undefined | Better HN

0 pointsric2b4y ago0 comments

That's just a lab demo of a single system, not the network or even a common node configuration.

0 comments

Years ago, there was a presentation [1] by Peter Rizun of Bitcoin Unlimited at Stanford that demonstrated ~100TPS on Bitcoin, and the potential for 1000+ TPS if certain bottlenecks were removed. People said the same thing you're saying back then, but it served to motivate the big block community, and now today BSV routinely does 300+ MB blocks (1000+ tps). This Teranode software is the future of BSV and will become the common node configuration within a few years, so it's worth taking seriously. Also, I left a comment in this thread explaining why this test is more representative than you may think [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27597510

Geee4y ago

That's not the issue. Block size has to be limited to protect decentralization. Decentralization is the only thing that has value in blockchains, otherwise you're better off using centralized databases.

SnowProblem4y ago

I'm aware of that argument. The counter-argument goes that at scale, larger blocks would bring in more businesses, more miners, and more competition, and that competition is what actually protects the chain from bad actors who might try to change the rules or censor transactions, not decentralization, and that decentralization is mostly a meme to pacify the masses from realizing who actually has power over the network.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

SnowProblem4y ago

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27597510

Geee4y ago

SnowProblem4y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse