Blockchain will be >1.8 TB , but with 2mb Blocks >5 TB in 10 years!

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 4615

Quote from: RealBitcoin on October 12, 2016, 11:12:38 AM

In any case calculations were based on blockchain.info charts,

We've discussed this before. For some reason you seem to feel the need to keep re-posting the same nonsense every few weeks.

I don't really have a problem with your charts. I have a problem with the way you lie about what your charts are representing.

You claim in the subject line of this thread:
"with 2mb Blocks >5 TB in 10 years"

But you know very well (because we've discussed this before, and you admitted so) that your charts are assuming that the blocks are allowed to grow LARGER THAN 2 MB.

If you want to post:
"Blockchain will be 1.8TB if blocksize grows beyond 1MB at current rate"
or
"Blockchain will be >5TB if blocksize grows beyond 1MB at double the current rate"

Then everything would be fine, and I'd be on your side of this discussion.

But for some reason you seem to insist on creating new posts on a regular basis that make it look like you are incapable of simple maths (like addition).

Quote from: RealBitcoin on October 12, 2016, 11:12:38 AM

and it's not just the transactions but the signature too, which increases quadratically.

There is more in a block than just that.

And now you are just making up complete nonsense.

The signature is part of the transaction. It doesn't increase. Not linearly, nor in a quadratic fashion. The signature is always 64 or 65 bytes for each signature.

The block has an 80 byte header, and the (currently 1 MB maximum) transactions. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Every time.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: BTCLovingDude on October 12, 2016, 11:31:41 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on October 12, 2016, 11:12:38 AM

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

that is why light wallets (SPV wallets) were invented Cheesy

i live in a shitty country with shittier internet connection, and i am using Electrum, i don't have to be running a full node in order to use bitcoin.

ok but we are talking about full nodes here, and the more there are the better for bitcoin.

But a block increase would decrease the number of full nodes, guaranteed. And we need to avoid this.

BTCLovingDude

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1010

BTC to the moon is inevitable...

Quote from: RealBitcoin on October 12, 2016, 11:12:38 AM

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

that is why light wallets (SPV wallets) were invented Cheesy

i live in a shitty country with shittier internet connection, and i am using Electrum, i don't have to be running a full node in order to use bitcoin.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: yayayo on October 12, 2016, 06:22:38 AM

RealBitcoin, you are right. The shills of Andresen, Hearn and Ver here are truly an annoyance, albeit a hilarious one. Their previous doomsday scenarios of "blocks-are-full-bitcoin-will-die" have already been proven dead wrong by reality.

Many bigblockers do not realize that blockchain size growth is not linear, it is currently exponential as your chart clearly shows.

Even though a 5 TB blockchain is huge, I think it might still be ok to be stored on regular HDD's in 10 years. The real problem is bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. While there are improvements in Internet infrastructure as well, bandwidth growth is far slower than needed to absorb Bitcoin growth in future when all transactions are stored in blocks via the original method.

So the propaganda of bigblockers shows a severe lack of technological understanding. Bitcoin just can't scale to be a global payment system without solutions such as Segwit and LightningNetworks that reduce the data load of transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

Just call them out what they are:

Socialists & Communists.

They want unlimited free bitcoin "Bitcoin Unlimited & Classic" wallets. (probably wealth redistribution in later hardfork patches)

Quote from: franky1 on October 12, 2016, 06:48:22 AM

LOL

I thought you would get triggered , there is no way I make a post about hardfork and you wont reply to it immediately.

In any case calculations were based on blockchain.info charts, and it's not just the transactions but the signature too, which increases quadratically.

There is more in a block than just that.

Quote from: pedrog on October 12, 2016, 06:57:00 AM

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

Yeah and you want bitcoin to stay decentralized, not on "hosting platforms".

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

How will your average joe run a blockchain and keep bitcoin decentralized?

