Bitcoin Forum
May 04, 2024, 08:03:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: transaction scalability through hashing?  (Read 480 times)
fevir (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 5


View Profile
February 18, 2016, 09:36:57 AM
Merited by ABCbits (2)
 #1

Hi,

I was just wondering based on some rough figures, according to this site http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/2013/11/23 it takes 8.3 seconds for a message to propagate to 90% of the network and transactions are stored locally in a node's memory pool. It takes 125.8 (say 130) seconds to propagate a message to 99% of the network. Every block is found at an average of 10 minutes (600 seconds). Once a block is created, it contains transactions that have been broadcasted to the network, so the assumption here is that once a miner starts mining a block it took 130 seconds to reach that miner, and the transaction still has 600-130=470 seconds to propagate through the rest of the network.

Each block contains approximately 4200 transactions (assuming an average transactions size of 235 bytes, depending on the signature, and a 1MB (1.000.000 in bytes) block size), which leads to (4200/600) approximately 7 transactions per second.

Now, what if each node creates a hash (say SHA256) of each valid transactions, and adds those hashes in a block. Each block can contain 8.000.000 (in bits) / 256 = 31.250 transactions, a factor 7 increase.

The miner broadcasts the block containing the hashes of transactions, and every other node verifies these hashes with its own memory pool in which the transactions and corresponding hashes are stored. If valid, the block is added to the chain, including the actual transactions in case of any forks occurring. Would that work?
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714809791
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714809791

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714809791
Reply with quote  #2

1714809791
Report to moderator
1714809791
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714809791

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714809791
Reply with quote  #2

1714809791
Report to moderator
achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 3388
Merit: 6578


Just writing some code


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2016, 12:49:52 PM
 #2

While that could potentially work the problem is that transactions could actually become lost. By doing this, transactions aren't actually included in the blockchain. It would require nodes to store all of the transactions and then those nodes need to request the transaction from other nodes. Then, when scanning the blockchain, a node would have an additional network overhead because it has to ask other nodes for all of those transactions. It also makes the blockchain not a permanent place to store transaction data.

fevir (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 5


View Profile
February 18, 2016, 02:03:35 PM
 #3

Thanks for answering. So if we'd be able to store transactions outside of the chain, this would be for now a viable solution. Interesting, going to ponder on that :-)
Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 2456


https://JetCash.com


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2016, 03:46:16 PM
 #4

They are called side chains.

Offgrid campers allow you to enjoy life and preserve your health and wealth.
Save old Cars - my project to save old cars from scrapage schemes, and to reduce the sale of new cars.
My new Bitcoin transfer address is - bc1q9gtz8e40en6glgxwk4eujuau2fk5wxrprs6fys
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!