HackerTube.dev

Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford.

OnChain Scaling · 12.4K views · 2017-11-20 · 27:08

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone present results of tests running 1 GB blocks on a Bitcoin test network at Scaling Bitcoin Stanford. The talk argues for big-block scaling and discusses its consequences.

On Hacker News

Cited by big-block advocates as evidence that Bitcoin could handle far higher throughput.

Recommended by 2 HN people across 3 months · HN mentions 2017–2022

Topics

CryptographyDistributed systems
Search by tags
bitcoinblock sizebitcoin unlimitedtestnetthroughput

What people said

intabli · 2022-05 · Recommendation

I needed to clarify that it wasn’t my proposal, as to how to gradually approach this, test nets are already deployed on many of the uncapped networks, I believe you’ll enjoy this great presentation by Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone, they’re far smarter than I’ll ever be: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
intabli · 2022-05 · Recommendation

Uncapped is a pseudo name for “capped just in time”. It’s never really uncapped. If you’re interested in some work being done on such larger blocks, you’ll enjoy this presentation: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
tobiaswk · 2018-05 · Recommendation

That's my point. BCH did not include some technical innovations like you stated. It simply increased hardcoded block size limit. Simple as that. Even Satoshi himself mentions this in his whitepaper. Other stuff has also changed. The difficulty adjustment (DAA) algorithm has changed to allow are more stable difficulty for miners. Segwit just changed what parts of a transaction counted as size in a block. In reality we're talking about 200KB or thereabouts extra space in blocks. Lightning network is based on a mesh-network. Furthermore it completely changes the bitcoins fundamental clockwork. Suddenly you can't receive payments if you don't hold any coins yourself. Even more detrimental; you can't receive payments if you are not online on the lightning network. It has several other flaws that are very hard to fix; [LINK] . I suggest you see this presentation on 1GB blocks (tested on test-net) by Peter Rizun; [VIDEO] And his talk at "Satoshi's Vision" (here he talks about what is called "weak blocks" and how it can improve scaling and wasted PoW; [LINK] It's totally feasible and does not require super computers albeit a Raspberry Pi won't do no more. Scaling to VISA level of transactions is possible. I don't think it's really going to change too much in computing power with bigger blocks. The size of the merkle root won't change just because blocks are larger which means the block header size won't change. Why do you suspect a second-layer is needed?

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by OnChain Scaling, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources