Bitcoins 7 Transaction Per Second Limitation

[Minecache]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes? Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions? With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi? How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

Opinions.

[Meuh6879]

Proof : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions?from=1441785552673&to=1442573582938

It's not true.

[DooMAD]

this has to be a drastic limitation oversight

Only if it was intended to be permanent.  Most people don't think that was the intention.  It's likely there will be a change in 2016 to alter it.  

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes?

The exact number of transactions you can squeeze in will depend on the size of each one.  Some transactions take up more space than others.

[countryfree]

There are no fixed and absolute limits. The number of transactions per block can vary hugely. What you shall consider is that the Visa credit card network can handle hundreds of transactions per second while BTC can't.

[Meuh6879]

now ... yes.
in the future ?




no, not with the moore law of storage device.  





We Will Win, We're WORLD WIDE WEB of money.

[odolvlobo]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes? Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions? With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi? How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

Normally, I ignore people that beg for money on this site, but I'll answer your question this time.

The limit is the size of a block in bytes. The 7 tps is determined by taking the average size of a transaction and seeing how many can fit in a block. Whoever came up with the 7 tps number apparently assumed that the size of an average transaction is somewhere around 250 bytes. You can fit up to 4200 250-byte transactions in 1 MB block so that means that the limit is 7 tps. Sizes of transactions vary, so that actual limit (in terms of numbers of transactions) can also vary. It turns out that with multisig transactions, the average size has gotten a lot bigger and 2 - 4 tps is a more realistic limit.

The idea of a 1 MB limit was originally designed to prevent a particular attack. It is not necessarily a permanent limit.

[Minecache]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes? Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions? With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi? How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

Normally, I ignore people that beg for money on this site, but I'll answer your question this time.

The limit is the size of a block in bytes. The 7 tps is determined by taking the average size of a transaction and seeing how many can fit in a block. Whoever came up with the 7 tps number apparently assumed that the size of an average transaction is somewhere around 250 bytes. You can fit up to 4200 250-byte transactions in 1 MB block so that means that the limit is 7 tps. Sizes of transactions vary, so that actual limit (in terms of numbers of transactions) can also vary. It turns out that with multisig transactions, the average size has gotten a lot bigger and 2 - 4 tps is a more realistic limit.

The idea of a 1 MB limit was originally designed to prevent a particular attack. It is not necessarily a permanent limit.

Apologies, it's an old signature that I've been meaning to remove from when I first joined and didn't know how to get Bitcoin.

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

[odolvlobo]

Nobody disagrees that 7 tps is not enough. The disagreement is on the best way to achieve a higher transaction rate.

There have already been thousands of posts on this site and others on the pros and cons of increasing the block size. I don't see a reason to start a new thread.

[DannyHamilton]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes?

No. It is not true. 7 transactions per second is an estimate that was calculated by making some assumptions about transaction size.  Those assumptions are unlikely to be true in most cases.  In reality the average number of transactions that bitcoin can confirm per second with the current block size is likely to be significantly less (closer to 3 transactions per second).

Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions?

That depends on the transactions.  If the transactions are small enough, then the current block size can actually hold more than that.  Realistically with the typical transactions, blocks can hold about half of that.

How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

People have been discussing this very topic for over 5 years.  There have been hundreds of threads about it on bitcointalk.  Several potential solutions have been proposed with various levels of support and technical merit. Perhaps take a little time to read through some posts on this forum before making assumptions and declarations

With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi?

Oversight?  What makes you think that Satoshi didn't have any plans regarding this?  What makes you think that his plans are still the best possible solution 8 years later?  What makes you think that there is nobody else in the world after 8 years of study and use of the protocol that can come up with any better way to handle growth?

Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps?

There are many people that don't have any desire for bitcoin to "compete with the likes of visa".  There are others that feel that bitcoin could compete, but that many transactions can be handled "off the blockchain".  Then there are others that feel that the protocol should be updated to handle more transactions per block (or more blocks per hour).  I really can't believe that I've chosen to get involved in yet another of these pointless discussions just to re-state all the things that have been stated so many times before.

If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size?

Greater consolidation of mining power.  Increased orphan blocks.  Increased cost in running full nodes. It is assumed by many that scarcity of available block space creates an incentive for users to include transaction fees which will eventually be needed to maintain hash power for transaction confirmation.

Slower confirmations?

Not sure why it would lead to slower confirmations.  Care to explain?

I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this.

I'm not sure why anything he wrote about this matters, but since it seems to be important to you, here you go:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

Well, if you are not aware of his writings, then why do you make assumptions about what he has (or hasn't) said?

