Transaction size will put a cap on number of users

The Plaza
#1

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?

1 Like
#2

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.

#3

That is a given. The table gives a ball park number of where the limit is with todayā€™s parameters ā€“ a million daily usersā€¦ the population size of a small country or 1/500 of European internet users.

#4

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.

#5

snapshot of old blockchain, and discard it?

#6

I agree with sunny king that blockchain tech is NOT suitable for high frequency low value tiny transaction which is dust attack at all. ā€œBackboneā€ 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?

#7

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 Iā€™m 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 itā€™s 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 ā€˜weā€™ donā€™t.

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.

Iā€™m sure some block chain expert has thought of something like this before, or thereā€™s a reason it wonā€™t work.

#8

Bitshare likes to snapshot many blockchains of them.

#9

If reducing space and preserving balances are all you want, why not just prune the b-chain and only keep the utxoā€™s ?

#10

That was exactly my idea! I was obviously just explaining it in a confusing way :smile:

#11

I mean keeping using the old chain which, at a point in time, has no tx history but only utxos, not restarting a new chain.