How much block size we need to replace visa transactions?

[chek2fire]

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.

[keepdoing]

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

[franky1]

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.

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

[nonbody]

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.

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.

[elite3000]

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

[chek2fire]

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.

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.

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?

[HostFat]

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)

[Peter R]

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.

[franky1]

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?

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



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)

[chek2fire]

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.

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.

[franky1]

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..

[Peter R]

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?

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



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)

Franky, this is exactly what we already did with Bitcoin Unlimited.  There are already 120+ nodes 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 can scan the network to help to identify where consensus may lie.  

[chek2fire]

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..

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?

[HostFat]

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)

[franky1]

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?

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..

[keepdoing]

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..

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?

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

[chek2fire]

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

[franky1]

Franky, this is exactly what we already did with Bitcoin Unlimited.  There are already

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

[HostFat]

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

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

[chek2fire]

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?