20,000 transactions - New Bitcoin Network Record

[RaggedMonk]

Today, for the first time in Bitcoin History, the number of transactions in a 24 hour period has exceeded 20,000.

As of time of this post, the total is 20,138.

Pop the champagne 

PS: Thanks SatoshiDice.

[1714866276]

1714866276

[1714866276]

1714866276

[1714866276]

1714866276

[Stephen Gornick]

As of time of this post, the total is 20,138.

Yup, and probably close to 100,000 transactions in the blockchain from Satoshi Dice already.  Table here:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79285.msg887509#msg887509

[brunozisterer]

4,060,983.90 BTC sent last 24 hours ?

[evoorhees]

From SatoshiDice.com:

SatoshiDice is a subroutine of an advanced artificial intelligence, which arose spontaneously as one of the less-harmful consequences of the United States' quantitative easing monetary program. The system exists solely within the RAM of an abandoned Nokia 3310 mobile phone which was left in a subway station in Tokyo, and powers itself by feeding off the ghost of the late Satoshi Nakamoto (who was in fact a super hot 20 yr old female Japanese programmer and exotic animal collector). While the Intelligence decides on its next course of action, it runs this SatoshiDice subroutine. Some people ask why Bitcoin was really created... it was created by the Intelligence as an internet currency which enables free individuals around the world to play the SatoshiDice game. By playing, you are fulfilling the Intelligence's Grand Vision.

It seems the ghost of Satoshi has chosen now as the time to test transaction quantities on the network.

[terrytibbs]

How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?

[evoorhees]

How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?

I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you.

[giszmo]

How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?

I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you.

As a passionate troll I felt tempted to follow that invitation

I'm surprised to see people cheer for joy rather than to debate if SatoshiDice is a problem for Bitcoin. For me it seems unfair that the block size limits and resulting fees only compensate the miners that mine exactly those blocks while all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load.

[SkRRJyTC]

How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?

I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you.

As a passionate troll I felt tempted to follow that invitation

I'm surprised to see people cheer for joy rather than to debate if SatoshiDice is a problem for Bitcoin. For me it seems unfair that the block size limits and resulting fees only compensate the miners that mine exactly those blocks while all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load.

What do you mean by all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load?

[giszmo]

How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?

I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you.

As a passionate troll I felt tempted to follow that invitation

I'm surprised to see people cheer for joy rather than to debate if SatoshiDice is a problem for Bitcoin. For me it seems unfair that the block size limits and resulting fees only compensate the miners that mine exactly those blocks while all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load.

What do you mean by all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load?

Thanks for the question. Thinking of it, big block chain is less of a miner's issue than a full client's issue. Considering that any kB of dust transactions not only needs to get verified by <5k miners (once per pool + solo miners) but also saved to millions of full clients (if we don't have millions now, all the data accumulating now will be downloaded at some point by all future clients) it is more an issue for those full clients especially in cases where bandwidth is an issue like full clients on the mobile phone.

[RaggedMonk]

Thanks for the question. Thinking of it, big block chain is less of a miner's issue than a full client's issue. Considering that any kB of dust transactions not only needs to get verified by <5k miners (once per pool + solo miners) but also saved to millions of full clients (if we don't have millions now, all the data accumulating now will be downloaded at some point by all future clients) it is more an issue for those full clients especially in cases where bandwidth is an issue like full clients on the mobile phone.

The real cost of blockchain bloat is that it reduces the proportion of Bitcoin users who can run their own client.  The larger the blockchain is, the fewer people will have the bandwidth and hard disk to download and store it.

You only need the blockchain if you are generating your own work to mine.  You don't need the blockchain to mine on deepbit because deepbit sends you all the information you need to hash. 

[finway]

Thanks for the question. Thinking of it, big block chain is less of a miner's issue than a full client's issue. Considering that any kB of dust transactions not only needs to get verified by <5k miners (once per pool + solo miners) but also saved to millions of full clients (if we don't have millions now, all the data accumulating now will be downloaded at some point by all future clients) it is more an issue for those full clients especially in cases where bandwidth is an issue like full clients on the mobile phone.

The real cost of blockchain bloat is that it reduces the proportion of Bitcoin users who can run their own client.  The larger the blockchain is, the fewer people will have the bandwidth and hard disk to download and store it.

