<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaef</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaef</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18&#xA;📝 Original message:I&#39;m struggling to illustrate how incredibly low 7 transactions per &#xA;second is, not just for a payment network, but even just for a clearance &#xA;network (i.e. to balance transactions between institutions and/or &#xA;chains). As an example, the Clearing House Interbank Payments System &#xA;(CHIPS) is a US-only, inter-bank only clearance network, which handled &#xA;about 3.5 transactions per second (average) in 2014 &#xA;(https://www.theclearinghouse.org/~/media/tch/pay%20co/chips/reports%20and%20guides/chips%20volume%20through%20may%202015.pdf?la=en).&#xA;&#xA;While it seems likely the US population of 300 million makes more &#xA;transactions individually than many other countries, and therefore we &#xA;can&#39;t simply multiply that by 20 to estimate what a global clearance &#xA;network might require, hopefully it&#39;s clear that if Bitcoin is to scale &#xA;globally, it needs substantially more transaction throughput even if &#xA;main chain transactions become something for banks and the super rich. I &#xA;don&#39;t know how much more, but I can&#39;t look at the 8MB reportedly backed &#xA;by a number of mining pools and say it&#39;s clearly insufficient, at least.&#xA;&#xA;I should emphasise that I don&#39;t think we need to jump straight to 8MB &#xA;(or otherwise), if a scaling protocol can be decided upon that would be &#xA;ideal, but we should be planning ahead while it&#39;s still relatively easy &#xA;to make these changes.&#xA;&#xA;Ross&#xA;&#xA;On 18/06/2015 23:33, Mark Friedenbach wrote:&#xA;&gt; On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Garzik &lt;jgarzik at bitpay.com &#xA;&gt; &lt;mailto:jgarzik at bitpay.com&gt;&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     The whole point is getting out in front of the need, to prevent&#xA;&gt;     significant negative impact to users when blocks are consistently&#xA;&gt;     full.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     To do that, you need to (a) plan forward, in order to (b) set a&#xA;&gt;     hard fork date in the future.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative &#xA;&gt; experiences with full blocks, chiefly:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;   * Get safe forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent &#xA;&gt; finished and in 0.12.&#xA;&gt;   * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropayment &#xA;&gt; channels, and get wallet authors to adopt&#xA;&gt;   * Use fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize &#xA;&gt; the risk of already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure &#xA;&gt; until:&#xA;&gt;   * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like &#xA;&gt; Lightning Network.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Not raising the block size limit does not mean doing nothing to solve &#xA;&gt; the problem.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/bdee73d5/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>