Quote from: AlexGR on April 24, 2016, 05:50:17 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 24, 2016, 05:20:44 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on April 24, 2016, 04:02:47 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 24, 2016, 03:56:04 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on April 24, 2016, 03:53:57 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 24, 2016, 03:44:39 PM

Scaling "10 times better" is frankly pretty ridiculous.

It may be, on the lower side. It could be worse than 10x.

What's your blockchain size right now?

Blockchain size is not a measure of scalability (and as I said there is no useful numeric comparison of "scalability"), but the size is something like 2.5 GB.

So bitcoin is like 25x in terms of blockchain use, but has 2k-3k txs per 10 minutes.

Monero, from the looks of it, has not even 10 txs in the last hour.

The 2.5 GB is not proportional to the past hour, nor is the past hour representative of all hours. A huge portion of of the entire chain, perhaps half or more, was created within the first few months due to immature pool software doing payouts stupidly, and also when there is occasionally much higher activity (during pumps, mostly). Bitcoin also didn't have that sort of usage for whole lifetime; for the first year or two it was close to dead, and up until last year the usage was significantly lower. With 2k-3k tx/block during its entire life, Bitcoin's blockchain would be much more than 25x bigger.

Overall these sorts of crude comparisons just don't make sense, and just show you are more interested in trolling than thinking.

Actually, now that you mention it, I haven't even factored that BTC's blockchain is 7+ years old vs 2 years old of XMR.

Anyway, let's make a hypothetical here.

How much bloat would Monero generate for 20.000 tx per day (1/10th of what bitcoin does), at a relatively low mixin level 3.

A typical transaction is like that is 2-3 KB compared to maybe 0.5 KB on bitcoin (rough numbers), so a ratio of about 5x. That's still not a valid comparison, because if people ever use any kind of mixing services on Bitcoin (and they do), that makes up part of the higher tx volume and reduces the effective ratio. BTW, the same argument has been made by Adam Back with respect to CT's larger transactions. You have to compare not only transactions numbers and size, but adjust for some sort of equivalent level of functionality per transaction.