Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"

[Lauda]

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

Wrong. Let's quickly analyze this:
Visa does 2000 TPS on average with a peak capacity of around 50 000 TPS (transactions-per-second). Bitcoin has a theoretical maximum TPS of 7 at 1 MB block size limit. However, realistically this the TPS is currently around 3. Now multiply this with ~33 and you end up with a TPS of 99. It might be able to compete with snails with a 33 MB block size limit, but certainly not Visa.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

This problem can happen at a 2 MB block size limit.

scalability is crucial if we want bitcoin to survive!

Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability.

[1714059236]

1714059236

[1714059236]

1714059236

[1714059236]

1714059236

[1714059236]

1714059236

[CIYAM]

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.

I'm sorry "you fool" but why on earth would you want such a high limit then?

Seemingly you are such a "fool" you don't even understand the implications of what that might mean do you?

[Amph]

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?

[Zarathustra]

Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability.

Segwit reduces scalability.

[CIYAM]

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?

A post from the "mega-retard" - how refreshing.

If you bother to look at the entire history of Bitcoin blocks just see how many were bigger than 1MB before 2010.

(come back to me after you've done that research although I'm guessing your lazy ad-sigging ass won't bother to do so)

[Zarathustra]

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.

I'm sorry "you fool" but why on earth would you want such a high limit then?

Seemingly you are such a "fool" you don't even understand the implications of what that might mean do you?

A limit is for you fools only, to calm you down. Otherwise you would shit in your pants.
Bitcoin Unlimited is for men.

[Amph]

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?

A post from the "mega-retard" - how refreshing.

If you bother to look at the entire history of Bitcoin blocks just see how many were bigger than 1MB before 2010.

(come back to me after you've done that research although I'm guessing your lazy ad-sigging ass won't bother to do so)

well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?

[CIYAM]

A limit is for you fools only, to calm you down. Otherwise you would shit in your pants.
Bitcoin Unlimited is for men.

I see - those with particularly big appendages I would assume then?

[CIYAM]

well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?

Because *idiot* practically no nodes could verify all the sigs that would be in a 32MB block in 10 minutes.

Can you comprehend that?

(or do we need to translate it into "baby language" that you can understand?)

[franky1]

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)

if we apply that average 40 transactions a year* to the 104million US visa card holders**, then that is an average of 4.160billion transactions a year

which if we take 2mb+segwit (8000tx per ten minutes) is 420million transactions a year.

so bitcoin with 2mb+segwit can handle 10% of visa americas ledger.




*http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/
**http://budgeting.thenest.com/percentage-americans-credit-cards-30856.html

so imagine in 15 years bitcoin was 20mb+segwit. that would be on par with visa USA
then imagine the sidechains had similar capacity each

sidechainA comparable to Visa Europe
sidechainB comparable to Visa Asia
sidechainC comparable to Visa australia

but sticking with 1mbsegwit, trying to push hard for sidechains is pushing people into a less secre network.
especially if blockstream only wants to double blocklimit every 8 years.
meaning 4mb+segwit+sidechains in 2026 and 8mb+segwit+sidechains in 2032.. meaning bitcoin wont be on par with visa america until
well into 2040 (24 years)

[sgbett]

SPV mining *is not proper mining*.

Is that not clear to you?

It is irrelevant whether or not they use the SPV protocol to do that so (and in fact they don't as they use the "relay network" which existed a long time before SPV support was added to Bitcoin) so your desperate attempts at trying to discredit me are failing and just making you look even more stupid.

If you mine that way then you end up on a fork (as has already happened) and as I have already tried to explain (but seemingly you are incapable of understanding) the larger you make the blocks then the easier it would be to trick other miners into mining on such forks.

And btw - the only *flawed understanding* here is your own.

You are way off topic. Lets zoom back out again.

At the start of this discussion, you made an assertion that a 64MB block takes a long time to validate, and that such a block could be crafted by a miner in order to "own" the bitcoin network. Specifically that this miner could "get all the fees and block rewards".

I asked three questions, the first was the most important. The answer you gave implied that you thought block validation time was the key to the malicious actor owning the network.

You had not stated this explicitly so to clarify, I asserted that the validation time of a block has no bearing on whether other miners can start mining the next block, as they can mine knowing just the block header.

I labelled this as being "SPV mining" (but as you rightly point out in your previous post could have been obtained through the Relay Network). The salient point was that any miner has the potential to mine the next block, because they have the block header and did not need to have (yet) validated the full block.

However you refuted this, stating that "everyone else" (other miners) would not know the header, because the header was only broadcast to "your miners (if you are a pool)":

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

Your original premise that the block chain can be owned by crafting a expensive to validate block, relies upon miners having to validate the block before they can start mining relies on your refutation.

There is circumstantial evidence that your statement is incorrect, in the blockchain (401302/401303) which you have not offered any explanation for.

You have not provided any factual evidence of you claim above, and so I have to assume that it is wrong.

If the statement is wrong then you demonstrably have a flawed understanding.

If your original assertion relies on a flawed understanding then the original assertion cannot be held true.

[Amph]

well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?

Because *idiot* practically no nodes could verify all the sigs that would be in a 32MB block in 10 minutes.

Can you comprehend that?

(or do we need to translate it into "baby language" that you can understand?)

lol are you following me or what, then again how it was possible to verify it back then?

you're not understanding apparently, having 32 mb right now will not change anything because we are almost in the same condition as before, we need only to verify less than 1mb, because the block is not even full for 1 mb let alone for 32

also about your signature concern https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

[CIYAM]

You are way off topic. Lets zoom back out again.

You are an idiot (and most likely @franky1 who I've already put on ignore).

I am putting you on ignore as well so feel free to post your rubbish (I don't think that anyone is actually taking you seriously anyway but I don't actually care).

[CIYAM]

you're not understanding apparently, having 32 mb right now will not change anything because we are almost in the same condition as before, we need only to verify less than 1mb, because the block is not even full for 1 mb let alone for 32

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?

Don't compare what we have seen up until now when the limit of 1MB has been in place since before any 1MB block was ever created (of course this probably all is too hard for you to understand so perhaps just post somewhere else to keep up your ad sig posting count).

[Amph]

the signature concern is not even a concern, in the link wiki that i've posted it explain how with some optimization it is possible to increment the number of signature per second

but well i don't like to argue with someone that only know how to insult people

[CIYAM]

the signature concern is not even a concern, in the link wiki that i've posted it explain how with some optimization it is possible to increment the number of signature per second

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?

(I am only rude to people who are rude to me btw and if you want to be taken seriously then please dump your ad sig for a start)

[Lauda]

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?

You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous (validation time); proposing 32 MB right now would be a bad joke at best (now).

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?

No. He read something on the Wiki that he doesn't even understand.

[Zarathustra]

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)

if we apply that average 40 transactions a year* to the 104million US visa card holders**, then that is an average of 4.160billion transactions a year

which if we take 2mb+segwit (8000tx per ten minutes) is 420million transactions a year.

so bitcoin with 2mb+segwit can handle 10% of visa americas ledger.




*http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/
**http://budgeting.thenest.com/percentage-americans-credit-cards-30856.html

[Zarathustra]

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?

You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous; proposing 32 MB right now would be a bad joke at best (now).

LOL, 2MB dangerous but the 4MB of your idols not.
Dumb - dumber - small blockers.

[franky1]

You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous;

and there is the hat trick
2mb dangerous?? ?? ?

yet strangely segwits 4mb not dangerous??

you cant have it both ways