Blocksize benchmark

[hatshepsut93]

Blocksize still remains a highly discussed topic on Bitcoin forums, and even if we can't convince big blockers that big blocks are dangerous, I believe it's still important to keep debating it with them so newcomers will learn about it while reading those discussions.

In this light, I think it would be nice if we had some experimental data that ties various blocksizes to hardware requirements for running a full node. I know there's this paper by BitFury, but it seems like their data is a theoretical prediction and not an actual benchmark.

1. Are there any real benchmarks available in the open? I've tried searching and haven't found anything.

2. How hard it would be to do some experiments in regtest or on private test network to make benchmarks for different blocksizes?

[piotr_n]

Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil

I think it speaks for itself.

[hatshepsut93]

Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil

I think it speaks for itself.

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h

Bcash mempool has over 80 MB of <5 sat/byte transactions, so miners aren't even bothering to include them in blocks because they probably think that it's a spam, but some of those transactions probably belong to genuine users, which proves that fee market is a vital part of the protocol (I saw some people seriously suggesting to cap max fee, lol).

But what I would like to see is how many Bcash real nodes will leave the network after some periods of time of 8 MB blocks, and how much RAM, bandwidth and disk resources it takes to run a Bcash node under full load, so we can compare it with BitFury's estimations for 8 MB blocks.

[Anti-Cen]

Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil

I think it speaks for itself.

It's too much data in the block-chain without using a decentralized system or nodes with BTC no mater what way they cut the cake

[piotr_n]

Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil

I think it speaks for itself.

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h

Bcash mempool has over 80 MB of <5 sat/byte transactions, so miners aren't even bothering to include them in blocks because they probably think that it's a spam, but some of those transactions probably belong to genuine users, which proves that fee market is a vital part of the protocol (I saw some people seriously suggesting to cap max fee, lol).

But what I would like to see is how many Bcash real nodes will leave the network after some periods of time of 8 MB blocks, and how much RAM, bandwidth and disk resources it takes to run a Bcash node under full load, so we can compare it with BitFury's estimations for 8 MB blocks.

They really don't like it when you call it BCash.
Why don't you just say BCH, to make it even shorter but less offensive?

Of course the fee marker is a vital part of the protocol.
Whoever had though otherwise must had been an idiot.