Quote from: hisslyness on April 09, 2019, 01:36:47 PM

Quote from: BTCMILLIONAIRE on April 09, 2019, 03:18:29 AM

I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.

Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

First of all, I don't believe you need to explain it on technical level why bigger blocks are not a permanent solution to unconfirmed transaction. if 1MB is not bigger enough what makes you think 1GB will be? read back and see my highway analogy and how impracticable it is.

Want a technical explanation of the impact of having every single transaction recorded on the blockchain and also the blockchain having a bigger blocks...

1. Database Size
Lets assume Bitcoin is now the standard peer-to-peer payment method. for Simplicity, let assume there will be 1,000,000,000 Transaction a day. Each transaction is approx 250b. (assuming there is only one input and one output). 41,666,666 / Hour or 6,944,444 /10Mins

This will mean we need a min of 1.736GB blocksize to accommodate the transactions.
So...
Every Block: 1.736GB
Every Hour: 10.416GB
Every Day: 250GB
Every Year: 91,250GB
is added to the blockchain

2. Hardware Requirements
Using a base line, and I am being conservative, of 30sec and 200MB (Should be about 1GB-2GB) of RAM to Validate and Confirm 1MB.
1,736MB would require approx 868mins or 14.4Hours to confirm a block
1,736MB would require approx 347GB of RAM
1,736MB would cost $0.034 (0.02c per GB) or $1,825.00 per year (assuming your computer had enough SATA interfaces)

3. Internet Connection/Bandwidth required
Assuming everyone is on a 1GB fiber connection
1000mBIT / 8bit = 125MB/sec will take 13secs not including overheads, retry missed packet etc etc....
13secs to get to the first node (2 Available to Rely)
26secs to get to another 2 nodes (4 Available to Rely)
39secs to get to another 4 nodes (8 Available to Rely)
52secs to get to another 8 nodes (16 Available to Rely)
65secs to get to another 16 nodes (32 Available to Rely)
78secs to get to another 32 nodes (64 Available to Rely)
91secs to get to another 64 nodes (128 Available to Rely)
104secs to get to another 128 nodes (256 Available to Rely)
117secs to get to another 256 nodes (512 Available to Rely)
130secs to get to another 512 nodes (1024 Available to Rely)
143secs to get to another 1024 nodes (2048 Available to Rely)
156secs to get to another 2048 nodes (4096 Available to Rely)

You will also require a data plan of 7.5TB a month for below.
Every Block: 1.736GB
Every Hour: 10.416GB
Every Day: 250GB
Every Year: 91,250GB

So just to recap the above,

You would need to buy a machine capable of handling 1TB of RAM and possible a RAID Storage that can handle 91TB of Hard Drive Space
You would need and awesome internet connection, maybe two, one for your node the other for netflix
And lets say all this is possible and affordable, you will be spending half the day validation/confirming just 1 block.

From a mining point of view, there would be many orphan and rejected blocks given it takes a large amount of time to validate/confirmed blocks. It will also advantage the last miner who has found the block as they can start on the next block before anyone else.

Say good bye to decentralization of Bitcoin Nodes. Only the Rich and Powerful Corporations will run a full node and destroy the very fabric Bitcoin was built for - Decentralization

In other words, we need to scale a different way! Bigger Blocks/Dynamic Blocks are not the answer.

You are right on a few things, you can not argue with jbreher, because he doesn't actually know what he wants.

First it was "bigger blocks", so i pulled him up on that, and then it is a "no protocol-determined block limit" and now it is a "dynamic block size" that miners can decided what they want.

The other thing that you are definitely right about is that the "game is not over yet". But is sure isn't a game between BTC vs BCH/SV.

It is BTC against another tech that will change the way we look at this whole peer-to-peer payment system. not just another clone of Bitcoin but a real game changer! that is what i am worried about!

So:

Quote from: BTCMILLIONAIRE on April 09, 2019, 03:18:29 AM

I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.

Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

Now you have. Bookmark it.