Pages:
Author

Topic: Can the Block Chain get too big and make Bitcoin unworkable? - page 3. (Read 31560 times)

legendary
Activity: 947
Merit: 1042
Hamster ate my bitcoin
You guys worry too much.  No, the bitcoin network could not scale to the point that every person on Earth has a full client.  Yes, there are known pathways to deal with that, which have been generally known since Satoshi's white paper and are now very well understood.  No, they are not yet coded.  Yes, there are people who are working on those implementations at this time.

What solution are they using to solve the bandwidth and processing requirements?
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
You guys worry too much.  No, the bitcoin network could not scale to the point that every person on Earth has a full client.  Yes, there are known pathways to deal with that, which have been generally known since Satoshi's white paper and are now very well understood.  No, they are not yet coded.  Yes, there are people who are working on those implementations at this time.
legendary
Activity: 947
Merit: 1042
Hamster ate my bitcoin
Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion > Scaling

?
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
OK thanks for that clarification. To help me understand better: Say there are 1,000,000 people with Bitcoin accounts then how many people would have a copy of the block chain (based on present stats)?
As many as are required to keep the network decentralized. I'd say 3,000 is enough, but it's possible to make do with less.

I'm definitely getting the sense from the various answer there actually is a problem in the Bitcoin architecture i.r.o. scalability which has not yet been resolved. And this is clearly an issue. Relying on Moore's Law or hoping that a solution will "emerge" in the future when it is needed, is a dangerous way to proceed IMHO. Has anyone articulated a detailed solution yet whereby Bitcoin could scale to say 1 billion users (each making 1 transaction per day)?
Did you read the page in the wiki about scalability that was linked in a previous comment?

The solutions don't need to emerge, the solutions are known and just need to be implemented.

Does anyone know how many Bitcoin users there presently are? Or what the current average transactions per day are?
How many users is anyone's guess, depends also on whom you call a user. In the past 24 hours there were 20338 transactions.

Wow only 0.3% - that would make a difference in how I'm thinking about it.

I did read the wiki, and understood it to a degree (I'm not that tech) - but I still get the sense that it's not all worked out - and that it will be tricky to scale. It seems it's the fact that the architecture is decentralized in first place that makes for bandwidth issues. At 1 billion users and 1 transaction each per day (total 11ktps) and assuming 0.3% of people have the block chain that needs updating, that's still 11,000 writes to 3,000,000 locations each second. Sounds like a lot of traffic to me. I haven't worked out the numbers though...

What is your understanding about the practical implementation of the solutions to make for full scalability? Is it happening as we speak? Progress being made?

And a personal question: With all of your knowledge and understanding of the system, do you think it can actually scale to a billion transactions per day, with its present architecture, and not choke the entire global Internet? Do you personally think Bitcoin is truly a sustainable system that could support most of the world using it as its primary currency. Will the architecture actually scale ALL the way?
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
IMO scalability is the most pressing issue facing bitcoin at the moment.

For stats goto http://www.blockchain.info/

I agree. If it can't scale all the way ultimately (primary global currency) then we need to recognize that now. Even assuming 1 billion users (a mere 1/7 of current global population) doing only one transaction per day, that translates to 11000tps. Given Bitcoin's architecture and processing methodology that makes me nervous about whether it can actually ever grow to this kind of scale in practical terms.

Thanks for the link - very useful!  Smiley
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
OK thanks for that clarification. To help me understand better: Say there are 1,000,000 people with Bitcoin accounts then how many people would have a copy of the block chain (based on present stats)?
As many as are required to keep the network decentralized. I'd say 3,000 is enough, but it's possible to make do with less.

I'm definitely getting the sense from the various answer there actually is a problem in the Bitcoin architecture i.r.o. scalability which has not yet been resolved. And this is clearly an issue. Relying on Moore's Law or hoping that a solution will "emerge" in the future when it is needed, is a dangerous way to proceed IMHO. Has anyone articulated a detailed solution yet whereby Bitcoin could scale to say 1 billion users (each making 1 transaction per day)?
Did you read the page in the wiki about scalability that was linked in a previous comment?

The solutions don't need to emerge, the solutions are known and just need to be implemented.

Does anyone know how many Bitcoin users there presently are? Or what the current average transactions per day are?
How many users is anyone's guess, depends also on whom you call a user. In the past 24 hours there were 20338 transactions.
legendary
Activity: 947
Merit: 1042
Hamster ate my bitcoin
IMO scalability is the most pressing issue facing bitcoin at the moment.

