I guess that brings us a bit closer.

I think the pools have been stabilized with their payouts for, let's say half their lifetime now, so we're dealing with about a 75% of 50% of 97.6% of 90% of 10315, or about 1132 bytes, which is only about 51% larger than fluffypony explained.

My error was caused the the lack of want to incorporate almost double the amount of time necessary to estimate the size in the first place, resulting in a 10% error.

My second error was caused by apparent lack of incorporating that 1 kb is exactly 1024 bytes and not 1000 bytes, resulting in a ~3% error.

My third error was based on the assumption that the blocks were not based on a database, resulting in a 50% error.

My fourth error was based on that pool payouts were every block, instead of at a certain threshold, which is arguably speculative, resulting in a 75% error.

But the reality is, the acutal blockchain size on my computer right this second is still well over 10kb/tx, regardless of speculative changes or archetypal changes to block structure ........ since april 14 2014 until feb 8 2015, the average transaction size is, in real average reality over 10 kb per transaction.

I understand that a db will mitigate this, and pool payouts will change this, and bytes/kbytes across continents will change this, but the actual size of the file on my computer compared with the real number of people that has made a transaction on the monero network to date, is really 10kb per transaction.

I see that it's not getting bigger, but please, understand that this is a massive number.

it will take time for it to go down, time that I expect will be paid for in whale blood.

I am a holder, a gambler, but not a buyer.

I promise you that 50% of the people in this thread that will answer your question, have the correct answer, and 50% of the people in this thread that will answer your question, will not have the correct answer. You should speculate based on that 

I know smooth just made a mod note of keeping back the discussion, but here's my numbers:

292 bytes is coinbase reward

427881 blocks total

124,941,252 bytes for total bytes for coinbase reward

3,573,000,000 is the size in bytes of the blockchain

5002 pages is the number of pages chainradar has of blocks with >1 transaction in them, 30 blocks a page

2536 @ 2 tx ea = 2526 * 30 = 75780 transactions

3617 @ 3 tx ea = 1081 * 2 * 30 = 64860

4148 @ 4 tx ea = 531 * 3 * 30 = 47790

4462 @ 5 tx ea = 314 * 4 * 30 = 37680

4666 @ 6 tx ea = 204 * 5 * 30 = 30600

4800 @ 7 tx ea = 134 * 6 * 30 = 24120

4867 @ 8 tx ea = 67 * 7 * 30 = 14070

4906 @ 9 tx ea = 39 * 8 * 30 = 9360

and add another 30000 estimated all the way until the last page

so a total of 304260 plus an estimated 30k tx's over a block with greater than 10 tx's a piece gives us a total of 334260 transactions.



So, my average monero transaction size is actually closer to 10315 bytes, more than 10x higher than your figure fluffypony.

How do we come so far apart?

Keep in mind that I'm going to put an accuracy on my figure of about 90%, but we're still so far apart.


Please forgive me for the additional 2.4 % + .0024^2, etc ... error in my numbers then

What about optionally reduced security, while also offering the same security?



Yes, I had gotten the vibe that I had misrepresented Moore's law likely at the same time as you were writing your post, sorry for that. Perhaps we should use it more as an example of some law that represents "real physical barriers that will hinder significant usage, due to network capacity and HDD capacity". I'll look into Kryder's law, as it seems a little bit better at describing what I was trying to say, but I'm unsure if it encompasses network capacity as well as HDD space? Also, please remove the block reward, if you would, from your standard Monero transaction size, as I'm willing to believe that the coinbase reward is likely 50% or more of the actual representative transaction on the network, and would have a large effect on this value you've presented as it's a single input transaction with no mixin, and i don't believe it's representative of a standard transaction size unlike bitcoin. I would do so myself, but it seems like you've analyzed this in-depth and would only have to to absolutely minimal work. Also, the 10x faster block reward in Monero compared to Bitcoin would skew this number even further.

Unless, this number has already had this done to it?

Guess I'll look!

What is it?

Total transactions - total blocks = number of real transactions

and

size of blockchain - (number of real transactions * size of block with only coinbase reward) = size of monero blockchain due to real transactions

Then take the (number of real transactions) and divide it by the (size of monero blockchain) to find the average size of real monero transactions?

