Pages:
Author

Topic: Blockchain size (another thread, yes) (Read 1640 times)

legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
nahtnam.com
June 29, 2014, 11:47:29 PM
#31
Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, but still... the blockchain is growing by around 1GB per month.
This is probably (and hopefully) going to grow exponentially as the number of transactions is quite directly connected with the number of users.
I don't even want to think when Bitcoin will enter Wall Street...

A lot of people use online wallets, and I think newbies will also use online wallets.

But many people immediately give up with Bitcoin though, when they see their Wallet client is taking ages to sync, but also hard disk space consumption is becoming annoyingly heavy.
This puts Bitcoin on track for investors etc, but puts off track common people that would like to enter the currency.

I think there are wallets that only download part of the blockchain. Also, I just leave the wallet syncing at night, and its usually done by the time I wake up.

So, if this has been discussed a thousand times, what where the "conclusions", and if the case, why no solution has been taken yet?

I think there are wallets that download only part of the blockchain, and ofcourse there are online wallets.

I am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.
I also can't understand how I can trust the developers of it, how can I know they don't know my passwords and security passphrase, but at the moment, seeing my funds are very low, it's ok.

You can check the source: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum
full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
June 29, 2014, 09:25:16 PM
#30
At some point in the future, if the transactions do pick up by the masses, someone will probably need to optimize and clean out the data.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
June 29, 2014, 09:10:32 PM
#29
They receive entertainment while they are playing those games.  

and anyone with bitcoins would/should have the entertainment of knowing that their bitcoins wont disappear with a webwallet owners lie of "we've been hacked" tweeted from his sunbed on a expensive resort.

because
1, their bitcoins are safe in a proper bitcoin wallet(node)
2. the node is also securing bitcoin to stop nasty protocol changes that can make bitcoins valueless

at a price far far cheaper then a game, and having that warm, safe, feeling for not only 6 hours pay-time. but for life.

but if you dont care about keeping bitcoin safe from protocol changes, possible hacks/insider webwallet thefts.. maybe you should donate all funds to seans outpost or to someone that does care about bitcoins.

its like complaining that bitcoins is expensive and not worth the hassle, maybe worth you going back to credit cards. storing gold has more hassle and alot more expense to trade/move/use. i think you need a little more time to soak in what bitcoin is truly about.

in short if 100,000 people held 1bitcoin ($600) each and i told you tomorrow that by not having nodes every bitcoin would b worth $0 wouldnt you and the other 99k start to realise that being a node at a small expense of maybe $20 memory stick to ensure bitcoin stayed at $600 was a good thing
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
June 29, 2014, 08:35:44 PM
#28
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.

as it has been discussed, its not a problem.

for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does

yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.

same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.

this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.

data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed.

it costs $50 for call of duty, and >$300 for a console to play it and be part of the playstation/microsoft network. but they get nothing back in return..

hmmmmmmm how many consoles are there in the world which proves that people dont truly care
They receive entertainment while they are playing those games. 
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 07:34:06 PM
#27
Don't many newcomer use webwalllets anyway?

they do, but most newcomers only have pocket money amounts at first. once they start getting more then a weeks salary worth of bitcoins they should switch to proper security, such as a node/offline store of bitcoins where they truly own the privkey.. not third parties

anyone using web services long term to store more then a week of labour is just asking to get hacked.

which is where i find the funny part, people argue about data stor that amounts to a $10 microSD card. and downloads of a week of fibre optic speed for full blockchain sync again only$3-$10. yet are willing to risk alot more throwing their funds in webwallets..

the mind truly boggles!

You are right but keep also on mind that this is a completely new thing, and many people not only can't understand how they get hacked, many don't even install or keep updated an antivirus... the truth is that half population of the world is simply not ready for Bitcoin... it's like they would walk with a bag full of money on their shoulders and don't care if they are going into the bad famed spot of the city.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
#26
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.

as it has been discussed, its not a problem.

for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does

yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.

same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.

this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.

data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed.

it costs $50 for call of duty, and >$300 for a console to play it and be part of the playstation/microsoft network. but they get nothing back in return..

hmmmmmmm how many consoles are there in the world which proves that people dont truly care

