On Friday, 1 September 2017 20:15:53 CEST Cserveny Tamas wrote:
> The usage growth seems to be more of exponential rather than linear.
> Sooner or later the block size will need to be 4 mb then 40 mb, then what
> is the real limit? Otherwise waiting times and thus the fees will just
> grow
On 01/09/17 02:15 PM, Cserveny Tamas via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Yes. I meant the single thread as an analogy, if a block is found,
> other blocks are worthless. (more or less) Longest chain wins.
>
> My line of though was, that currently the only way to scale with the
> traffic (and lowering the
Yes. I meant the single thread as an analogy, if a block is found, other
blocks are worthless. (more or less) Longest chain wins.
My line of though was, that currently the only way to scale with the
traffic (and lowering the fees) is increasing the block size (which is hard
as I learned from
On 01/09/17 01:15 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > The current chain is effectively single threaded.
>
> This is not true, since xthin/compactblocks have been introduced we
> completely removed this bottle-neck.
> The transactions will be validated
> > The current chain is effectively single threaded.
>
> This is not true, since xthin/compactblocks have been introduced we
> completely removed this bottle-neck.
> The transactions will be validated continuously, in parallel and not just
> when a block is found.
>
If I understood correctly, OP
On Friday, 1 September 2017 14:47:08 CEST Cserveny Tamas via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The fundamental problem is that if the miners add capacity it will only
> increase (protect) their share of block reward, but does not increase the
> speed of transactions.
Adding more space in blocks has no effect
