📅 Original date posted:2015-10-27
📝 Original message:
To make myself more clear. If I assume (roughly based on BCI data):
1000 tx / block
1 BTC volume per tx
300$ BTC/USD
=> 300.000$ of dollar volume moved per block
=> 36B$ dollar volume capacity per year
One of the key aspects of scaling would be to move low value transactions
to a 2nd layer, and leave high value transactions for the most secure
mechanism. Assume for instance that Bitcoin only processes transactions
which have a dollar nominal value of say 100$ and everything else is
handled by 2nd layer. I don't know the statistical distribution, but I
assume this would cut e.g. 95% of transaction volume and brings the average
to 100 BTC. Then the total dollar volume capacity increases by a factor of
100, that is 3600B$ with the same 1 MB blocksize. The key to scaling in my
opinion is to figure out some way to make this split work based on nominal
value of the transaction. That's already how the financial system is
organised. Banks make huge transaction volumes on closed systems. Hubs in
Lightning and banks in the fiat money system would be very similar things.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> But I think it's actually a tractable question, so we can probably actually
> work out numbers!
>
> The whole point of a market would be that you get users to work out "the
> numbers". If Bitcoin would have a market then capacity would be set by its
> use and more demand would trigger supply, and vice versa. Fixing that in
> code is inevitably going to lead to bad results. So these discussions about
> blocksize and capacity went fundamentally going in the wrong direction.
> There is no sensible algorithm to determining prices of anything without
> using the input of people in the market. Its not really clear Bitcoin could
> build in a mechanism to handle that.
>
> It would be advantageous if fees would be variable by transaction size.
> Bitcoin should handle large nominal volumes and low transaction volumes and
> a possible second layer handle low nominal values and high transaction
> volumes. So it's good to consider BTC amount transferred per bytes. The
> higher that number the better for Bitcoin's capacity.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Pierre <pm+lists at acinq.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hello aj,
>>
>> This is very interesting, thanks!
>>
>> You seem to be considering that bitcoin tx and lightning tx are
>> completely independent, which is not entirely true because of anchor
>> transactions. While this is certainly a valid assumption, maybe it would be
>> worth stating it explicitely ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20151027/806adb1d/attachment.html>;
Benjamin [ARCHIVE] /
npub17k…sr5tq
2023-06-09 12:45:00
in reply to nevent1q…5afv
Author Public Key
npub17kz55p7ysz4ftvq2xyr2zamc776cygwcm5fdz8ndj3jm5umm65xq4sr5tqPublished at
2023-06-09 12:45:00Event JSON
{
"id": "f03a75424948d75eef7e77b7b48e7c836f66d8b2c410b972c4cb9633a717aba8",
"pubkey": "f5854a07c480aa95b00a3106a17778f7b58221d8dd12d11e6d9465ba737bd50c",
"created_at": 1686314700,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0740783c0a4e48a5794ed8b4216c17873ceb814adc6b9646d5a538332b59bb6f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"64316d8d2dca57a1f8d5edc1eba2d9858ee49b2bb3b90ca569cf8311921b8a28",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f5854a07c480aa95b00a3106a17778f7b58221d8dd12d11e6d9465ba737bd50c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-27\n📝 Original message:\nTo make myself more clear. If I assume (roughly based on BCI data):\n\n1000 tx / block\n1 BTC volume per tx\n300$ BTC/USD\n=\u003e 300.000$ of dollar volume moved per block\n=\u003e 36B$ dollar volume capacity per year\n\nOne of the key aspects of scaling would be to move low value transactions\nto a 2nd layer, and leave high value transactions for the most secure\nmechanism. Assume for instance that Bitcoin only processes transactions\nwhich have a dollar nominal value of say 100$ and everything else is\nhandled by 2nd layer. I don't know the statistical distribution, but I\nassume this would cut e.g. 95% of transaction volume and brings the average\nto 100 BTC. Then the total dollar volume capacity increases by a factor of\n100, that is 3600B$ with the same 1 MB blocksize. The key to scaling in my\nopinion is to figure out some way to make this split work based on nominal\nvalue of the transaction. That's already how the financial system is\norganised. Banks make huge transaction volumes on closed systems. Hubs in\nLightning and banks in the fiat money system would be very similar things.\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Benjamin \u003cbenjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e\u003e But I think it's actually a tractable question, so we can probably actually\n\u003e work out numbers!\n\u003e\n\u003e The whole point of a market would be that you get users to work out \"the\n\u003e numbers\". If Bitcoin would have a market then capacity would be set by its\n\u003e use and more demand would trigger supply, and vice versa. Fixing that in\n\u003e code is inevitably going to lead to bad results. So these discussions about\n\u003e blocksize and capacity went fundamentally going in the wrong direction.\n\u003e There is no sensible algorithm to determining prices of anything without\n\u003e using the input of people in the market. Its not really clear Bitcoin could\n\u003e build in a mechanism to handle that.\n\u003e\n\u003e It would be advantageous if fees would be variable by transaction size.\n\u003e Bitcoin should handle large nominal volumes and low transaction volumes and\n\u003e a possible second layer handle low nominal values and high transaction\n\u003e volumes. So it's good to consider BTC amount transferred per bytes. The\n\u003e higher that number the better for Bitcoin's capacity.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Pierre \u003cpm+lists at acinq.fr\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hello aj,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is very interesting, thanks!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e You seem to be considering that bitcoin tx and lightning tx are\n\u003e\u003e completely independent, which is not entirely true because of anchor\n\u003e\u003e transactions. While this is certainly a valid assumption, maybe it would be\n\u003e\u003e worth stating it explicitely ?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Pierre\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20151027/806adb1d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e54e81b4d650653ab7904340120eebd25c06fc6dca9b317fd0ce6f56bb77a9d84db0b06a660fb3ee09c34d3ab7ab3893b63be2bc3008b86e0b567fc07dd0f58e"
}