Erm... they PLAY, in return.
Bitcoin has no other function than replacing money, it's not so fun as CoD.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
June 29, 2014, 07:25:34 PM
#24
Don't many newcomer use webwalllets anyway?

they do, but most newcomers only have pocket money amounts at first. once they start getting more then a weeks salary worth of bitcoins they should switch to proper security, such as a node/offline store of bitcoins where they truly own the privkey.. not third parties

anyone using web services long term to store more then a week of labour is just asking to get hacked.

which is where i find the funny part, people argue about data stor that amounts to a $10 microSD card. and downloads of a week of fibre optic speed for full blockchain sync again only$3-$10. yet are willing to risk alot more throwing their funds in webwallets..

the mind truly boggles!
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
June 29, 2014, 06:43:52 PM
#23
Don't many newcomer use webwalllets anyway?
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
June 29, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
#22
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.

as it has been discussed, its not a problem.

for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does

yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.

same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.

this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.

data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed.

it costs $50 for call of duty, and >$300 for a console to play it and be part of the playstation/microsoft network. but they get nothing back in return..

hmmmmmmm how many consoles are there in the world which proves that people dont truly care
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
June 29, 2014, 05:06:29 PM
#21
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.

as it has been discussed, its not a problem.

for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does

yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.

same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.

this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.

data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 04:32:57 PM
#20
...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.


No reason to get insulting.

Dont thank me if you dont mean it.

Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, -snip-



I mean it, you gave good info, but the way you post is irritating.
Keep in mind there are probably something less than 7 billion people out there that know far less than what I know, about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
It's good to explain things, it's not good to talk to people like if they were idiots.
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
June 29, 2014, 04:21:53 PM
#19
...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.


No reason to get insulting.

Dont thank me if you dont mean it.

Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, -snip-

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 02:55:46 PM
#18
...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.

Anyway, the basic problem of giving people a good impression since the very first moment they enter Bitcoin, remains.
Quote
A NEW user that just wants to understand how Bitcoin works, will much probably use the Bitcoin Wallet because he believes it's the most up to date or secure or official or anything.
And what does he meet?
Hours and hours of download before he can make any operation.

As I wrote, most people aren't computer experts or geeks, they just want to escape from the bank system (the ones who understand its perversion).

For how I see it, a Bitcoin light client ready in the very same page where you can download the Bitcoin full client, probably on the model of Electrum, would be the best solution.
Then they'll have all the time to learn that there are other wallets, web wallets, etc. but as first impact I think this should be done.
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
June 29, 2014, 02:42:47 PM
#17
-snip-
For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.


People that are new to bit coin tend to want the "official wallet." I bought my first bitcoin two weeks ago and don't feel at all comfortable with the thought of using any other wallet. If there were a light version of the QT wallet it would make people like me more comfortable about using a light wallet.


#1 get your quotes in order, it looks like I said that -_-
#2 there is no official wallet
#3 you have assumptions that are wrong, that is not the fault of the bitcoin-core devs or the devs that develop a solution for your problem.

-snip-

Plurality is also a factor of security.
Once a dev shuts down its wallet for whatever reason, what will you do?

Whut?

MultiBit uses regular bitcoind machines to get it's block information from.
There isn't a central "multibit" server - it uses the Bitcoin network directly.

There is a multibit.org machine but that is just a webserver for downloading the installers, the multibit help and a config file to indicate when there are new versions available.



Nothing would happen.

Even if you used electrum (they actually have servers AFAIK) I can just export my private keys and import them somewhere else.

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

Less nodes probably means also slower confirmations of transactions.
But this shouldn't be a real problem, as the userbase widens, also full nodes will be more.
I would hold a node up as well if I didn't have this crappy connection.

Most nodes do not confirm transactions. They verifiy them. What you are think about are miners, they are technically also nodes, but thats besides the point. Usually when people say "node" they dont mean miners.

But anyway, what I wanted to put the accent on, is that this file is becoming large and annoying.
I don't want to say that you can't deal with it, but the world is NOT USA, there are other countries.
I am not from the USA. If your connection is crap, use a light client. That is what they are for.

With my connection, in that shit of country named Italy, I need more than two days to download the whole blockchain.

So? Dont download it. You can not contribute to the network anyway if your connection is shit. You just leech and contribute nothing. You are not helping the network you are leeching its resources.

