Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the grow-or-die dept.

In a test of Bitcoin's ability to adapt to its own growing popularity, the Bitcoin community is facing a dilemma: how to change Bitcoin's core software so that the growing volume of transactions doesn't overwhelm the network. Some fear that the network, as it's currently designed, could become overwhelmed as early as next year.

The answer will help determine the form Bitcoin's network takes as it matures. But the loose-knit community of Bitcoin users is not in agreement over how it should proceed, and the nature of Bitcoin, a technology neither owned nor controlled by any one person or entity, could make the impending decision-making process challenging. At the very least it represents a cloud of uncertainty hanging over Bitcoin's long-term future.

The technical problem, which most agree is solvable, is that Bitcoin's network now has a fixed capacity for transactions. Before he or she disappeared, Bitcoin's mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, limited the size of a "block," or group of transactions, to one megabyte.

Under the one-megabyte-per-block limit, the network can process only about three transactions per second. If Bitcoin becomes a mainstream payment system, or even a platform for all kinds of other online business besides payments (see "Why Bitcoin Could Be Much More Than a Currency"), it's going to have to process a lot more. Visa, by comparison, says its network can process more than 24,000 transactions per second.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/537486/leaderless-bitcoin-struggles-to-make-its-most-crucial-decision/

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:04AM (#185939)

    Aside from that, and I could be wrong, but I have serious reservations about the thought that if Bank of America were to randomly claim that everyone's money had disappeared for [insert reason here], that everyone would actually lose their money.

    Well, something like that has actually happened in Russia: At some point in time, Yeltsin declared a certain very common bank note (I think it was 100 ruble notes but I might be wrong) to be invalid, in order to fight inflation. As a result, people lost a lot of money, despite them still owning those (now worthless) pieces of paper.