Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2017, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: tonych on March 22, 2017, 02:19:12 PM

Of course, there is a lower bound defined by network latency, times number of witnesses.

Thank you. I'll point SatoNatomato to this next time he starts telling fantastic stories.

What will you point out? That you just lack reading comprehension or is your mind incapable of understanding? Does lower mean upper to you? How is a lower bound a limit? Can you explain, that would be great.

My initial statement which you tried to "prove wrong" is in fact "proved right" by tonych, in fact, you had previously insinuated Byteball doesnt scale to which tonych stated and I repeated "DAG has no architectural limits".

The more units there is posted, the higher the throughput. The more transactions, the confirmation time is faster, decreases. Not as you insinuated that more transactions would lead to some kind of congestion and increase/more-waiting for finality/confirmation.

Quote from: tonych on February 09, 2017, 11:38:56 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 09, 2017, 11:18:28 AM

Quote from: tonych on February 09, 2017, 11:09:21 AM

Witnesses do not decide ordering of units. Ordering is determined by the algorithm that looks back at the witnesses-authored units in the DAG.

What TPS limit do you expect to see in the real world (order of magnitude)?

You know, there is no architectural limit in the DAGs.
Regarding the practical limits, I don't buy into this race to Visa tps. The most pressing issue of crypto is not tps, it is adoption (which we address in the first place). Tps will come second after the first is solved.

So, this is a fantastic story, isnt it?

Get over your hurt ego, me and my employer, we not gonna use IOTA for an IoT project, we use Byteball, thats it.

And leave this thread, people and me included are really tired of your shit.

It seems to me your mind is incapable of comprehending Byteball. So you cant "scratch the surface", so please, leave this thread and stick to IOTA.