Some of the devs talked about it years ago and to sum it up: if you have a crappy connection dont use bitcoin-core.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/are-full-nodes-without-port-forwarding-useful-124319

No, that wasn't my point.

If you have a path A -> B  -> C and B doesn't listen, then A could just connect directly to C (one socket used) and get the same results as if B connected to A and C (two sockets used).

Space is not so much a problem FOR ME, as I have over 3 TB of hard disks, but many people have old computers, they are not geeks or nerds and are only interested in disconnecting themselves from banks and saving their money.

So nice that there are people that made a solution for them.

Not to mention people going around with tablets and smartphones. You can't ask them to fuck up all their memory with the blockchain.

Did you ever install a bitcoin app? They are very small.

What I want to pass on over here is that NEW USERS will get annoyed by this, and I think there's no doubt this file IS a bit heavy.
And I want to pass over that if Bitcoin will boom, like everyone of us hopes, the transactions number will grow exponentially.
Then what will you do if you go on 4GB per month growth of the blockchain size?
Better solve this problem now, I think.

There is no problem.

Newbies will most likely visite this site very early
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
and if they read what is written there, they will make a pretty good decision even though they do not know the details behind it.


-snip-
What problem? There are multiple ways to use Bitcoin without holding a local copy of the block chain. The average user won't have a local copy and that is fine.

Exactly. There is no problem here. IMHO its just someone spreading FUD to make money http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/
"Get your full node here and support the network for only 9.99$" - Which is nice, which (if done right) will support the network. But there is no need for this.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
June 29, 2014, 01:30:38 PM
#16
I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

if your dont store the blockchain (20gb) then your not decentralising the ledger... your just a light wallet that relays unconfirmed transactions... you are giving limited help to security and the network.. not full help.... still better than nothing, which is what multibit offers, as that is just a transaction signer.. nothing more
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
June 29, 2014, 01:22:53 PM
#15
This is not an issue simply because the falling cost and resource requirements for digital storage and bandwidth far out-paces the growth in the blockchain.

By the way I run a full node on the following 10 year+ old laptop running Trisquel (GNU/Linux)

CPU Pentium M 1.8 GHz
RAM 1 GB
Hard drive 128 GB
10/100 Ethernet (no wifi)
... and yes it even has a floppy drive and its original Windows 2000 logo!

The size of the .bitcoin folder in under 32GB.

So if my decade plus old laptop works to run a full node so will much newer technology provided of course it is not crippled by propriety software and DRM.

One could run a full node on many tablets and even high end smartphones but one would have a install a GNU/Linux OS on the device and in the process rid the device of DRM infections.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 01:19:27 PM
#14
I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

Less nodes probably means also slower confirmations of transactions.
But this shouldn't be a real problem, as the userbase widens, also full nodes will be more.
I would hold a node up as well if I didn't have this crappy connection.

But anyway, what I wanted to put the accent on, is that this file is becoming large and annoying.
I don't want to say that you can't deal with it, but the world is NOT USA, there are other countries.
With my connection, in that shit of country named Italy, I need more than two days to download the whole blockchain.
Space is not so much a problem FOR ME, as I have over 3 TB of hard disks, but many people have old computers, they are not geeks or nerds and are only interested in disconnecting themselves from banks and saving their money.
Not to mention people going around with tablets and smartphones. You can't ask them to fuck up all their memory with the blockchain.

What I want to pass on over here is that NEW USERS will get annoyed by this, and I think there's no doubt this file IS a bit heavy.
And I want to pass over that if Bitcoin will boom, like everyone of us hopes, the transactions number will grow exponentially.
Then what will you do if you go on 4GB per month growth of the blockchain size?
Better solve this problem now, I think.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
LOL what you looking at?
June 29, 2014, 01:14:53 PM
#13
I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.


Multibit? Electrum?

Plurality is also a factor of security.
Once a dev shuts down its wallet for whatever reason, what will you do?
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
★☆★Bitin.io★☆★
June 29, 2014, 12:39:43 PM
#12
I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.


People that are new to bit coin tend to want the "official wallet." I bought my first bitcoin two weeks ago and don't feel at all comfortable with the thought of using any other wallet. If there were a light version of the QT wallet it would make people like me more comfortable about using a light wallet.
Pages:
Jump to: