Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st
by zby on Thursday July 13, 2017 @11:55AM
(#14762356)
If you don't change the rate of block creation - then the rate of blockchain growth is proportional to the block size. If you increase blocks - then the blockchain will grow faster. This is kind of obvious.
But yeah - the size of the blocks does depend on the number and size of transactions and if you don't have transactions to fill up the block in full (i.e. so that its size is just under the maximal block size) - then the transactions will be the limiting factor.
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st
by h1d on Friday July 14, 2017 @06:41AM
(#14768803)
No. If a block is 10MB, you might as well keep spamming the blocks to centralize the node operation when the storage starts to require TBs.
Why do you think Satoshi's gave it an artificial 1MB limit if it didn't matter?
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st
by lisper on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:46AM
(#14770687)
Huh? That makes no sense at all.
I have no idea why Satoshi chose a 1MB limit. Probably for the same reason he chose a 21M BTC limit on the total number of bitcoins that can be mined: both are arbitrary numbers that he pulled out of a hat. But the next time I see him I'll be sure to ask.
This has nothing to do with the block size. The size of the chain is proportional to the number of transactions. Whether those are sliced-and-diced into small blocks or large ones is completely irrelevant to how big the chain is. The only thing the block size influences is how many transactions can be mined in one block, i.e. the rate at which transactions can be processed.