Quote from: wurstgelee on June 15, 2016, 10:51:01 PM

Quote from: Jumbley on June 15, 2016, 08:58:42 PM

Quote from: wurstgelee on June 15, 2016, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: Jumbley on June 15, 2016, 08:01:25 PM

Quote from: wurstgelee on June 15, 2016, 04:47:38 PM

Quote from: wurstgelee on June 15, 2016, 09:43:26 AM

Quote from: DigiByte on June 14, 2016, 05:21:53 AM

2) Each algo has a block timing of 1 min 15 seconds. Microsoft research showed on the BTC network it takes an average of 6.5 seconds for 50% of nodes to receive a new block. 95% in 40 seconds with a mean of 12 seconds. So our 1 min 15 second individual algo block time is well within this time frame.

Why does individual algo block time matter here? It doesn't!
DGB block time is 15 secs, right?

I'd like to stop the bullshitting and fudding in favor of discussing about the facts. Anyone?

Besides that - i like DGB. It's great for trading, good pump cycle, awesome marketing.

15 seconds is not set in stone as the DigiByte block time. It is made up from 5 algorithms each with averaged block time of 75s. So the averaged time for the whole of Digibyte is a block being found every 15s. You cannot debunk JCs basic math problem but you can say there are variables that come into play that are more than likely going to defeat it because it is a future problem for DigiByte that he is asking you to solve with todays tools, where nothing on the network is capable of verifying the transactions fast enough. I dont think this is actually true today and it will be even less so in the future. This is why he wants to stick us to an imaginary constant flow of 43 second transactions but think about what that actually means. It means we would be running at full capacity constantly where nothing had a chance to catch up, its just ridiculous really and we would be competing with VISA today.

Thanks for the reply.

I think his initial point was that DGB isn't as scalable as it claims it is (today). So yes, it seems he is technically right here (today). Wink

There is only one way to prove that and that is by breaking it today but that would be pointless and very expensive and DigiByte would not fall down unless you were able to continuously maintain the stress at which point we would have to admit that it wasn't as scalable as presently programmed, if it did fall over. But then we would change the code and move on. The scalability of DigiByte is layed out in a 20 year plan, we are expecting much to change in this time. So DigiByte is as scalable as described!

I guess we could argue whether a product is scalable if you have to alter it to be scalable or not, but i agree that it's no big deal to alter it. Cheesy

Hardware technology is not stagnant; its advancing all the time as you probably know, strongly linked to moores law. I expect it to outpace demand for DigiByte to alter to cope with this particular scenario if it has not already but I have no crystal ball. DigiByte has a road map towards specific targets that will eventually supersede VISA capabilities and beyond. These targets have not just been plucked out of thin air but calculated/estimated(bit of both) to keep DigiByte at the cutting edge of what is achievable using this technology but what is the point of software if you cant alter it when you need to?