Quote from: bakerlisa510 on December 14, 2017, 07:23:59 AM

As per average how many transactions can a 1 MB block hold?

Blocks are not limited to 1MB. There is no longer any such concept as a block size limit. Read upthread.

The average number of transactions a block can hold will depend on the transactions average weightan empirical question, depending on what transactions people are actually making on the network. You may expect the average weight to drop as more people send Segwit transactions. You may expect it to plummet after Schnorr signatures become availableespecially if/when that gets uptake from senders with very large numbers of inputs/outputs, such as exchanges. Lower average weight is good: That means more transactions can fit in a block, according to the simple equation from BIP 141 quoted above.

Valle, it was obvious that I meant understand on the level of neither high school physics, nor pop-science explanationsnor courses you allegedly dropped out of. Understand in this context means understanding on the level of intelligently discussing implementations. Youre a fool if based on your ninth-grade physics class, you would try to pass an opinion on engineering questions involved with maintaining and improving the GPS system, or how best to make light lase given a certain particular set of operational requirements. Ohand if you can write virtual memory code or a non-toy TCP implementation, Ill eat my hat. Serious engineering goes into such things.

But put all that aside. You have a much more basic problem, one of first-grade reading comprehension:

Quote from: Valle on December 14, 2017, 07:18:31 AM

Cool. It means it's very easy to understand where extended blocks data is stored, right?

Upthread (boldface added):

Quote from: achow101 on December 02, 2017, 06:01:25 PM

There are no "extended blocks". Blocks are the same as before; they only contain the block header and the transaction. What changed was the transactions. The transactions have two different formats: legacy, and segwit. When a segwit capable nodes receives a block, it will receive the block with transactions in the segwit format. When a non-segwit node receives a block, it will receive the transactions in the legacy format.

Why do Core people even bother trying to explain in public forums, if this is the response?

Quote from: Valle on December 14, 2017, 07:27:54 AM

Actually bitcoin security is based 99% on EC, not on hashes. Mining does depend on good hashing to ensure it's hard (and good hashing by definition has the avalanche effect). Hashing in bitcoin protocols is mostly to protect public key and to build chain, but there are a lot of addresses with known public key and it is not such a big problem, see "address reuse".

No discussion of Byzantine generals and their security significance, I see. In Bitcoin, exactly 0% of that problem is solved by EC. Nor did you catch the subtle relation between avalanche and HashCash. (I threw that in because its a rather abstruse observation, so you couldnt crib the answer by checking Wikipedia.) I could hear a whooshing noise as the whole point of my post went over your head.

Really, all problems for a digital currency except for Byzantine generals could be considered solved as of the 1990s. Try reading the ACM Queue article I linked above, if you want a good overview of what complexity went into your ostensibly plain and simple Bitcoin.