DeathAndTaxes made a post explaining that the 1 MB transaction limit will put a cap on number of users of the block chain.
In this table he shows how many transaction can how many users make
Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput: 2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually
Total # Transactions per Transaction
direct users user annually Frequency
<8,000 8760 Once an hour
178,000 365 Once a day
500,000 128 A few (2.4) times a week
1,200,000 52 Once a week
2,600,000 24 Twice a month
5,300,000 12 Once a month
16,000,000 4 Once a quarter
64,000,000 1 Once a year
200,000,000 0.3 Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000 0.06 Less than once a decade
For example if you have ~ 1 milliion users, they can only transact once a week.
So since Nubits has 1 minut block time, Nubits can have ~ 1 milliion users transacting twice a day?
800 bytes per txn? 1 input and 2 outputs gives ~300 bytes.
Number of txns/day is not meaningful in my opinion because the real limiting factor is if the block chain is growing faster than technology it will eventually become so big that it is unwieldy.
That is a given. The table gives a ball park number of where the limit is with todayās parameters ā a million daily users⦠the population size of a small country or 1/500 of European internet users.
There are already concepts for how to handle blockchains, the distribution model of BKS to NSR holders being one of them to regenerate the blockchain; creating a "neo"genesis block with a balance of all addresses being one of the ways to get rid of the old blockchain.
I agree with sunny king that blockchain tech is NOT suitable for high frequency low value tiny transaction which is dust attack at all. āBackboneā is the right way while some BTC fans LOST in that forest.
And microtransaction should be executed by third party such as paypal or B&C icloud wallet which means a recept from dezens of reputed singers?
MoD is referring to the concept of starting a new chain by remembering just the TxOuts of the old chain instead of the whole chain (correct me if Iām wrong). B&C did this as one does not need to download the entire Nu block chain to accept their BKS.
But with the B&C fork we still have people recording the whole chain. There should always be a record of the whole chain somewhere, even if itās just on the hard drives of the minters with huge space. The reason is because most likely governments have a copy of it even if the collective āweā donāt.
Is there a way to institute a hard form of checkpointing where every, say, 1 GB of block chain we collapse 500 MB into a checkpoint in the past? We would have complete nodes that remember the entire chain and short nodes that only remember some of it. The short nodes allow most anyone to vote and prevent short-range attacks while the complete nodes secure the network against long-range attacks. Complete nodes could be trusted or rewarded or something.
Iām sure some block chain expert has thought of something like this before, or thereās a reason it wonāt work.