5 ms·

Well if Bitcoin Cash gets to VISA level transactions quantity they will have around 1GB block every 10 minutes, who will be able to run a full mining node?, 2 t

by elmar 9y ago

Well if Bitcoin Cash gets to VISA level transactions quantity they will have around 1GB block every 10 minutes, who will be able to run a full mining node?, 2 to 3 corporations worldwide, probably centralized in some geographical region for lower communication latency.

zik 9y ago
The "Gigablock Initiative" presented at the recent "Scaling Bitcoin" conference tests exactly that. They found that Bitcoin Cash can easily scale on chain to VISA levels using standard desktop machines. https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock-testnet-performance/ https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock... The same would apply to Bitcoin scaling on chain.
mrep 9y ago
Easy peazy. Just convert each node to a cryptographic sql server. Once that reaches its limit, use a multinode nosql/newsql pocket cluster. Most people already have the compute, memory, storage, and network infrastructure to support that nowadays.
ta30001 9y ago
Using a 3TB, $70 drive from NewEgg as an example, HDD costs for full 1GB blocks would be $3.36/day, today. Surely more than 2-3 corporations can afford that.
- nikcub 9y ago
  The RRP of a terabyte of hard drive on NewEgg has almost nothing to do with the cost of provisioning an additional reliable terabyte of datacenter storage + IOPS
- bike4beer 9y ago
  It's not a storage problem, right now at block 530,000 BTC, and ethereum at block 4,900,00 its pretty much a so what about size, btc is about 200gb and eth is about 100gb SIZE of the storage on the block is not the problem, the problem IMHO is that the 'go' implementation of ETH doesn't truth other clients, BTC is wild-wild west where its fairly fast to 'sync', maybe 4 days at 50 MB/sec, and your synced at the current block for mining, but on ETH you can run a full-node for weeks if not months and never 'sync', I have full-nodes that I started weeks ago with --fast, and they still have NEVER caught up with the current node, NOW IMHO here's the deal, the reason that they don't catch up, is that in ETH some nodes are more equal than others, some nodes have 4 legs, some have 2 legs ( animal farm ) this all goes back to BUTERIN who believes that only trusted animals can have the current block-chain, the others simply play 'catch-up' To give an example I have full-nodes running on --fast mode that are finding new blocks slower than they're being mined, which means that that the longer I run the full node the more I fall behind. Now a good mother might ask?? WHy would this be? AGain, its a matter of 'trust' ETH is largely about paranoia, and BTC is largely about trusting the unknown; BTC is working ETH is not, I think because ETH is ran by a child "BUTERIN" and nobody has the guts to call him on his stupid view of the world ( mainly because he still thinks like a 14 year old computer genius ) BUTERIN, like so many of his ilk, never worked in industry, never bothered to understand 'scaling' or real problems of the real world, and certainly never bought into the view of NSA ( SATOSHI ) that BTC was supposed to be by 'consensus', one of the things if you follow ETH you will learn quickly is ETH is a NANNY and BUTERIN is the mother. In summary ETH has failed because it is 180 opposed to the anarchy of Nakamota-SAtoshi(NSA), there is nothing libertarian about ETH, its just a classic example of investors putting blind trust in a child and I saw this many times when I was young, older people with no technical knowledge following conmen.
stale2002 9y ago
Right now it costs 5$ a month to run a bitcoin node, and blocks are 1MB. Multiply that by a thousand to get 1GB blocks and it will cost 5000$ a month to run a node. Sure that's not a home Internet line, but it is a far cry from "2 or 3 corporations". If you had said "10 thousand corporations" you'd be closer to the truth.
seanalltogether 9y ago
Well 3 organizations already control more than 51% of bitcoins mining, I'm sure they're already optimizing communications between each other. https://blockchain.info/pools https://blockchain.info/pools

by elmar 9y ago

zik 9y ago

The "Gigablock Initiative" presented at the recent "Scaling Bitcoin" conference tests exactly that. They found that Bitcoin Cash can easily scale on chain to VISA levels using standard desktop machines. https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock-testnet-performance/ https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock... The same would apply to Bitcoin scaling on chain.

mrep 9y ago

Easy peazy. Just convert each node to a cryptographic sql server. Once that reaches its limit, use a multinode nosql/newsql pocket cluster. Most people already have the compute, memory, storage, and network infrastructure to support that nowadays.

ta30001 9y ago

Using a 3TB, $70 drive from NewEgg as an example, HDD costs for full 1GB blocks would be $3.36/day, today. Surely more than 2-3 corporations can afford that.

nikcub 9y ago
The RRP of a terabyte of hard drive on NewEgg has almost nothing to do with the cost of provisioning an additional reliable terabyte of datacenter storage + IOPS
bike4beer 9y ago
It's not a storage problem, right now at block 530,000 BTC, and ethereum at block 4,900,00 its pretty much a so what about size, btc is about 200gb and eth is about 100gb SIZE of the storage on the block is not the problem, the problem IMHO is that the 'go' implementation of ETH doesn't truth other clients, BTC is wild-wild west where its fairly fast to 'sync', maybe 4 days at 50 MB/sec, and your synced at the current block for mining, but on ETH you can run a full-node for weeks if not months and never 'sync', I have full-nodes that I started weeks ago with --fast, and they still have NEVER caught up with the current node, NOW IMHO here's the deal, the reason that they don't catch up, is that in ETH some nodes are more equal than others, some nodes have 4 legs, some have 2 legs ( animal farm ) this all goes back to BUTERIN who believes that only trusted animals can have the current block-chain, the others simply play 'catch-up' To give an example I have full-nodes running on --fast mode that are finding new blocks slower than they're being mined, which means that that the longer I run the full node the more I fall behind. Now a good mother might ask?? WHy would this be? AGain, its a matter of 'trust' ETH is largely about paranoia, and BTC is largely about trusting the unknown; BTC is working ETH is not, I think because ETH is ran by a child "BUTERIN" and nobody has the guts to call him on his stupid view of the world ( mainly because he still thinks like a 14 year old computer genius ) BUTERIN, like so many of his ilk, never worked in industry, never bothered to understand 'scaling' or real problems of the real world, and certainly never bought into the view of NSA ( SATOSHI ) that BTC was supposed to be by 'consensus', one of the things if you follow ETH you will learn quickly is ETH is a NANNY and BUTERIN is the mother. In summary ETH has failed because it is 180 opposed to the anarchy of Nakamota-SAtoshi(NSA), there is nothing libertarian about ETH, its just a classic example of investors putting blind trust in a child and I saw this many times when I was young, older people with no technical knowledge following conmen.

stale2002 9y ago

Right now it costs 5$ a month to run a bitcoin node, and blocks are 1MB. Multiply that by a thousand to get 1GB blocks and it will cost 5000$ a month to run a node. Sure that's not a home Internet line, but it is a far cry from "2 or 3 corporations". If you had said "10 thousand corporations" you'd be closer to the truth.

seanalltogether 9y ago

Well 3 organizations already control more than 51% of bitcoins mining, I'm sure they're already optimizing communications between each other. https://blockchain.info/pools https://blockchain.info/pools