Topic: blockchain storage requirements (Read 2104 times)

Somebody said they would not longer post but seem to have forgotten it. As a result, and since any disagreement is seen as "trolling" I am locking this thread.

wow u guys have a true crypto warz going on here hahaha

You vote with hashpower. You pick the chain you want to mine, either directly as a node, or by the pool you choose to mine. A node can't be a node without the blockchain. Users don't need to be nodes, they can submit transactions to nodes without the full blockchain.

You ask the most simple questions. Do you need someone to teach you to use google?

Blockchain preservation society? Almost sounds like a central bank bitcoiners are trying to get away from. If 51% of nodes don't have the blockchain aren't we in trouble? Wouldn't a bitcoin preservation society be under exactly the same pressures as central banks. Who sits on it? Are they elected? One poster suggested if a flaw is ever found in bitcoin it will be patched. Who would do that? Do we get to vote on which proposed patch to use? Is that one vote per bitcoin or one vote per owner.

Storage HDD size and Internet speed increases much faster than Blockchain requirements. In 10 years, 1TB will be not much of your HDD size, and download will take 1 day easily as well

I'm not worried about my requirements but the system requirements, e.g. it is possible the blockchain will grow so big no one can afford to store it anymore (especially since the system doesn't really work unless many people can afford to store it). Other post here have already suggested pruning the blockchain, however, If bitcoin really takes off that might or might not solve the problem, especially if a majority of people are just investors and never spend the bitcoins.

I guess this would be the worst case in 2140. 21,000,000 bitcoins evenly distributed among 9 billion people (a very low estimate for 2140) the majority of whom are investors (everybody gets 1/400 of a bitcoin?) And the non-investors (say, 4,000,000,000) generate just one transaction a day (although possibly prunable eventually). How big a blockchain would that be? And what would be the daily increase in size?

Use Electrum client if you cant handle the storage requirements or you are using Bitcoin only few times in a month.

I'm not talking about a raider monopolizing bitcoin. I talking about a raider destroying bitcoin. Through legal or illegal means simply using the formula: will I get out of it more than I put into it.

Can't tell if stupid or just trolling.

It makes absolutely no sense to monopolize bitcoin. You yourself admit that they will only destroy it if they see profit in doing so "If they see profit in it, there are those who will destroy perfectly good businesses/systems."

That is the problem!! If they monopolize bitcoin there is no profit. They have all the bitcoins, but nobody in the world would pay them anything for them. Bitcoin gets value from it's security, if the security is gone the value is gone, thus it makes no sense to try and take all the security. THAT IS THE CONTROL PUT IN PLACE FROM THE INCEPTION FOR BITCOIN, FOOL!

This is my last post. If you still can't see the fatal flaw with your argument nothing in the world will change your mind.

My goodness! You know what a wall street raider is? It's someone who goes into an ailing business and soaks it for all it's worth leaving basically nothing. It is not wise to believe everyone is trying to build some ecosystem. If they see profit in it, there are those who will destroy perfectly good businesses/systems. If you don't have a control in place, it will happen (did somebody say they hate regulation?) Kinda like Murphy's Law.

!!!!

No duh! What do you think monopolizing mining power is?

That is why it will not happen. If a company tried to entirely monopolize bitcoin mining they'd destroy it. That would destroy any profit they'd gain from monopolizing the market.

Also if they exceed 51% of the transaction processing power, things get interesting.

The difficulty is just an adjusting variable (up or down) to target a 600 second (10 min) block generation time.

As for block chain size, it will be an important topic in the near future.  As bitcoin gains more adoption and the number of transactions goes up, the block chain growth will be huge.  Having to download a 100gb block chain would be a real annoyance for many.  Possible innovative changes to the protocol may be needed to avoid this.

So we are talking about a potential issue more than 100 years in the future. Alright...

No lone "transaction processor" would ever monopolize on the transactions. If they did they would destroy the network security and trustless operation that gives bitcoin value. To monopolize the market is the same as tanking it, but there won't be a recovery with you in control.

Also, others with serious money in bitcoin would invest in mining transactions if they saw one going for a monopoly for the same reason.

All 100 years in the future of course,

Your right, it's not about mining. The most likely analogue is after all 21 million bitcoins have been mined. Then you will have to pick the cheapest transaction processor, likely, the biggest. As they gain market share they cut their prices and push out the competition (did somebody say they hate regulation?) Then instead of charging 2% they charge 1.9% It happens all the time. All that work for 0.1% difference? Well maybe is a little more anonymous at least (but not totally).

Again, you make absolutely no sense. Your story relates in no way to mining. Bitcoin can't stand insider trading???

I don't even know how to respond because I don't even know what you are trying to say. Bitcoin is hard coded to prevent greedy people and monopolies, yet you want to morph and change it to make it easier to mine? If you have a problem with how bitcoin mining works, go mine an altcoin to take bitcoin's place when it fails. Whatever you pick won't be called bitcoin.

"What? It is supposed to slow down miners, that is exactly the point of the difficulty. While you may be a greedy bastard wanting to mine at a lower difficulty than everyone else, the rest of us know that would break bitcoin, in that case whatever you managed to mine would be worthless, so enjoy."

You may want bitcoin to be a utopian community but it needs to function in the real world that actually has devious greedy people.

My favorite story of greed:

While the battle of waterloo raged everyone in London looked to Baron Rothchild (I think) who they figured would hear about the result of the battle first. He sold everything and everyone thought Napoleon had won. The market collapses. At the bottom Rothchild snaps up everything having sold his investments at the top of the trough. Napoleon of course had lost.

If Bitcoin can't handle this kind of greed, time to slink away.

Now mind you I'm not a free market fanatic (there are no free markets actually...unregulated markets naturally produce monopolies. As soon as someone has a competitive advantage it's like Bobby Fisher's chess game, trade trade trade...each trade magnifying your advantage.) In business as your market share increases your costs go down due to volume buying and everybody else's costs go up since they are buying smaller quantites. Markets have to be regulated.)

Money is not a mathematicaL system, it's a human system. Right now to me this seems like a HUGE risk, some say just to avoid a 2% transaction fee. Well there's nothing that wakes you up like a 100% loss.

If it is what I think it is, that falls under the "It still is possible to send "messages" in the blockchain, but that's more complicated than I can explain." I addressed earlier. I don't believe that method actually involves submitting your own transactions, but picking and choosing choice bits of info from previous confirmed transactions and cataloging them together. In that way you could use the blockchain almost as a dictionary, to recompile a message with a lot less seed info than the resulting message.

That's my basic understanding, pretty cool stuff!

Oh I see.  Thanks for clearing that up as was unsure.  Everytime learn something new Im even more impressed with this new tech!

Editing post, so read recently about man who added wedding vows or something to Blockchain and was proud to say will stay forever.  Doesnt stuff like that add unnecessarily Blockchain size?