wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[Lauda]

I'm not sure why you guys are now speculating of a future in which a 100k increase of the block size limit is possible. You are not factoring in computational limits into this. Even if storage and bandwidth were very cheap (affordable for such blocks) and everyone had connections that could support them, there are still computational limits. Validating such a chain, or syncing up to the network would be a nightmare (you would likely never be able to catch up).

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure

The problem with increasing the block size is not only the transfer speed.

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

[ivanst776]

Right now we have 250k transactions processed daily, increasing that by 100k times will give us a figure around 25 billion transactions daily.

Hopefully after few days (today) the number of unconfirmed transaction has been dropped to 6k and this is normal (even though before it was somewhere at 2k)

250k daily is really a huge amount even though bitcoin is used worldwide but I see now that the trending of making new transaction is huge and within a few seconds there are lots of transaction made (based on blockchain.info)

[Lauda]

250k daily is really a huge amount even though bitcoin is used worldwide

No. 250k is very small (albeit *big* for something new like Bitcoin). In comparison, Visa does 2000 TPS on average which is over 150 Million transactions per day.

but I see now that the trending of making new transaction is huge and within a few seconds there are lots of transaction made (based on blockchain.info)

A lot of factors suggest that it was a spam attack (actually a preparatory one; the second wave will come soon).

[deisik]

I'm not sure why you guys are now speculating of a future in which a 100k increase of the block size limit is possible. You are not factoring in computational limits into this. Even if storage and bandwidth were very cheap (affordable for such blocks) and everyone had connections that could support them, there are still computational limits. Validating such a chain, or syncing up to the network would be a nightmare (you would likely never be able to catch up)

I agree with you in general that there might be a lot of other factors making such scale-ups simply impossible. Though the required capacities and speeds might still be technically achievable in the future, exploiting them would nevertheless be a terrible waste of resources, anyway. Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...

Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure

The problem with increasing the block size is not only the transfer speed

It is easiest to prove

[robelneo]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Right now we have 250k transactions processed daily, increasing that by 100k times will give us a figure around 25 billion transactions daily. If we divide this figure by the total number of humans currently living (about 7.5 billion), we will get only 3 transactions per person daily. Some people may make dozens of transactions on a daily basis, some only maybe a few a week, but on average we should get quite close to that number (perhaps, it should be somewhat greater than that). And note that I'm not counting business transactions altogether. Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure

You're right and two months from now the transactions will double or triple,this is something that all of us will worry and this is the best time to deal this problem,Bitcoin is indeed growing daily and people are now adopting it.

[Lauda]

Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...

Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today

So you think that someone is going to attempt to invent specialized processing units for the sole purpose of running nodes? You do realize that running a node only makes you constantly lose money, so there is zero incentive to attempt a large investment for such.

[Carlton Banks]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

The Bitcoin entire blockchain is nearly 100GB today. That's totally unfeasible for anything less than a 10 Mbit/s + connection.

So don't give me this today nonsense, you and your cadre are the only people who think that today's technology is the same as tomorrow's technology, just because you can imagine it. Stepping up to 2020's levels of resource usage is suicidal in 2016.

[deisik]

Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...

Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today

So you think that someone is going to attempt to invent specialized processing units for the sole purpose of running nodes? You do realize that running a node only makes you constantly lose money, so there is zero incentive to attempt a large investment for such.

First of all, I don't think that we are ever going to get there, i.e. to 100Gb blocks, lol. As I said it a few times already (though not in this thread, thus you might have missed that), without changing the blockchain paradigm (e.g. from a flat blockchain to a multilayered blockchain), Bitcoin is pretty much doomed, and what is most scaring, we might be already in or quickly approaching this final stage. Having said that, I'm inclined to think that the very existence of specialized hardware designed specifically for mining Bitcoin proves my point. So, yes, someone would have attempted to design such processing units, to get a competitive edge over the rest of the pack, provided it could ever come to that in the first place...

And such units would have been designed long before confirmation of blocks became impossible without them

[franky1]

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "we need to be like visa today"
seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "7billion people using bitcoin today"

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "bitcoin cannot cope with it today"

so lets be rational.
the 4mb BLOAT size increase has no correlation to transaction capacity increase.
the 2.1mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where LN (dual permissioned multisigs) channel opening and closing reign supreme
the 1.8mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where peer to peer(permission-less) reign supreme. (bitcoins ethos)

so sticking with bitcoins peer-to-peer permission-less ethos. rationally, segwit is only offering a ONE TIME 1.8x capacity 'side effect boost'.
it a one time event. so 'scaling' is not a buzzword that sits beside one time event.

LN should not be the compulsory solution to capacity 'scaling', to attain a higher (2.1mb+(2.1x)) capacity. LN just remain a side SERVICE that is an open choice.

now thats the short term mindset everyone should have.
as for the future.

at 1.8mb (1.8x capacity) side effect of segwit.. the other 2.2mb BLOAT size buffer (bringing total weight to 4mb) should not be wasted on arbitrary data and features that do not enhance capacity. (such as confidential payments)
we need to stick to lean clean transactions.

afterall bitcoin is a financial system, not a store of arbitrary data.

so concentrating on future TRANSACTION CAPACITY (not bloat). bitcoin CAN dynamically grow, naturally over years.

which is where a 2mb base 4mb weight. still falls within cores happy numbers of bloat, but allows less arbitrary data to keep the blockchain lean and clean and concentrating on transaction capacity

as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to jump to 100gb blocks today
as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to hold it back at low limits today
bitcoin does not have 7.5billion users now. bitcoin will never have 7.5billion users.
the fee war alone is pricing out over 1 billion people as it is, so cool down on the whole 'one world currency utopia'. and think rationally
 

[Meuh6879]

It's over, thanks.

[Lauda]

rationally segwit is only offering 1.8x capacity increase.

That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months.

It's over, thanks.
-snip-

One would expect that to happen during a date such a Black Friday, but nope. Definitely genuine transactions.

[franky1]

rationally segwit is only offering 1.8x capacity increase.

That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months.

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer

the 2.1mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where LN (dual permissioned multisigs) channel opening and closing reign supreme
the 1.8mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where peer to peer(permission-less) reign supreme. (bitcoins ethos)

if you think LN should reign supreme, i have to remind you of something (i did warn you)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1450783.msg16998029#msg16998029

[Lauda]

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
-snip-

No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit.

[franky1]

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
-snip-

No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit.

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

im glad to see you are starting to research though, so i will atleast give you a pleasant
have a nice day

[Carlton Banks]

It's over, thanks.

lol Meuh, you're like the funnier version of LiteCoinGuy. Well, LiteCoinGuy is a less funny version of you!

[Lauda]

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong.

[franky1]

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong.

pretending there is no answer, is different then not asking the question. please try to atleast learn why things happen instead of relying on unknown reasons.

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important

[requester]

Shame on miners, if this type of situation happens then bitcoiners would give away using it. I can't understand is it the  end of bitcoin era or it's going to teach us a new lesson. Please miners common let's not go our hard earned money in vain.

[Lauda]

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important

No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions.

[franky1]

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important

No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions.

much like this topic
your presuming the increase in mempool was due to...........
black friday? spam?

have you ASKED why, RESEARCHED why, or just presumed.
oh one more hint. you can actually get the blockchain data, get all the multisigs and analyse it and see the inputs and outputs and see correlations, patterns of usage.