3 ms·
Well, the above poster is half right. Blockchains don't scale as well as, say, a distributed database. It's not due to computational constraints, it's the amoun
by markeroon 11y ago
Well, the above poster is half right. Blockchains don't scale as well as, say, a distributed database. It's not due to computational constraints, it's the amount of data handled by every node.
Bitcoin can currently handle about 2 transactions per second.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago> Bitcoin can currently handle about 2 transactions per second. First, this isn't the real number and second 'handle' doesn't describe the situation, which is an artificial limitation built in as an artifact. Whether you are in the camp that believes this will be worked around in bitcoin or not is irrelevant, on a technical level any cryptocurrency can be created that can handle MANY more transactions. Right now you could sync to the blockchain on the bandwidth T-Mobile gives for free while on international roam in 100 countries. So the amount of data handled by every node is not even close to any sort of practical limit. Anyone with Netflix could sync to 50x the number of transactions.
- markeroon 11y agoI agree with the above and you make a fair point, mine still stands though: a decent distributed db could still do substantially better.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoDo better at what? Handle more data? Of course, but computers aren't exactly struggling with handling enough integer math to move a balance from one place to another. That isn't the problem with things like this. The problem is trust, transparency and accountability. The old "A rasberry PI could handle the same amount of transactions" misses the point completely.