely can see the sun  ;D

Similar to driving license, you must have enough IT expertise and security knowledge to directly use the blockchain to do transaction, and you must have enough money to buy a car and pay for the gas (only large transactions is feasible), so there will not be so many people use blockchain directly, they will rely on experts handle this for them

not even 32, visa is on the range of 2k per second, you have right now 3 per second with 1mb, so you do the math

you need 800x, remember that 7sec is a lie, we are much lower than that currently, because you need to consider the output and imput and multisig etc...

Yes  ;D
Similarly I could say this: USA have the widest highways on earth, but they also have the biggest cars and trucks plus they have the worst drivers in the world. Come on they use bumpers to avoid car accidents at parking lots!

Anyway, in other countries those roads will be too much but in the US they are not enough. So what's the matter?

The HUMAN part is the problem.  ;D