blockchain storage requirements - page 2.

pontiacg5

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: theBishop on December 26, 2013, 07:55:24 PM

Quote from: pontiacg5 on December 26, 2013, 07:10:35 PM

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 06:33:56 PM

Difficulty is a double edged sword. On the one hand it protects bitcoin holders (hopefully). But it slows down miners. I don't think you'd find one miner who wouldn't want a lower difficulty level than other miners.

BTW I'm still trying to find out how many nodes there are (if you know). Isn't there a count somewhere?

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.

There is no count on the nodes, they come and go as they please. A node is a lot like a bittorrent client, some are well established and never move. Others only run when necessary and don't do much else. Why do you want a count anyway? What would that tell you?

Quote from: theBishop on December 26, 2013, 06:36:57 PM

Doesnt blockchain get bigger with messages that people can enter? I thought that. So if people add messages with every transaction it will grow more rapid that if they didnt. Could be wrong though.

You may have seen the messages on blockchain.info, but that is not on the bitcoin blockchain at all. I think there may have been a way to add text to a transaction, but I don't think it was ever used/enabled. It still is possible to send "messages" in the blockchain, but that's more complicated than I can explain.

Quote from: nazgul104 on December 26, 2013, 06:50:49 PM

Wouldn't the block size depend on how many transactions were in it when it was successfully mined? ie., you keep on adding transactions to it and as and when the hash generated is below the target hash, then this block is said to have been successfully created and a new block will start? So, determining the avg.size of the block based on the existing blocks would not provide a accurate number (or close to it) is what I think.

I'm a newbie here, so pls. correct me if my understanding is wrong.

You are exactly right. There's nothing stopping a node from mining blocks with no transactions at all, as well.

What about signing message? Is that same thing or doesnt add to blockchain?

No, signing a message just uses the public and private key pair from a bitcoin transaction to verify ownership of the private key, without revealing it. The blockchain is used as reference only, no information is added.

theBishop

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: pontiacg5 on December 26, 2013, 07:10:35 PM

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 06:33:56 PM

Difficulty is a double edged sword. On the one hand it protects bitcoin holders (hopefully). But it slows down miners. I don't think you'd find one miner who wouldn't want a lower difficulty level than other miners.

BTW I'm still trying to find out how many nodes there are (if you know). Isn't there a count somewhere?

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.

There is no count on the nodes, they come and go as they please. A node is a lot like a bittorrent client, some are well established and never move. Others only run when necessary and don't do much else. Why do you want a count anyway? What would that tell you?

Quote from: theBishop on December 26, 2013, 06:36:57 PM

Doesnt blockchain get bigger with messages that people can enter? I thought that. So if people add messages with every transaction it will grow more rapid that if they didnt. Could be wrong though.

You may have seen the messages on blockchain.info, but that is not on the bitcoin blockchain at all. I think there may have been a way to add text to a transaction, but I don't think it was ever used/enabled. It still is possible to send "messages" in the blockchain, but that's more complicated than I can explain.

Quote from: nazgul104 on December 26, 2013, 06:50:49 PM

Wouldn't the block size depend on how many transactions were in it when it was successfully mined? ie., you keep on adding transactions to it and as and when the hash generated is below the target hash, then this block is said to have been successfully created and a new block will start? So, determining the avg.size of the block based on the existing blocks would not provide a accurate number (or close to it) is what I think.

I'm a newbie here, so pls. correct me if my understanding is wrong.

You are exactly right. There's nothing stopping a node from mining blocks with no transactions at all, as well.

What about signing message? Is that same thing or doesnt add to blockchain?

zengryT

hero member

Activity: 745

Merit: 500

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 06:56:42 PM

I looked at:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions

and didn't see an obvious text message field. Actually that might be neat though. Send the smallest transferable amount to a huge list of addresses with a commercial message. Voila. Bitcoin spam!

To spam Bitcoin blockchain, you have to pay fee - every 1000 bytes = 0.0001 BTC
Not a cheap spam...

nazgul104

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Quote from: pontiacg5 on December 26, 2013, 07:10:35 PM

You are exactly right. There's nothing stopping a node from mining blocks with no transactions at all, as well.

Good to know that I got some things right.
But I was not aware that the block can have only the newly generated coins alone as its transaction and still be valid. Thanks for clarifying that pontiacg5. Anyways, I digressed from OP's original post. No more questions from me..

pontiacg5

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 06:33:56 PM

Difficulty is a double edged sword. On the one hand it protects bitcoin holders (hopefully). But it slows down miners. I don't think you'd find one miner who wouldn't want a lower difficulty level than other miners.

BTW I'm still trying to find out how many nodes there are (if you know). Isn't there a count somewhere?

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.

There is no count on the nodes, they come and go as they please. A node is a lot like a bittorrent client, some are well established and never move. Others only run when necessary and don't do much else. Why do you want a count anyway? What would that tell you?

Quote from: theBishop on December 26, 2013, 06:36:57 PM

Doesnt blockchain get bigger with messages that people can enter? I thought that. So if people add messages with every transaction it will grow more rapid that if they didnt. Could be wrong though.

You may have seen the messages on blockchain.info, but that is not on the bitcoin blockchain at all. I think there may have been a way to add text to a transaction, but I don't think it was ever used/enabled. It still is possible to send "messages" in the blockchain, but that's more complicated than I can explain.