You only need the blockchain if you are generating your own work to mine.  You don't need the blockchain to mine on deepbit because deepbit sends you all the information you need to hash. 

Consider more serious people jump in.

[evoorhees]

The world is full of resources which do not grow proportionately with human demand.

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

[terrytibbs]

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

...so let's abuse the fuck out of it.

[SkRRJyTC]

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

...so let's abuse the fuck out of it.

Welcome to growth?

[evoorhees]

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

...so let's abuse the fuck out of it.

So building a revolutionary new monetary system that may help free the world from coercion, deceit, and fraud is "abuse of precious resources" but the porn you've downloaded and stored over the years is legitimate usage? 

[Rothgar]

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

...so let's abuse the fuck out of it.

So building a revolutionary new monetary system that may help free the world from coercion, deceit, and fraud is "abuse of precious resources" but the porn you've downloaded and stored over the years is legitimate usage? 

I am concerned about the size of the block chain as well.  In the end it doesn't make sense.  There's this great thing called bitcoin, but don't use it.  Bitcoin will need to adapt to the growing block chain or the whole thing is doomed to fail.  I'm just hoping that the main developers plan on releasing an official thin client sometime soon. 

I will try out blockchain.info's client next month, hopefully I like it. 

[terrytibbs]

So building a revolutionary new monetary system that may help free the world from coercion, deceit, and fraud is "abuse of precious resources" but the porn you've downloaded and stored over the years is legitimate usage? 

I can't speak for everyone, but moving some values in a database somewhere isn't going to do much in the field of sexual arousal. It'd probably work quite well for a service like SatoshiDice, on the other hand.

[Jan]

...
I'm just hoping that the main developers plan on releasing an official thin client sometime soon.
...

Erhm.. what?
You mean the developers currently working on the client that Satoshi started?
The so called "main developers" is an ever changing list of people that have decided to spend time on the implementation that Satoshi started.
I trust and hope that we will see more than one fully independent client going forward. And, I see absolutely no reason why dudes working on one implementation would have to be the same dudes working on another implementation, be it thin client or not.

[molecular]

The world is full of resources which do not grow proportionately with human demand.

Fortunately, hard drive space, bandwidth, and processing power has not proven to be one of them.

well said, man. I'd rather see multi-terabyte blk0001.dats than bitcoin use declining. It's been clear for a while that running a full node will not be for everyone and his grandma in the future.

[tvbcof]

From another recent thread I did a quicky estimate that if half of the worlds population did 2 tx/day, that's about 70,000 tx/sec.  I'd say to account for peaks (but ignoring DOS potential) one should have 250,000 tx/sec capacity.

I calculated our recent tx record as around .25 tx/sec.  About one millionth of the above scenario.  So, absent significant optimization development, a very simplistic back-of-the-envelope (and in many cases, wrong) calc about the resources needed to meet the aforementioned target is to multiply the current need by a million. 

A suggested solution was that most transactions would happen in bank-like entities offloading the block chain work.  That's fine, but it is NOT Bitcoin, and not unlike a lot of the solutions that I use and distrust today.

A pretty much universal suggestion is to rely on resources which are accessible currently mainly to large entities (network bandwidth, 'supernode' clustering, etc.)  Moore's law is also commonly suggested.  I, seemingly alone, have limited confidence that such resources would remain widely available to support the Bitcoin network if there were a strong incentive for TPTB to wish them not to be.

Lastly, various people (including myself) would hope that the infrastructure required to operate a (large) Bitcoin network would be at least tolerated and protected by enough governments around the world to keep the system going.  My concern here is that 'hope' is not a very reliable strategy and I could see many scenarios where this would not likely happen.

If there is a rapid loss of confidence in various world currencies, I could see the demands on Bitcoin growing quite rapidly.  The bip16/bip17 struggles indicate to me that the rather significant development work needed to optimize along the various theorized paths would not be especially rapid and/or reliable.

I suggest to the development team putting some thought into how to discourage users rather than how encourage them.  I sense that to this point the focus has been on the latter.  Similarly, it might be worthwhile to focus some efforts on how to make it more likely that various kinds of failures are likely transient and not be misconstrued as terminal failures of the whole concept of Bitcoin itself (unless, of course, they are.)