For stats goto http://www.blockchain.info/
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
Thanks everyone for the solid answers and follow-up links. I see this matter has had a lot of discussion!

Seems that trimming the block chain is a viable solution if properly implemented.

Is it correct that every transaction that happens is written to the block chain of every user?

If so this would appear to present its own bandwidth problem.

In order to be viable as a long term sustainable currency, Bitcoin ultimately needs to be able to scale to billions of transactions per day (thousands per second). Is this possible if each transaction needs to update every single block chain stored on every user's computer? (Moore's Law aside...)
As mentioned, end users will not need the entire blockchain. Just the headers and transactions that involve them specifically, which is a tiny part.

OK, so it's not the case that every transaction (between anyone) needs to be written to every copy of the block chain??
It's more accurate to say that every transaction is written to every copy of the block chain, but not everyone has a copy of the block chain.

OK thanks for that clarification. To help me understand better: Say there are 1,000,000 people with Bitcoin accounts then how many people would have a copy of the block chain (based on present stats)?

I'm definitely getting the sense from the various answer there actually is a problem in the Bitcoin architecture i.r.o. scalability which has not yet been resolved. And this is clearly an issue. Relying on Moore's Law or hoping that a solution will "emerge" in the future when it is needed, is a dangerous way to proceed IMHO. Has anyone articulated a detailed solution yet whereby Bitcoin could scale to say 1 billion users (each making 1 transaction per day)?

Does anyone know how many Bitcoin users there presently are? Or what the current average transactions per day are?
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Thanks everyone for the solid answers and follow-up links. I see this matter has had a lot of discussion!

Seems that trimming the block chain is a viable solution if properly implemented.

Is it correct that every transaction that happens is written to the block chain of every user?

If so this would appear to present its own bandwidth problem.

In order to be viable as a long term sustainable currency, Bitcoin ultimately needs to be able to scale to billions of transactions per day (thousands per second). Is this possible if each transaction needs to update every single block chain stored on every user's computer? (Moore's Law aside...)
As mentioned, end users will not need the entire blockchain. Just the headers and transactions that involve them specifically, which is a tiny part.

OK, so it's not the case that every transaction (between anyone) needs to be written to every copy of the block chain??
It's more accurate to say that every transaction is written to every copy of the block chain, but not everyone has a copy of the block chain.
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
Blockchains can be compressed, so i dont think so
legendary
Activity: 947
Merit: 1042
Hamster ate my bitcoin
The current implementation of bitcoin does have upper limits. Primarily relating to bandwidth and processing requirements of transactions.

If the adoption of bitcoin outpaces moore's law, which I believe it will, then it will become unworkable unless a solution is found.

I think a solution will be found which will likely involve multiple chains or clients that operate in clusters.



hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
0xFB0D8D1534241423
The transactions can be pruned from it later.
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
Thanks everyone for the solid answers and follow-up links. I see this matter has had a lot of discussion!

Seems that trimming the block chain is a viable solution if properly implemented.

Is it correct that every transaction that happens is written to the block chain of every user?

If so this would appear to present its own bandwidth problem.

In order to be viable as a long term sustainable currency, Bitcoin ultimately needs to be able to scale to billions of transactions per day (thousands per second). Is this possible if each transaction needs to update every single block chain stored on every user's computer? (Moore's Law aside...)
As mentioned, end users will not need the entire blockchain. Just the headers and transactions that involve them specifically, which is a tiny part.

OK, so it's not the case that every transaction (between anyone) needs to be written to every copy of the block chain??
newbie
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
I thought the solution was to take a bunch of old transactions, hash them, and replace those transactions with the hash.  Though it's a one-way process, if someone has the original transactions, it's verifiable.

This is functionally what the merkle tree does.  Each transaction has it's own hash, which is then included into a binary hash tree with one other transaction, and then each of those hashes are paired and hashed again to form the full merkle tree.  The last hash (merkle root) is included into the block header, which is then hashed again when the next block includes it into it's own header, thus forms the 'chain' part of the blockchain.  That merkle hash root inside the block header is intended to represent that entire block (in the sequence of the lifespan of the blockchain) once every transaction included into that block has been spent.  Presumedly in the future a great many blocks would be reduced to only the 80 byte, fixed length, headers after a few years time.  There are already several blocks that could be pruned down this way to only those headers, but the pruning functions have not yet been implimented into any client that I am aware.  Mostly because it's not consider a pressing need at the moment.

