📅 Original date posted:2017-03-31
📝 Original message:I guess I should caveat, a rounding error is a bit of exaggeration -
mostly because I previously assumed that it would take 14 years for
the network to reach such a level, something I didn't say and that you
might not grant me.
I don't know why paypal has multiple datacenters, but I'm guessing it
probably has a lot more to do with everything else they do -
interface, support, tax compliance, replication, redundancy - than it
does with the raw numbers of transaction volumes.
What I do know is the math, though. WW tx volume = 426,000,000,000 in
2015. Assuming tx size of ~500 bytes, that's 669 terabytes of data
per year. At a hard drive cost of 0.021 per GB, that's $36k a year or
so and declines ~14% a year.
The bandwidth is the really big cost. You are right that if this
hypothetical node also had to support historical syncing, the numbers
would probably be unmanagable. But that can be solved with a simple
checkpointing system for the vast majority of users, and nodes could
solve it by not supporting syncing / reducing peer count. With a peer
count of 25 I measured ~75 Gb/month with today's blocksize cap. That
works out to roughly 10 relays(sends+receives) per transaction
assuming all blocks were full, which was a pretty close approximation.
The bandwidth data of our 426 billion transactions per year works out
to 942 mbit/s. That's 310 Terabytes per month of bandwidth - At
today's high-volume price of 0.05 per GB, that's $18,500 a month or
$222,000 a year. Plus the $36k for storage per year brings it to
~$250k per year. Not a rounding error, but within the rough costs of
running an exchange - a team of 5 developers works out to ~$400-600k a
year, and the cost of compliance with EU and U.S. entities (including
lawyers) runs upwards of a million dollars a year. Then there's the
support department, probably ~$100-200k a year.
The reason I said a rounding error was that I assumed that it would
take until 2032 to reach that volume of transactions (Assuming
+80%/year of growth, which is our 4-year and 2-year historical average
tx/s growth). If hard drive prices decline by 14% per year, that cost
becomes $3,900 a year, and if bandwidth prices decline by 14% a year
that cost becomes $1800 a month($21,600 a year). Against a
multi-million dollar budget, even 3x that isn't a large concern,
though not, as I stated, a rounding error. My bad.
I didn't approximate for CPU usage, as I don't have any good estimates
for it, and I don't have significant reason to believe that it is a
higher cost than bandwidth, which seems to be the controlling cost
compared to adding CPU's.
> I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying
Care to respond to the math?
> This whole thread has been absurdly low quality.
Well, we agree on something at least.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, David Vorick <david.vorick at gmail.com> wrote:
> No one is suggesting anything like this. The cost of running a node
> that could handle 300% of the 2015 worldwide nonbitcoin transaction
> volume today would be a rounding error for most exchanges even if
> prices didn't rise.
>
>
> Then explain why PayPal has multiple datacenters. And why Visa has multiple
> datacenters. And why the banking systems have multiple datacenters each.
>
> I'm guessing it's because you need that much juice to run a global payment
> system at the transaction volumes that they run at.
>
> Unless you have professional experience working directly with transaction
> processors handling tens of millions of financial transactions per day, I
> think we can fully discount your assessment that it would be a rounding
> error in the budget of a major exchange or Bitcoin processor to handle that
> much load. And even if it was, it wouldn't matter because it's extremely
> important to Bitcoin's security that it's everyday users are able to and are
> actively running full nodes.
>
> I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying but I
> will say that most of your comments have demonstrated a similar level of
> ignorance as the one above.
>
> This whole thread has been absurdly low quality.
