Lastly, as an engineer, there still is the legitimate problem of block size increases introducing latency. How can this be solved without centralizing mining?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Lastly, as an engineer, there still is the legitimate problem of block size increases introducing latency. How can this be solved without centralizing mining?
That's cute how people call themselves an "engineer" or a "doctor" or a "programmer". It really doesn't mean anything, just ask the question... would the question be any different if you were a plumber?
As I posted above, Peter Rizon and Andrew Stone of Bitcoin Unlimited completed 1GB scaling block tests back in November. This could be one short term solution, and it doesn't result in centralized mining, that is a myth:
I would hope that your explanation would be in layman's terms if I was a plumber. It's just my way of saying "go ahead and be technical".
How much compression can you get on a 1 GB block? Then compress, send and decompress on the other nodes would take some time. The question is how much time? In the time that one miner has solved the nonce and the block propagates, that miner has a head start. If that head start time is only a few seconds of a 10 minutes block session, then that's relatively low latency and mining centralization shouldn't happen, but if it takes up a significant percentage of that 10 minute session, centralization occurs.
At this point 1 GB blocks locks me out of maintaining my own full node unless compression is significant.
However, 1 GB blocks (as Andreas has talked about) would allow about 5 tx's a month per person assuming about 3 billion people on the planet are using bitcoin. Maybe streaming money is not something that Bitcoin Cash people are interested in, but to do streaming money, you're looking at petabyte blocks. Maybe that can be solved later down the road.