Sorry if you've already done this, just wondering?



It's mostly bandwidth and HDD space that I was concerned with. HDD space could be mitigated because I'm operating under the assumption that the blockchain can be legitimately pruned, and not just a mere reduction in size, so that leaves bandwidth the major hinderance.

What kind of bandwidths does this use?

I'm curious, because with all this net neutrality stuff in the USA, you're likely going to see monthly GB caps become a harsh reality, coupled with already allowable network speeds.

Taking into account that most people would likely opt for streaming netflix or some other form of media rather than use the conventional tv cable lines, this starts to choke up the bandwidth accessible to p2p cryptocurrencies, torrents, etc. 300 million of the richest people on the planet, and arguably the same demographic that provides a major basis of cryptocurrencies, will have to budget their bandwith to accomodate these things, or be faced with overusage penalties. So now, we're not only talking about Kryder's law, were also looking at some adulterated version of it that will likely come into play if you're hitting around 30Gb a month in network usage.




I like it!

Pretty sure this is a difference in dialect.

America: 2561 bytes = 2.561 kb = 2561 bytes / 1000 bytes/kilobyte

Wherever you are: 2.561 kb = 2561000 bytes

Where are you?

Many people like this coin.

Many people that like this coin hate some of the people that like this coin.

Aside from the currently high emission, I'm pretty sure the only reason people who like this coin, and people who want to like this coin continue to remain bearish is because they like to see certain people who liked this coin before them go almost bankrupt even more.

Actually, I'm convinced that more than half of the struggling that has gone on socially in this coin is because people hate people like rpietila.

Just speculation, not trying to personally bash the guy.

So, regardless of my personal feelings about this coin and the few people who are clearly being targeted, I'm going to hold off buying this coin until until either they're bankrupt, or divorce/divest themselves completely from this project.

I guess a risk assessment would be in order, so I'd have to research how much people like rpietila are willing to invest in this coin, whether or not that amount would put them in financial dire straits if the value of this coin were to continue to decline, and the actual amount of money I'd lose out on by either keeping the value of this coin low, or the amount of money i'd lose out on by not being financially engaged with this coin, and also the amount of value that each person like rpietila would not control in BTC due to financial involvement in XMR.

So if someone in control of 20k BTC were to invest as much as 10% as 2k BTC in XMR and lose about 75% of that value, is that valuable to me, after this player has basically relinquished 1500 BTC of control?

I guess I would have to figure out how much money these types of people were willing to short on btc, because likely after months of being bled out I could only assume that they'd get much much quieter and potentially seek to divest completely, following a potential innovative streak.

Didn't one of them already put up a big BTC wall at a low price? I can't remember what that was, .0014 or something?

W/e my proposition for a new uptrend: get the current vocally offensive megawhales to divest, expect the price to drop a ways below .001 as they recoup their losses.

Likely the response to this is: not gonna happen.

Well then, expect to be usurped by some other cryptonote coin.

Also, then there's also the massive size of the transactions. Is there any possible way to get the same security with smaller sized transactions?

It's painful to see a 20kb transaction, as one single transaction, go out to thousands of people. The size of these transactions far surpass moore's law by at least an order of magnitude. So, is it possible to get reasonably sized, high mixin, transactions for 2kb? I'm talking a mixin of no less than ten with an average of 2-3 inputs?

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction.

Or this one: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/2a51c7438c41f7eb0ee35d299e6f4cdce3479ed1fee649a296d1bab6388703fc

With 19 inupts, one mixin making a staggering 3.95kb transaction.

The 5 - 19 inputs is a pretty good baseline for establishing an average range of inputs, yet the choice of using a single mixin gives someone a greatly increased ability to make your transaction identifiable. It's just not really strong as far as anonymity goes. So really, you're getting between 2kb and 4kb transactions just for using cryptonote as a standard transaction processing system. I mean with one mixin, your transaction is indistinguishable from only one other transaction. This hardly seems like enough, because in reality, it's not enough.

