"Blocksize would need to become 555 MB in size for bitcoin to scale to VISA levels. 214 GB every day, and 78 TB every year!

in bitshares •  7 years ago 
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Bitcoin Cash will easily eat 1GB+ blocks. Unlimited Bitcoin block space got us here in the first place.

214 GB per day is only unsustainable when you take the 'everyone must be a fully validating and archiving node' approach. This was not what Satoshi described.

"Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware"
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

"Another way [micropayments] can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical."
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/318

"many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN."
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/188/

"Visa processed [...] an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth [...] If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, [...] would probably not seem like a big deal"
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Quotes collated via this Reddit post

214GB per day is perfectly affordable for a datacentre. That's 78 TeraBytes in a year and a single hard drive can store more than that today. The other issues of bandwidth and replay time are also perfectly solvable even with huge blocks.

The cost of this is that yes, as Satoshi expected, not everyone will be able to run full nodes on consumer grade hardware. There is an argument that this makes the network more vulnerable to state attack, but on the contrary, keeping it small to the point of irrelevance makes it more vulnerable in truth. History shows us that clandestine organizations are well capable of amassing resources to run large scale operations.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

which would centralize bitcoin even more.

I think there are much better alternatives for the "VISA" approach, bitcoin should be used as what it it. a storage of value.

2nd layers, lightning and whatnot will only centralize it even further.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Small scale "store of value" is irrelevance and death thanks to Metcalfe's Law and competitive network effects. That suits me ok now though, DPoS is superior to PoW anyway, and I no longer hold Bitcoin, only alts.

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Do play they miss give so up.

Thanks for your vital information sharing with us @ash

How does ETH compare?

depending on which terms?

Block size of ETH I mean

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

different rate of blocks + diff sizes, easier to compare top speeds.

btc now about 7 tx/sec top, eth top range given around 10-20. bts & steem 100 k/sec

Keep in mind eth blockchain grows roughly 7-10x faster at similar loads. http://bc.daniel.net.nz/

Also many btc tx are bunched together into 1 to save tons on fees which doesn't show up in tx counts https://bitcointechtalk.com/saving-up-to-80-on-bitcoin-transaction-fees-by-batching-payments-4147ab7009fb

ETH doesn't have native ability to do from accounts. Can do a work around each time by creating and then sending to a new smart contract (not cheap) and then it sends to many outputs.

Thanks for the info, I don't understand all of it, looking up

I am holding bitshares since last three months! It keeps moving between $0.11 to $.14, sometimes goes up but take downturn easily. Not sure which activity of billionherocampaign will make it huge. Makes me uneasy!

It needs to be decentralized also. 25 block creators (witness system) is not a decentralized network.

Is it not?

On the Bitcoin network, 4 block producers produce over 50% of all blocks among themselves. 8 together create 75% of blocks, and 12 produce 90%.

On Ethereum it's even worse, where only 2 pools produce over 50% of blocks.

The reply is often that there are more miners than there are pools, but individual miners do not produce blocks. They only allocate their hashpower to those who do, which is effectively a form of voting. Thus non-block-producing miners are the closest equivalent to voting stakeholders, not witnesses.

Japan and Russia are also going into the mining buisness. We will be seeing more decentralization quite soon. But you're right, China has mining monopoly now.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

delegation of stake to 25-100 block creators by unlimited number of users

vs

delegation of hash power to 3-4 mining pools by unlimited number of users

it's very similar in how validators are chosen through decentralization

but you can argue less time tested with less understood attack surface

users also have the ability to fire bad validators on dpos costing them income or change total numbers via committee/DAO like on pow they have to point hash power to different pool

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment