📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08
📝 Original message:On 05/08/2015 01:13 AM, Tom Harding wrote:
> On 5/7/2015 7:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps
>> A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps
>> For ref,
>> Paypal is around 115 tps
>> VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak)
>>
For reference, I'm not "proposing" 100 MB blocks right now. I was
simply suggesting that if Bitcoin is to *ultimately* achieve the goal of
being a globally useful payment rails, 7tps is embarrassingly small.
Even with off-chain transactions. It should be a no-brainer that block
size has to go up.
My goal was to bring some long-term perspective into the discussion. I
don't know if 100 MB blocks will *actually* be necessary for Bitcoin in
20 years, but it's feasible that it will be. It's an open, global
payments system. Therefore, we shouldn't be arguing about whether 1 MB
blocks is sufficient--it's very clearly not. And admitting this as a
valid point is also an admission that not everyone in the world will be
able to run a full node in 20 years.
I don't think there's a solution that can accommodate all future
scenarios, nor that we can even find a solution right now that avoids
more hard forks in the future. But the goal of "everyone should be
able to download and verify the world's global transactions on a
smartphone" is a non-starter and should not drive decisions.
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 15:33:19
in reply to nevent1q…vy0k
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:33:19Event JSON
{
"id": "89e2f4e9cedc958938f26e15760e22a6236f7d31f12b3d62fdfad6b83f9f6df9",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686151999,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0def597b074aa190bf159e12f9433ea74d157ee52321b38d195ba644ad5c177f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"87620eb4ec6d7ce49396592e570923988be7c459ae85771548a051635050cc55",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:On 05/08/2015 01:13 AM, Tom Harding wrote:\n\u003e On 5/7/2015 7:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e\u003e G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps\n\u003e\u003e A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps\n\u003e\u003e For ref,\n\u003e\u003e Paypal is around 115 tps\n\u003e\u003e VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak)\n\u003e\u003e\n\nFor reference, I'm not \"proposing\" 100 MB blocks right now. I was\nsimply suggesting that if Bitcoin is to *ultimately* achieve the goal of\nbeing a globally useful payment rails, 7tps is embarrassingly small. \nEven with off-chain transactions. It should be a no-brainer that block\nsize has to go up.\n\nMy goal was to bring some long-term perspective into the discussion. I\ndon't know if 100 MB blocks will *actually* be necessary for Bitcoin in\n20 years, but it's feasible that it will be. It's an open, global\npayments system. Therefore, we shouldn't be arguing about whether 1 MB\nblocks is sufficient--it's very clearly not. And admitting this as a\nvalid point is also an admission that not everyone in the world will be\nable to run a full node in 20 years.\n\nI don't think there's a solution that can accommodate all future\nscenarios, nor that we can even find a solution right now that avoids\nmore hard forks in the future. But the goal of \"everyone should be\nable to download and verify the world's global transactions on a\nsmartphone\" is a non-starter and should not drive decisions.",
"sig": "e1be286e9bcdafc4fec75b3c6769edc2f7e79a0df9f6c06ea27e9f6b3b2efb80ceacecdcc71213dbedce42ceaf4e2a0db1ea2dfe6c541de31316b7b02465accb"
}