1000 TPS is a theoretical number, in fact I'd wager that it would take at least 2 (possible more) years to have that many transactions per second. So no, you won't need 300GB available (per month).
Reaching it may be possible but to sustain it over a long period of time would be something else.
31 billion transactions if we could maintain 1000 TPS for a year.
If we every reach this level then we're on MAR!....forget MOON!You get the causality wrong.
Let me explain:
One idea of Nxt was, theoretically, to be able to handle 1000TPS. To dethrone VISA maybe with their bullshit high fees. Some small shop owners lose 50% of there marge today because of VISA. Think about it.
Now, Nxt is the saviour. If we want to get to the Mars/Moon, there needs to be something like "well, no problem, we can easily handle 1000TPS in the future if we want. Just some coding and done". <- This maybe leads to 1000 TPS in the future -> to the mars in the future. Not the other way around.
btw visa handles 2000 TPS on average I believe.
What do you mean with 4.25 tps to 1000 tps?
One of the killer features of Nxt is ability to process transactions at VISA rate (thousands per second).
Btw, any ideas how much the price will rise after VCs realize that Nxt is able to process 1000+ tps? 10x is min, imho. 100x-1000x is more likely...
CfB, how could you push "1000 TPS" and "solving blockchain bloat" knowing it implied utilizing a 300 GB NXT monthly blockchain that's 20 times bigger than the one Bitcoin has right now? Your certainty on this point was part of the reason I assumed you guys had implemented JD Bruce's finite mini-blockchain idea...