Jared Lee Richardson [ARCHIVE] /
npub149…5vasy
2023-06-07 17:58:28
in reply to nevent1q…xgzf
Author Public Key
npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasyPublished at
2023-06-07 17:58:28Event JSON
{
"id": "8b781e1b153513ab34581bcde6c649c16cee96e0745adc567b0d4c8900342d9c",
"pubkey": "a956c05f48cc2ea55f4f90f37fd31f19a183681aa385301564d07b93c0c07bf3",
"created_at": 1686160708,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f66fb8ea0b053d3b896ce377aea38775ffc7975376c3ee96291861cf920b456b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5365fb0b4d97ed36f3806e7c29e141c74108b393edb1c41c73a2def61e07259a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"adcb53cdbd72e2a0c22452a9087f173c6b55edc7b504ff9b861e9c02af9a87d4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-31\n📝 Original message:I guess I should caveat, a rounding error is a bit of exaggeration -\nmostly because I previously assumed that it would take 14 years for\nthe network to reach such a level, something I didn't say and that you\nmight not grant me.\n\nI don't know why paypal has multiple datacenters, but I'm guessing it\nprobably has a lot more to do with everything else they do -\ninterface, support, tax compliance, replication, redundancy - than it\ndoes with the raw numbers of transaction volumes.\n\nWhat I do know is the math, though. WW tx volume = 426,000,000,000 in\n2015. Assuming tx size of ~500 bytes, that's 669 terabytes of data\nper year. At a hard drive cost of 0.021 per GB, that's $36k a year or\nso and declines ~14% a year.\n\nThe bandwidth is the really big cost. You are right that if this\nhypothetical node also had to support historical syncing, the numbers\nwould probably be unmanagable. But that can be solved with a simple\ncheckpointing system for the vast majority of users, and nodes could\nsolve it by not supporting syncing / reducing peer count. With a peer\ncount of 25 I measured ~75 Gb/month with today's blocksize cap. That\nworks out to roughly 10 relays(sends+receives) per transaction\nassuming all blocks were full, which was a pretty close approximation.\nThe bandwidth data of our 426 billion transactions per year works out\nto 942 mbit/s. That's 310 Terabytes per month of bandwidth - At\ntoday's high-volume price of 0.05 per GB, that's $18,500 a month or\n$222,000 a year. Plus the $36k for storage per year brings it to\n~$250k per year. Not a rounding error, but within the rough costs of\nrunning an exchange - a team of 5 developers works out to ~$400-600k a\nyear, and the cost of compliance with EU and U.S. entities (including\nlawyers) runs upwards of a million dollars a year. Then there's the\nsupport department, probably ~$100-200k a year.\n\nThe reason I said a rounding error was that I assumed that it would\ntake until 2032 to reach that volume of transactions (Assuming\n+80%/year of growth, which is our 4-year and 2-year historical average\ntx/s growth). If hard drive prices decline by 14% per year, that cost\nbecomes $3,900 a year, and if bandwidth prices decline by 14% a year\nthat cost becomes $1800 a month($21,600 a year). Against a\nmulti-million dollar budget, even 3x that isn't a large concern,\nthough not, as I stated, a rounding error. My bad.\n\nI didn't approximate for CPU usage, as I don't have any good estimates\nfor it, and I don't have significant reason to believe that it is a\nhigher cost than bandwidth, which seems to be the controlling cost\ncompared to adding CPU's.\n\n\u003e I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying\n\nCare to respond to the math?\n\n\u003e This whole thread has been absurdly low quality.\n\nWell, we agree on something at least.\n\nOn Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, David Vorick \u003cdavid.vorick at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e No one is suggesting anything like this. The cost of running a node\n\u003e that could handle 300% of the 2015 worldwide nonbitcoin transaction\n\u003e volume today would be a rounding error for most exchanges even if\n\u003e prices didn't rise.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Then explain why PayPal has multiple datacenters. And why Visa has multiple\n\u003e datacenters. And why the banking systems have multiple datacenters each.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm guessing it's because you need that much juice to run a global payment\n\u003e system at the transaction volumes that they run at.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unless you have professional experience working directly with transaction\n\u003e processors handling tens of millions of financial transactions per day, I\n\u003e think we can fully discount your assessment that it would be a rounding\n\u003e error in the budget of a major exchange or Bitcoin processor to handle that\n\u003e much load. And even if it was, it wouldn't matter because it's extremely\n\u003e important to Bitcoin's security that it's everyday users are able to and are\n\u003e actively running full nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying but I\n\u003e will say that most of your comments have demonstrated a similar level of\n\u003e ignorance as the one above.\n\u003e\n\u003e This whole thread has been absurdly low quality.",
"sig": "be043e46b410d0007622ec82bf52f4f4d2d48b73b274699225ef53753dc4e9ffd945df0c4812a6552d092332cd39161d88d96675616e58c15747ece2305127c3"
}