Red-Apple

hero member

Activity: 1470

Merit: 655

Quote from: RealBitcoin on October 12, 2016, 05:43:45 AM

This is a response thread to:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fact-check-bitcoin-blockchain-will-be-700gb-in-4-years-1612543

did you even read that topic you are quoting here?!
in short there are two things wrong with what you are saying here.
1) you are extrapolating data which always will have a huge error factor which you are not considering here!
lets say today block size rises to 2 MB
every 10 minutes on average 1 block is mined
24 hours is in a day
24 hours * 6 blocks * 365 days *10 years = 525,600 blocks * 2 MB each = 1.05 terabyte (TB)

2) we are talking about 10 years so consider this. ten years ago in 2006 we didn't know what SSDs are, we didn't have this much storage on our PC, big storage was expensive now we all have 2 TB, 4 TB as a normal cheap storages. the same thing is true about the future.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3071

Quote from: pedrog on October 12, 2016, 06:57:00 AM

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

Yep. But it's not 10 years from now. It's now. And 1MB is still where we are on the curve for "gradually phasing in" bigger blocks, as Satoshi says in your quote.

New internet infrastructure, cheaper data, bigger/faster storage and progress in processors will all play their part to make sure increased blocksizes won't hurt the network. But that's not the world we're living in, yet. Meanwhile, smart optimisations and compromises are being sought. Fail to see the problem with that, until improvements in internet infrastructure make running a Bitcoin node look more attractive, that is.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: lottery248 on October 12, 2016, 06:59:26 AM

lmao even if not that much database needed, you would still take you hours if not days to load all of your bitcoin wallet, and may lag your old PC.

do you think you will be using the exact same computer in 10 years.
if anyone right now is using a windows XP computer with just a 20gb hard drive and 512mb ram (standard 10 years ago) they only have themselves to blame for not bing able to run a node today.
similar thing wil be said in 10 years.

on average a person upgrades their computer every 4 years. so in 10 years their pc should be 2 generations ahead of now.

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1005

beware of your keys.

Quote from: franky1 on October 12, 2016, 06:48:22 AM

LOL

1mb=52gb MAX per year (1*144(day)*365(year))
2mb=104gb MAX per year

so 2mb = 1.04tb MAX after 10 years.

doomsday debunked

have a nice day

lmao even if not that much database needed, you would still take you hours if not days to load all of your bitcoin wallet, and may lag your old PC.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

You're as visionary as IBM in 1981: "640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone" Cheesy

And don't forget, Satoshi was a "big blocker":

Quote from: satoshi on July 28, 2010, 10:00:38 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

LOL

1mb=52gb MAX per year (1*144(day)*365(year))
2mb=104gb MAX per year

as displayed

so traditional 1mb block consensus= 0.52tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)
so traditional 2mb block consensus= 1.04tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)
so segwit softfork 1mbbase 4mb weight = 4.08tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)

doomsday debunked

have a nice day

yayayo

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1024

RealBitcoin, you are right. The shills of Andresen, Hearn and Ver here are truly an annoyance, albeit a hilarious one. Their previous doomsday scenarios of "blocks-are-full-bitcoin-will-die" have already been proven dead wrong by reality.

Many bigblockers do not realize that blockchain size growth is not linear, it is currently exponential as your chart clearly shows.

Even though a 5 TB blockchain is huge, I think it might still be ok to be stored on regular HDD's in 10 years. The real problem is bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. While there are improvements in Internet infrastructure as well, bandwidth growth is far slower than needed to absorb Bitcoin growth in future when all transactions are stored in blocks via the original method.

So the propaganda of bigblockers shows a severe lack of technological understanding. Bitcoin just can't scale to be a global payment system without solutions such as Segwit and LightningNetworks that reduce the data load of transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

This is a response thread to:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fact-check-bitcoin-blockchain-will-be-700gb-in-4-years-1612543

The blockchain according to my calculations should be around 1.8 Terrabytes in 10 years. Currently it is 85 Gigabytes, and in exactly 10 years, with current growth pace it will be a little bit more than 1.8 TB.

And projected this to 10 years in the future:

And if the block size gets raised to 2 mb, it will be huge, more than 5 Terrabytes!

A huge blockchain awaits us, and maybe a 1.8 terrabyte blockchain is not that big in 10 years if Moore's Law stays constant. But a 5 terrabyte one would be catastrophic.

So these hardforkers have really lost the debate, they want to raise the block size to 8mb and then there wont be any nodes to host bitcoin because their bandwidth download speed wont work.

Imagine downloading a 5 terrabyte blockchain.... No ISP will give you that much bandwidth to host a node on!

But I guess franky1 will appear any minute now to tell us otherwise.

Topic: Blockchain will be >1.8 TB , but with 2mb Blocks >5 TB in 10 years! (Read 543 times)