Now let's take a look at some transactions with average input ranges, and look for higher mixing.

Here's a good one, it uses the old flat-fee structure, but afaik that doesn't affect the sizing at all: http://chainradar.com/xmr/transaction/7e10418c95f426428f5146adea272324bdee5bc7d5dd461b482ff16e158b1472

It's 12 inputs, with a mixin of 28, but a size of 22.783 kb.

The tough part here, is that for cryptonote to work as intended, we're outpacing moore's law by at least two entire powers of ten. For cryptonote to even work at all, with minimal anonymity, we're outpacing it by a single power of ten.

Now, let me get to why I'm setting moore's law around a transaction size of 200-400 bytes.

Let's say we're looking to handle the amount of transactions daily that bitcoin handles: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

I'm going to use 85k transactions per day. That's literally about 1 transactions per second.

Biggest bitcoin transaction I could find: https://blockchain.info/tx/ae6f07f187c3d4fe3c2cdb75a325b6881a524d2e7f7ec3657d26d6a0ef37c6da

as 4.882 kb

But the average bitcoin transaction is here: https://blockchain.info/tx/f18119e64bd3d8d6dfc607608e267ad83199a840237ed80db58ebbcaeddb883d

as 260 bytes

other average bitcoin transaction sizes are usually under 600 bytes.

We can safely say that the p2p network and people's hard drives can definitely handle bitcoin in its current state.

With the large amount of people rejecting of the now 20mb block size hard fork, it's seeming like this is the correct 'size' of a cryptocurrency transaction from the standpoint of moore's law in 2014. Not going into it any further.

So, as we fall further and further away from following moore's law IRL, while also currently being 4 years out from even being able to being encompassed safely by it, I'm asking seriously, does anyone see this scaling to anywhere past a few tens of thousands of people?

I don't. Not now, and not without some serious changes to transaction sizes.

edit: I'm not trying to say that this is doomed or a fruitless effort, sorry if it came off like that. I say a few tens of thousands of people because of the moore's law scaling. If bitcoin has about 1,000,000 users, we can expect 10,000 monero users. I say this because we need to assess the market for potential candidates for monero adoption. "the world" seems a bit too large, so a more manageable size of "a few tens of thousands" might be better to start with -- let alone the mindset that comes along with that. I do not think there are currently 1,000,000 bitcoin users, because typically I'd expect to use my money about once per day if I were a currency user. So at 1 tx/second, we'd see about 86k actual bitcoin users. This would correlate to between 860-8600 monero users. If bitcoin scaled to even 100 tx/sec then that would be about 8,600,000 users, so 86,000-860,000 monero users. And if bitcoin made it to 1000 tx/sec then we'd use the same math. Seems not so far off from how many people use visa: http://www.howmanyarethere.net/how-many-people-are-using-visa-credit-cards-in-the-world/


Visa claims the ability to handle, http://usa.visa.com/merchants/industry-solutions/retail-visa-acceptance.jsp:
so they get about 13125 people for every transaction per second they handle.

Or here is a claim for 10k tps: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/12/bitcoin-needs-to-scale-by-a-factor-of-1000-to-compete-with-visa-heres-how-to-do-it/

which would yield 31500

Or the bitcoin wiki which claims some unicorn number or 2000 tx/sec, which would yield 157,500 people per every transaction per second.

I feel my number of one person per every second of the day for every transaction per second, as about 86,000 users per transaction per second is pretty reasonable given the three above sources. Users may be different from 'people' I guess.

2nd edit:

I'd also suggest researching anger and rage triggers related to naming and branding conventions. Unconsciously, both the naming an branding used in this coin are absolutely abysmal. The color choices would normally inspire hope, but given the naming convention does the exact opposite. I would suggest a name change to something else, as the word "Monero" clearly is not having the intended subconscious effect.

LOL those gold coins in your OP picture are from Super Mario Bros WII.

Nice.

Have fun with your italian plumber currency!

"impossible to counterfeit" should be a major selling point of cryptocurrencies. Not sure why this isn't advertised more.

A large part of taking credit instead of cash is because it's tough to counterfeit the value, yet identity theft/cc theft is still a reality.