Here's an idea.  Try reading the white paper.  Then try reading Satoshi's writings.  Then try searching for discussions about the things that you want to know about.  Then after you've done all that, see if your opinions about the technical details of bitcoin have changed.

White paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Satoshi's writings here at bitcoin talk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts

[MicroGuy]

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

[brg444]

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

Hi OP! Just popping in this thread quickly to say everything this guy just wrote is shameless lies.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion 

[knight22]

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

Nailed it.

[7788bitcoin]

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

Totally agree! 1MB was used in the experimental stage. With mainstream adoption in sight, the community should be getting ready and be more ambitious!

[achow101]

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

You are not him, you are not them. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. Even if Satoshi wanted to raise the limit, he may not be able to, he doesn't have dictatorial powers.

I do agree that the 1MB was not intended to be permanent. It was set in place to prevent spam and DoS attacks.

[MicroGuy]

You are not him, you are not them. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. Even if Satoshi wanted to raise the limit, he may not be able to, he doesn't have dictatorial powers.

I do agree that the 1MB was not intended to be permanent. It was set in place to prevent spam and DoS attacks.

If you will look carefully at my statement, you will clearly see I didn't put words into anyone's mouth. I simply shared a perspective on the situation.

This is the most logical conclusion that one would draw if/after studying the entire contents of Satoshi's postings on this board. He would have raised the limit to 8MB (static) and everyone would have gone along merrily; because after all - he's Satoshi. Gavin's BIP101 idea is insane.

Now, we're stuck in a circle jerk with core developers that have excessive self-interest and over-blown egos.

[Minecache]

Nobody disagrees that 7 tps is not enough. The disagreement is on the best way to achieve a higher transaction rate.

There have already been thousands of posts on this site and others on the pros and cons of increasing the block size. I don't see a reason to start a new thread.

I really don't understand why you are being so blunt and, frankly, borderline rude. Maybe it's just your style or you have issues? I'm just asking general questions on what I've read online in an article about the 7tps limit. I'm not constantly on here to follow all threads, nor just to catch up on what may or not have been posted. FFS. I'd really appreciate if you and others would simply either answer my questions directly if you so wish and know the answer, rather than post some diatribe 'this has been posted x times before read through the forum.'

Yours may do, but my day job doesn't permit me such liberty.

[Carlton Banks]

If you will look carefully at my statement, you will clearly see I didn't put words into anyone's mouth. I simply shared a perspective on the situation.

Ok, I'm looking carefully:

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different;

Correct

and, it was intended only as a temporary measure.

Correct

Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins.

Correct

If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

Wrong

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

Wrong



It's interesting, you know what they say about casual reading? That the points made at the end are the ones that people tend to internalise the most.

Take my advice; if you're going to make egregious mistakes in your assertions, don't put them all together at the end of your post. It makes it look like you're making true statements, only for the purpose of convincing people of the false statements. I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

[dothebeats]

It's not limited to 7 tx / sec. Depends on how much tx can the network handle, the 7 tx / sec is just an estimate.

Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.

When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB.

The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects.

Hi OP! Just popping in this thread quickly to say everything this guy just wrote is shameless lies.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion 

Classic. 

[Mickeyb]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes? Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions? With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi? How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

Opinions.

I have no idea how long you weren't active for in a past (I don't actually have time to check your profile and post history), but I guess that you have missed the whole block size increase debate that was raging during the past three months.

Much debate has been taking place and it's still not decided about this 1MB limit. Satoshi has designed this 1MB limit just as a temporary solution. We will see what will be decided.

Now when I think off, it's not bad that you have missed this whole debate. You have saved yourself a lot of nerves!

[neurotypical]

Is it true that Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions a second which are recorded in 1 block every 10 minutes? Does that mean 1 block can only hold 7 x 60 x 10 = 4200 transactions? With the growth of Bitcoin usage this has to be a drastic limitation oversight by Satoshi? How can Bitcoin be scaled for a global audience?

Opinions.

I have no idea how long you weren't active for in a past (I don't actually have time to check your profile and post history), but I guess that you have missed the whole block size increase debate that was raging during the past three months.

Much debate has been taking place and it's still not decided about this 1MB limit. Satoshi has designed this 1MB limit just as a temporary solution. We will see what will be decided.

Now when I think off, it's not bad that you have missed this whole debate. You have saved yourself a lot of nerves!

Where are the satoshi quotes where he said 1mb was temporal? what did he think about off chain transactions as a solution for this? I wonder what would he think about 8 mb raise, let alone 20..