3 ms·

The number of transactions are limited by block size though so each completed block has a maximum number of transactions it can include.. also securing the bloc

by rtkwe 6y ago

The number of transactions are limited by block size though so each completed block has a maximum number of transactions it can include.. also securing the blockchain isn't an end unto itself it's only really useful when it includes transactions.

sp332 6y ago
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated in July 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit And overlays like the Lightning network have been in use for even less time.
SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
The true statement is "We consumed this amount of power and were able to process this amount of transactions" but the power usage does not scale with transactions. You could increase the block size and get far more transactions without changing the power usage because the power is not used to process transactions.
- mdoms 6y ago
  > You could increase the block size It's not that simple. As I recall the last time a block size change was proposed it fractured the entire community and produced a splinter "currency".
  - spiorf 6y ago
    The splinter fractured and has his own little splinter too now!
  - SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
    Its technically very simple but politically very difficult. The point I am making is that the power usage is not directly tied to transactions. Not making a transaction on the blockchain will not save X watts because that power is burned regardless of what transactions are going through. An example would be that me not driving to the beach saves some fuel but bitcoin is just a train constantly driving to the beach and back regardless of how much I use it. You could grab the number of trips and the power usage and calculate a power usage per trip but its not an entirely useful metric since the power usage does not scale up as more people use the service.
- tromp 6y ago
  Without a backlog of high fee paying transactions, Bitcoin mining becomes unstable, as discussed at [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0

by rtkwe 6y ago

sp332 6y ago

Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated in July 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit And overlays like the Lightning network have been in use for even less time.

SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago

The true statement is "We consumed this amount of power and were able to process this amount of transactions" but the power usage does not scale with transactions. You could increase the block size and get far more transactions without changing the power usage because the power is not used to process transactions.

mdoms 6y ago
> You could increase the block size It's not that simple. As I recall the last time a block size change was proposed it fractured the entire community and produced a splinter "currency".
- spiorf 6y ago
  The splinter fractured and has his own little splinter too now!
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  Its technically very simple but politically very difficult. The point I am making is that the power usage is not directly tied to transactions. Not making a transaction on the blockchain will not save X watts because that power is burned regardless of what transactions are going through. An example would be that me not driving to the beach saves some fuel but bitcoin is just a train constantly driving to the beach and back regardless of how much I use it. You could grab the number of trips and the power usage and calculate a power usage per trip but its not an entirely useful metric since the power usage does not scale up as more people use the service.
tromp 6y ago
Without a backlog of high fee paying transactions, Bitcoin mining becomes unstable, as discussed at [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0