From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqeow-0002Be-9Y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 09:43:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.173; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yqeov-000206-3s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 09:43:50 +0000 Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so21016701wiu.1 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.206.229 with SMTP id lr5mr4672236wic.86.1431078223121; Fri, 08 May 2015 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <554C45E4.1020208@thinlink.com> References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me> <554BBDA2.7040508@gmail.com> <554C1410.7050406@thinlink.com> <554C45E4.1020208@thinlink.com> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 11:43:42 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kWFqg_YTddVXC6szk0U7Rbb87c8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38a2222928905158eddc5 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yqeov-000206-3s Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 09:43:50 -0000 --001a11c38a2222928905158eddc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Alan argues that 7 tps is a couple orders of magnitude too low By the way, just to clear this up - the real limit at the moment is more like 3 tps, not 7. The 7 transactions/second figure comes from calculations I did years ago, in 2011. I did them a few months before the "sendmany" command was released, so back then almost all transactions were small. After sendmany and as people developed custom wallets, etc, the average transaction size went up. --001a11c38a2222928905158eddc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alan argues that 7 tps is a couple orders of mag= nitude too low

By the way, just to clear th= is up - the real limit at the moment is more like 3 tps, not 7.=C2=A0
=

The 7 transactions/second figure comes from calculation= s I did years ago, in 2011. I did them a few months before the "sendma= ny" command was released, so back then almost all transactions were sm= all. After sendmany and as people developed custom wallets, etc, the averag= e transaction size went up.
--001a11c38a2222928905158eddc5--