Quote from: nazgul104 on December 26, 2013, 06:50:49 PM

Wouldn't the block size depend on how many transactions were in it when it was successfully mined? ie., you keep on adding transactions to it and as and when the hash generated is below the target hash, then this block is said to have been successfully created and a new block will start? So, determining the avg.size of the block based on the existing blocks would not provide a accurate number (or close to it) is what I think.

I'm a newbie here, so pls. correct me if my understanding is wrong.

You are exactly right. There's nothing stopping a node from mining blocks with no transactions at all, as well.

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

I looked at:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions

and didn't see an obvious text message field. Actually that might be neat though. Send the smallest transferable amount to a huge list of addresses with a commercial message. Voila. Bitcoin spam!

nazgul104

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Wouldn't the block size depend on how many transactions were in it when it was successfully mined? ie., you keep on adding transactions to it and as and when the hash generated is below the target hash, then this block is said to have been successfully created and a new block will start? So, determining the avg.size of the block based on the existing blocks would not provide a accurate number (or close to it) is what I think.

I'm a newbie here, so pls. correct me if my understanding is wrong.

theBishop

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Doesnt blockchain get bigger with messages people enter? I thought that. So if people add messages with every transaction will grow more rapid that if didnt. Could be wrong though.

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Difficulty is a double edged sword. On the one hand it protects bitcoin holders (hopefully). But it slows down miners. I don't think you'd find one miner who wouldn't want a lower difficulty level than other miners.

BTW I'm still trying to find out how many nodes there are (if you know). Isn't there a count somewhere?

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Please note that "difficulty" is not a bad thing like your posts are implying. "mining coins" is just a temporary thing to put bitcoins in circulation, mining is there for security purpose. The higher the difficulty=the higher the security wich is a GOOD thing.

pontiacg5

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 02:20:17 PM

You're right. I researched difficulty and found it can go down too. Depends on how long it takes for new bitcoins to appear. Bitcoin1 looked like a failure for a while (and may fail again...China knocked the wind out of it...and a vulnerability may be found eventually...worse than Sires/Cornell). Bitcoin2, being just a theoretical clone of Bitcoin1 would still have all the advantages of Bitcoin1 along with easier mining in the short term.

No,

The difficulty only goes down if the network hashrate goes down. Bitcoin never looked like a failure, china knocked no wind out of anything, and if any vulnerability in bitcoin is ever found it will be patched. Afterwards it will continue to be called "bitcoin," never bitcoin2, bitcoin 1.0, etc. The network, and thus difficulty, will likely go on without change.

This has happened in the past, and it will likely happen again in the future. Bitcoin is still here, doing just fine and it's still called bitcoin. You could go mine one of those old forks if you wanted, and what you would be mining is an ALTcoin since is not the majority bitcoin chain.

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

You're right. I researched difficulty and found it can go down too. Depends on how long it takes for new bitcoins to appear. Bitcoin1 looked like a failure for a while (and may fail again...China knocked the wind out of it...and a vulnerability may be found eventually...worse than Sires/Cornell). Bitcoin2, being just a theoretical clone of Bitcoin1 would still have all the advantages of Bitcoin1 along with easier mining in the short term.

pontiacg5

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

What?

Difficulty has absolutely nothing to do with block size, at all. Unless I am mistaken? It's simply a changing target, it always takes the same amount of integers to get there.

There already is a bitcoin 2, and a three, probably more. They are all complete failures as they should be.

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Went to the link for "block hashing algorithm". Pretty dense. I was interested in "difficulty" though and linked there. Apparently the difficulty can go down as well. That would be another great reason for introducing Bitcoin2 now. Not only would it be less difficult to mine Bitcoin2 now but the shift in computing power away from Bitcoin1 would reduce the Bitcoin1 difficulty. Maybe you would be able to go back and forth with greater profitability. Say, every two weeks?

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

What's a merkle? would be another great quiz question (multiple choice). I looked on wikipedia and didn't get too far. Then I went to "hash chain". It seems that if you have h999(x) you can't get to h1000(x). Maybe. But if you have h1(x) you should be able to recreate. So you just need to get in at the beginning or at password change.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

I would have to copy-paste the bitcoin wiki to explain that, that's why i linked it. I know, it is not easy, but that's how it works

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

I think it is more important that they understand why it is true or false (knowledge integration). I still don't know why.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

What matter is that new people reading this thread understand what is right and what is wrong.

AldenHurley

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: zatoichi on December 26, 2013, 12:48:56 PM

Interesting to find out Moore's Law is applied to storage (I thought only speed). Speed of course has no brick wall, you can halve your distance eternally, but (ignoring quantum computing) if you pack a "transistor" into the space of an atom, you're pretty much done. Actually I take that back. You can only halve the distance between transistors until they are an atom apart. Same thing I guess as storage problem.

But I thought the mining algorithm only kept getting harder due to increasing blockchain size. So if you remove stuff it screws with the system.

Not correct. Each block's hash acts as an input into the next potential block, creating a 'chain'. 'Removing' a block would invalidate all blocks recorded after it. That said, technically it's only necessary to maintain the merkle.

zatoichi

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

That would be a great true/false question for a bitcoin quiz. Wanna start collecting questions? I think a quiz score would be a good addition to profile information (rather than just "Activity" which is easy to get with one word answers....maybe they could multiply activity by post length).

Topic: blockchain storage requirements - page 2. (Read 2046 times)