Will we see the day...

[mp420]

The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

[1715134495]

1715134495

[1715134495]

1715134495

[1715134495]

1715134495

[1715134495]

1715134495

[nobbynobbynoob]

The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.

[SgtSpike]

The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.

Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.

[nobbynobbynoob]

If most users agree to the "upgrade" then sure, why not?

[Akka]

The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.

Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.

I think so too, from a bandwidth standpoint it would already be possible for the network to handle the same amount of transactions that visa does (2000 per sec.) the limiting factor is the max. of the Block size.

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

For more see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

[flipperfish]

The problem is, as of now the bitcoin network won't scale up to 50 times the current transaction rate.

It is very debatable if it will ever scale up 1000-fold.

Theoretically, the free-market transaction fee model will help relieve saturation in the blockchain. I don't believe Satoshi specifically intended Bitcoin would always be conducive to microtransactions.

Does that mean we must follow Satoshi's footsteps?  Can Bitcoin not be expanded to include support for microtransactions indefinitely?

I would argue that within 20-30 years, 1000-fold scaling will be completely possible and practical.

I think so too, from a bandwidth standpoint it would already be possible for the network to handle the same amount of transactions that visa does (2000 per sec.) the limiting factor is the max. of the Block size.

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

For more see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

But with Block-Pruning implemented the requirements to run a full node are reduced. So I think it will be still possible for the average user to run a full node even with a 1000-fold increase in transactions/unspent outputs. The pruned size of unspent transactions is currently at about 150 MB, so with a 1000-fold increase (and asuming a linear dependency between transactions per second and size of unspent transactions) this would be 150 GB, perfectly acceptable for the average home user. (Well maybe not with a mobile phone or tablet...)

[justusranvier]

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

If Bitcoin grows to the point at which it is handling that many transactions per second the "average users" will be businesses. Currently these businesses are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars to move money around, so if they switch to bitcoin and spend just 1/10 of their previous costs on mining there will be plenty of resources available to solve the problem.

[Akka]

Although increasing it to the max. needed would make it impossible for the average user to run a full node. So increasing it would only be feasible as soon as a significant amount of Web-servers are running full nodes.

If Bitcoin grows to the point at which it is handling that many transactions per second the "average users" will be businesses. Currently these businesses are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars to move money around, so if they switch to bitcoin and spend just 1/10 of their previous costs on mining there will be plenty of resources available to solve the problem.

I concur, I only wanted to lay out, why we have to go this way in little steps. Right now the Network is still depending on Users to be Full Nodes, so it is necessary to ensure there are no more transactions in a block, than a normal internet connection can handle.

This may change in due time and than the blocksize restrictions can be lifted.

Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA. Transactions vary in size from about 0.2 kilobytes to over 1 kilobyte, but it's averaging half a kilobyte today.

That means that you need to keep up with around 8 megabits/second of transaction data (2000tps * 512 bytes) / 1024 bytes in a kilobyte / 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte = 0.97 megabytes per second * 8 = 7.8 megabits/second.

Currently the Blocksize limit allows for about 7tps.