Blockchain size (another thread, yes) - page 2.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Cicero2.0 on June 29, 2014, 11:25:46 AM

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?

Quote from: ChuckStrawberry on June 29, 2014, 11:15:30 AM

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

Multibit? Electrum?

Cicero2.0

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

★☆★Bitin.io★☆★

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?

ChuckStrawberry

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

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

fryarminer

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

For people who want to be a node it's a non-issue. It takes up less than .02% space on my hard drives. By the time it becomes a TB, hard drives will be astronimically large.

I wouldn't recommend trying to run Bitcoin Core on a tablet or something that size.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

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

GODLIKE

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

LOL what you looking at?

Quote from: shorena on June 29, 2014, 08:47:49 AM

I dont see an exponential growth here.
https://blockchain.info/en/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

If people give up on bitcoin because the picked the wrong client... oh my. Whatcha gonna do about it? Its not like they are forced to use bitcoin core. Whats wrong with multibit or electrum? There are so many different wallets.

Quote from: GODLIKE on June 29, 2014, 08:24:26 AM

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 am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.

This exactly is the solution.

Whats the problem with security ?

Quote from: GODLIKE on June 29, 2014, 08:24:26 AM

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.

How can you trust the devs of bitcoin core? You cant unless you can read the code. Same with electrum. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum

Same with every OpenSource tool you use. You either trust yourself to understand the code or you trust those that claim they understand the code.

One thing is the Bitcoin Core, another one is somebody developing an online wallet.
They put the code online, but how do I know that code is the same they use on their server?

About the exponential growth, this is what I wrote: "This is probably (and hopefully) going to grow exponentially as the number of transactions is quite directly connected with the number of users."

GODLIKE

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

LOL what you looking at?

Quote from: Lauda on June 29, 2014, 08:55:51 AM

You don't need to download the wallet on your PC, there are other options.
Also you can torrent the blockchain and save time.
Godlike you are trying to spread FUD in a weird way.

I am not trying anything. I also don't know what is FUD.
Also, please read the post: I am using Electrum.

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.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

You don't need to download the wallet on your PC, there are other options.
Also you can torrent the blockchain and save time.
Godlike you are trying to spread FUD in a weird way.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

I dont see an exponential growth here.
https://blockchain.info/en/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

If people give up on bitcoin because the picked the wrong client... oh my. Whatcha gonna do about it? Its not like they are forced to use bitcoin core. Whats wrong with multibit or electrum? There are so many different wallets.

Quote from: GODLIKE on June 29, 2014, 08:24:26 AM

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 am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.

This exactly is the solution.

Whats the problem with security ?

Quote from: GODLIKE on June 29, 2014, 08:24:26 AM

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.

How can you trust the devs of bitcoin core? You cant unless you can read the code. Same with electrum. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum

Same with every OpenSource tool you use. You either trust yourself to understand the code or you trust those that claim they understand the code.

Cryptopher

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 1008

Keep it dense, yeah?

I haven't used a Bitcoin wallet on my machine in a long time, in fact, I never did actually use a Bitcoin wallet on my machine to hold any bitcoins.

I use an online wallet for the convenience and security features that they provide. There is always the risk that your information may be intercepted, but that's why many people opt to store a small proportion of their bitcoins on convenient wallets for day-to-day transactions, while storing the rest in cold stooge, while checking something like Blockchain.info for observing transactions.

Don't think that I would bother to sync a Bitcoin wallet on my laptop now.

GODLIKE

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

LOL what you looking at?

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...

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.

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 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.

Topic: Blockchain size (another thread, yes) - page 2. (Read 1688 times)