I would use and spv client such as Multibit but the features that armoury has are much more secure especially with the paper backup etc.
bitaddress.org
you welcome.
Topic: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users - page 20. (Read 228658 times)
bitaddress.org
you welcome.
It took me 2 and a half days for me to download and verify the block chain. I would use and spv client such as Multibit but the features that armoury has are much more secure especially with the paper backup etc. It would be nice if the download speed was faster then i could have all but one of my computers synced up - one for small transactions and the offline one of cold storage
Well, there could be a simple solution for too big block chain.
The block chain is there to prevent the double spendings. Well. Before the very first one block in January 2009 there is no blocks or transactions. And still no double spendings have detected.
So lets start new bitcoin system and create a new first block. From the old bitcoin system we just copy all existing bitcoin-addresses to the new bitcoin system's first block and transact exactly same amount of bitcoins to those addresses. And then we just start the new Bitcoin system running.
The old bitcoin system, blocks and transactions can be forgetten.
That very first new block contains one transaction per one created address, so it is quite big, but still just a fraction of the size of the old bitcoin system's block chain.
This could work?
Congratulations! You have just discovered the principle of blockchain ultra-pruning. Check my sig for more.
Well, there could be a simple solution for too big block chain.
The block chain is there to prevent the double spendings. Well. Before the very first one block in January 2009 there is no blocks or transactions. And still no double spendings have detected.
So lets start new bitcoin system and create a new first block. From the old bitcoin system we just copy all existing bitcoin-addresses to the new bitcoin system's first block and transact exactly same amount of bitcoins to those addresses. And then we just start the new Bitcoin system running.
The old bitcoin system, blocks and transactions can be forgetten.
That very first new block contains one transaction per one created address, so it is quite big, but still just a fraction of the size of the old bitcoin system's block chain.
This could work?
There is something of block chain size in the bitcoin paper.
Quote
7. Reclaiming Disk Space
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
So now when the bicoin has been running for almost five years, the size of the block chain could be as small as 5x4,2MB=21MB.
But it is not. It is almost 12500MB.
So what is true? Is it possible to reduce the size of a one block to 80 bytes?
What do you think?
Priorities seem to have shifted.
That was probably THE single biggest selling point to me when I read the whitepaper. What do I think? I think I've been chumped.
There is something of block chain size in the bitcoin paper.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
Quote
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
There is something of block chain size in the bitcoin paper.
Quote
7. Reclaiming Disk Space
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
So now when the bicoin has been running for almost five years, the size of the block chain could be as small as 5x4,2MB=21MB.
But it is not. It is almost 12500MB.
So what is true? Is it possible to reduce the size of a one block to 80 bytes?
What do you think?
Priorities seem to have shifted.
That was probably THE single biggest selling point to me when I read the whitepaper. What do I think? I think I've been chumped.
There is something of block chain size in the bitcoin paper.
Quote
7. Reclaiming Disk Space
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
So now when the bicoin has been running for almost five years, the size of the block chain could be as small as 5x4,2MB=21MB.
But it is not. It is almost 12500MB.
So what is true? Is it possible to reduce the size of a one block to 80 bytes?
What do you think?
i can download a 1.5 gig torrent on 20 MB/s broadband and usually get about 1.4MB/s average
it should take me 30-60 min to downlaod the blockchain max if its only a 16 gb file on my 2 TB disk
but a fresh install on a computer takes around 2 days running 24/7 and my computers is fast and modern
not a major annoyance for me since i have a fast line and computer but ive had friends who took 1-2 weeks to download the blockchain in other countries over 3g dongles etc and netbooks
i run the full client and advise everyone i know to do the same although i have a multibit wallet too which is easy to sync in a few seconds
anyone with low end tech or connection is going to have trouble downloading this entire chain unless it was somehow limited to the last 10GB of transactions and blocks before that could be recycle bined
it should take me 30-60 min to downlaod the blockchain max if its only a 16 gb file on my 2 TB disk
but a fresh install on a computer takes around 2 days running 24/7 and my computers is fast and modern
not a major annoyance for me since i have a fast line and computer but ive had friends who took 1-2 weeks to download the blockchain in other countries over 3g dongles etc and netbooks
i run the full client and advise everyone i know to do the same although i have a multibit wallet too which is easy to sync in a few seconds
anyone with low end tech or connection is going to have trouble downloading this entire chain unless it was somehow limited to the last 10GB of transactions and blocks before that could be recycle bined
Without reading this topic, I have one contribution.
user Satoshi posted shortly before vanishing in 2010:
"I tested it on a slow 7 year old drive, where bandwidth and CPU were clearly not the bottleneck. Initial download took 1 hour 20 minutes.
If it's taking a lot longer than that, certainly 24 hours, then it must be downloading from a very slow node, or your connection is much slower than around 15KB per sec (120kbps), or something else is wrong. It would be nice to know what appears to be the bottleneck when that happens."
Given that every time I start bitcoin-qt and the connections indicator goes to healthy green, but the initial download takes more than 24 hours, I would say his original vision for how fast the download for new users should be, is not panning out, and we're not even at 1% of the paypal transaction volume yet.
So what exactly is the problem? that the block chain is growing faster than the average users broadband connection speed, or the network and software design is currently not able to deliver the data as fast as it should -- even after you poke holes in your firewall?
user Satoshi posted shortly before vanishing in 2010:
"I tested it on a slow 7 year old drive, where bandwidth and CPU were clearly not the bottleneck. Initial download took 1 hour 20 minutes.
If it's taking a lot longer than that, certainly 24 hours, then it must be downloading from a very slow node, or your connection is much slower than around 15KB per sec (120kbps), or something else is wrong. It would be nice to know what appears to be the bottleneck when that happens."
Given that every time I start bitcoin-qt and the connections indicator goes to healthy green, but the initial download takes more than 24 hours, I would say his original vision for how fast the download for new users should be, is not panning out, and we're not even at 1% of the paypal transaction volume yet.
So what exactly is the problem? that the block chain is growing faster than the average users broadband connection speed, or the network and software design is currently not able to deliver the data as fast as it should -- even after you poke holes in your firewall?
I thought maaku got a fair amount of donations for a well defined project aimed at addressing some of the scaling issues? No idea how that effort is progressing, but it seems like there is some interest there.
It's still progressing.According to a recent email conversation he's financially set, "through the end of January at least" and will be posting updates on the progress thus far shortly.
Apparently those who try it can, in fact, support their development via donations.
Time spent complaining that "donations don't work" in spite of evidence to the contrary would be better spent building a superior alternative to redonate.net, IMHO.
If devs would come up with solution which would at least halve blockchain, I bet people would donate larger sums as a "Thank you" message.
Fantasy. Nobody donates, much less large sums. This is a cute delusion.
While working as a volunteer core dev for years, I received a whopping... ~30 BTC in donations. https://blockchain.info/address/1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj The vast majority of that prior to 2013, leaving the monetary total well under $500 for years worth of work.
Donating will not bring down blockchain size. Technically infeasible, even if donations work. Which they don't.
Quite surprising to hear that. You see little amounts donated for less useful stuff daily.
Anyway, this thing could be set up as a "kickstarter" of sorts.
You define your roadmap:
1)Do A
2)Do B
3)Do C
and add a donation pool to every key. If people decide to see feature C implemented beforehand - they donate towards it, and C takes priority. There should be a realistic multiplier applied to each objective of course.
If devs would come up with solution which would at least halve blockchain, I bet people would donate larger sums as a "Thank you" message.
Fantasy. Nobody donates, much less large sums. This is a cute delusion.
While working as a volunteer core dev for years, I received a whopping... ~30 BTC in donations. https://blockchain.info/address/1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj The vast majority of that prior to 2013, leaving the monetary total well under $500 for years worth of work.
Donating will not bring down blockchain size. Technically infeasible, even if donations work. Which they don't.
I thought maaku got a fair amount of donations for a well defined project aimed at addressing some of the scaling issues? No idea how that effort is progressing, but it seems like there is some interest there.
I personally donated a reasonable amount to retep's video. The reason for this is that I thought that education was more important than specific realistic developments at that time.
It sounds from what gmaxwell (and you?) are saying, there is a possibility to retain a p2p architecture without necessarily holding the entire block chain. Some architecture which could back-fill block contents as needed (and share them) seems like a theoretically viable structure as long as there was a means to discourage glue spam transactions. Dunno if that's what is alluded to or not. I should study it more. Anyway, if 0.9 comes out with something which promotes the original principles of a user-operated infrastructure, I will donate to the principle architects and/or implementors directly and with reasonable generosity. I'll not go through the Bitcoin Foundation as I disagree with the structure and their methods.
If devs would come up with solution which would at least halve blockchain, I bet people would donate larger sums as a "Thank you" message.
Fantasy. Nobody donates, much less large sums. This is a cute delusion.
While working as a volunteer core dev for years, I received a whopping... ~30 BTC in donations. https://blockchain.info/address/1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj The vast majority of that prior to 2013, leaving the monetary total well under $500 for years worth of work.
Donating will not bring down blockchain size. Technically infeasible, even if donations work. Which they don't.
You can use a lightweight client instead, then.
The lightweight clients are not secure as the official client, unfortunately.
Good luck downloading blockhain on a new machine. We've long past comfortable dvd backup size, and almost past 16gb flash drive mark.
If devs would come up with solution which would at least halve blockchain, I bet people would donate larger sums as a "Thank you" message.
You can use a lightweight client instead, then.
The lightweight clients are not secure as the official client, unfortunately.
Yes, I'd like to use Blockchain wallet.
You can use a lightweight client instead, then.
Just to say that this problem is quite annoying. I have been syncing with my Mac for two days now and it's still at 207000 blocks. I have Time Warner and I usually download super fast so I don't think it's a connection issue. The Mac is an iMac 27 Mid 2011 with 8GB of RAM, so I don't think it's a computer problem. It's just the software which is freaking slow.
Jump to: