Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:09:51 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Limit on transaction speed  (Read 2756 times)
genjix
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
May 07, 2011, 12:33:22 AM
 #1

Hey,

I met a web designer guy who last night made a point about the number of transactions being limited because of the block size. I did some calculations. Can somebody confirm these numbers for me?

MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000 bytes

Average transaction = ~200 bytes (conservative lower limit)

Average number of tx per block = 1000000/200 = 5000

Each block has an interval of ~10 mins

that means 5000 confirmed tx / 10 mins OR 500 tx / min OR
8 tx / s

---------------

Visa must do thousands of tx a second or maybe more.
1481458191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481458191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481458191
Reply with quote  #2

1481458191
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481458191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481458191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481458191
Reply with quote  #2

1481458191
Report to moderator
1481458191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481458191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481458191
Reply with quote  #2

1481458191
Report to moderator
1481458191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481458191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481458191
Reply with quote  #2

1481458191
Report to moderator
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 07, 2011, 12:34:36 AM
 #2

When we start bumping up against the top of the block size limit, we can raise it. Until then it's just low to prevent spam.
slurch
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile WWW
May 07, 2011, 12:36:36 AM
 #3

Here's a good article on the wiki:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

Donations accepted at: 1AXKzVc1tTmfC6VkWwBNSzKqThqhwsC5mY
For what, I have no idea...
genjix
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
May 07, 2011, 12:41:08 AM
 #4

When we start bumping up against the top of the block size limit, we can raise it. Until then it's just low to prevent spam.

Wouldn't this fork the chain? And don't you need the mutual agreement from loads of differing clients that might not upgrade simultaneously?
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 07, 2011, 12:47:34 AM
 #5

There was an upgrade before, where the software was set to change to the new protocol after block XXXXX, and it was far enough away that most people upgraded before then.
genjix
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
May 07, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
 #6

I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

Take a look at ipv4 and ipv6 today. The internet runs slower, less secure and is running out of addresses but nobody upgrades. Eventhough there's been many years to enable ipv6 and the running out of ipv4 addresses was well predicted in advance.
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932



View Profile
May 08, 2011, 12:27:29 AM
 #7

I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

Take a look at ipv4 and ipv6 today. The internet runs slower, less secure and is running out of addresses but nobody upgrades. Eventhough there's been many years to enable ipv6 and the running out of ipv4 addresses was well predicted in advance.
that's because ipv6 required an hardware upgrade.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
genjix
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
May 08, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
 #8

How about banks though that are all running decades old software from the 80s?
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 08, 2011, 03:40:46 PM
 #9

I'm skeptical of this happening. Right now it's easy to upgrade while the community is small and people download their client from one source.

But once everybody is running different flavours of Bitcoin, network-wide upgrades are not a solution.

I share your concern, that's why I proposed this: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.0

It would still need one backward incompatible change, but just one. Gavin once showed himself open to the idea, if somebody manages to implement it safely. Now we "only" need somebody good enough in C++ willing to give it a try...

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
May 10, 2011, 03:37:35 PM
 #10

I'm not planning on implementing block size checks in BitCoinJ. Most users will end up on lightweight clients that don't implement every single check, so it'll probably be OK.

That said I think we should be bumping up the block size sooner rather than later.
gigabytecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
May 11, 2011, 10:24:58 AM
 #11

That said I think we should be bumping up the block size sooner rather than later.

Agreed.

Why not build Bitcoin so that it doesn't need to scale from the start?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!