Bitcoin Forum

From here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.msg92216#msg92216


I have no idea, but I assume there are something like 18,000 transactions per minute inside the USA alone.

Is this simply more proof that bitcoin can and will only ever become a "layer" to the financial system? Ie... people will not be accepting bitcoins as payment in the far future... but from third party banks who say "gigabyte coin's bank account gives your bank account X number of bitcoins".

If it's the latter, why are we bothering trying to get anybody to accept BTC as payment then in the first place?

This is one of those classic questions that regulars get tired of answering.

The Bitcoin network can scale significantly, the 1 meg hard limit is only there to halt 'transaction spam' if an error in the code is found and exploited.  That limit can be raised or removed as the userbase may deem necessary.  Even if it can't, much of the future transactions will still be off-network, like the transactions that occur between MyBitcoin accounts are at present.

I guess it nice to worry about problems that don't exist yet, but makes you feel good worrying about  ;)

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

I imagine the future with Bitcoin to involve a few large trusted banks that deal in this currency.  Maybe new banks maybe existing banks that adopt Bitcoin. 

But either way, if this gets off the ground in the future, I expect most BTC transactions to be internal transfers between two personal accounts at that major bank.  Not actual BTC transfers in the client.  Just journal entries on the bank's book.  This can allow most small, mundane transactions to happen at the bank level, and only if a bank needs to make a large transfer to another bank would it really require sending coins in the client. 

Individuals would therefore choose between the convenience and trust of a large BTC bank or the anonymity and privacy of sending coins on their own.

If you really want to know, look a little deeper in the referenced thread and another one:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6576.0 (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6576.0)

creighto and [mike] have a very different opinion on this than I do. What silversurfer proposed is a possible outcome, but if I'd have to guess, I think something else will happen.

Sheer processing power is only known necessary while we mint bitcoins. If other possibilities exist later to have nodes agree on a block as valid, and no longer revert their decision, the requirements for processing power and thus trade fees loosen and it might be possible to use larger limits.

So, most people agree the limit should go, but hardly anyone agrees on what rules should replace it.

What you propose may be a useful crypto-currency, and may be deemed superior to Bitcoin, but it is not Bitcoin. If you believe it to be a good idea, I suggest you implement it or find someone to implement it for you.


What? No. Larger (or no) block limits as deemed necessary.

I propose we remove the upper limit and instead ask all miners to have a free space and scale the cost as the block size's increases.
Size limit on blocks would also be removed.

That is how it is now.

That could be done easily.  The hard blocksize limit is only there as a backstop in case an exploit that permits limitless transaction spamming is found, not as an artificial scarcity.  The max block size limit could be increased to 10 megs or 100 megs right now an not have any noticable effect.

I do know it is how it is done, just fall back to that system.
So for instance, we could have 50 kb for free, 50 kb would be 0.01 BTC, 50 kb at 0.02, 50 kb at 0.04, etc.
Though, I think there is still not the need for it, I checked and there are rarely fees being paid, so this is not an issue atm.