Thanks for the explanation
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
I thought the solution was to take a bunch of old transactions, hash them, and replace those transactions with the hash.  Though it's a one-way process, if someone has the original transactions, it's verifiable.

This is functionally what the merkle tree does.  Each transaction has it's own hash, which is then included into a binary hash tree with one other transaction, and then each of those hashes are paired and hashed again to form the full merkle tree.  The last hash (merkle root) is included into the block header, which is then hashed again when the next block includes it into it's own header, thus forms the 'chain' part of the blockchain.  That merkle hash root inside the block header is intended to represent that entire block (in the sequence of the lifespan of the blockchain) once every transaction included into that block has been spent.  Presumedly in the future a great many blocks would be reduced to only the 80 byte, fixed length, headers after a few years time.  There are already several blocks that could be pruned down this way to only those headers, but the pruning functions have not yet been implimented into any client that I am aware.  Mostly because it's not consider a pressing need at the moment.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Hi,

I've just started investigating Bitcoin, and am very excited about the overall concept. I've only read a small amount of the tech, but as I understand it, the Block Chain contains a history of all Bitcoin transactions, and this Block Chain is replicated and stored on every user's computer (is that correct??). And when I installed Bitcoin for the first time, it took many hours to download the Block Chain - which seems to corroborate with how I understand it...

The immediate question which comes to mind is: As Bitcoin grows and many people start using it then could this file not become so big that the whole system becomes totally unworkable? If a billion people are using Bitcoin as their primary trading currency, with multiple billion transactions happening every single day, and every node is constantly being updated with the new information from all of these transactions then it seems this could be a very real problem. Not just for Bitcoin but in terms of overall Internet bandwidth usage!


Not all clients need to download the blockchain, just full clients for users who don't want to have to trust anyone as well as miners.  Also, even full clients can prune long spent transactions from their local copy of the blockchain, this is one of the functions of the merkle tree structure within a block.  Certain types of full clients can't do this for practical reasons, but any end-user full client could do it and still be able to verify every transaction that comes it's way.

Quote
Another thing - if someone wanted to fuck with Bitcoin, especially once it becomes widely used, it seems all one would need to do is set up two accounts to automatically send one Bitcoin back and forth multiple times a second (perhaps hundreds or thousands of times a second) - if the software can be so set up, and if that transaction needs to update all one billion block chains at every node every time, then it seems to me it would all just grind to a dysfunctional halt.


Try it.  See what happens.

EDIT: To end your suspense, it won't have any noticable effect upon the network as a whole, as this has been considered and already adapted for.  You will, however, succeed in losing your entire balance due to tiny fees required for 'low priority' transactions.  This will still take some time, however, since the network will largely ignore spammy transactions, due to a built in 'point scale' system that discounts bitcoins that have recently been spent.  This doesn't prevent any valid transaction from occurring, but it does delay those that they system consiers spammy.

Quote
I'm wanting to invest heavily in developing Bitcoin and perhaps even setting up an exchange in South Africa (average bandwidth about 1mbps), but if my concerns are real then it seems that Bitcoin might eventually become impractical to actually use once it gets to a certain size and level of adoption, and that in turn would cause the value of the currency to totally devalue. Seems potentially dangerous...

I would appreciate some solid and in depth responses to this.

Thanks for your help...

there has been much discussion on the topic of end users in Africa, mostly as bitcoin as a replacement for M-Pesa.  Do more research, you will learn much of value to your position.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Thanks everyone for the solid answers and follow-up links. I see this matter has had a lot of discussion!

Seems that trimming the block chain is a viable solution if properly implemented.

Is it correct that every transaction that happens is written to the block chain of every user?

If so this would appear to present its own bandwidth problem.

In order to be viable as a long term sustainable currency, Bitcoin ultimately needs to be able to scale to billions of transactions per day (thousands per second). Is this possible if each transaction needs to update every single block chain stored on every user's computer? (Moore's Law aside...)
As mentioned, end users will not need the entire blockchain. Just the headers and transactions that involve them specifically, which is a tiny part.
newbie
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
I thought the solution was to take a bunch of old transactions, hash them, and replace those transactions with the hash.  Though it's a one-way process, if someone has the original transactions, it's verifiable.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
. . . if someone wanted to fuck with Bitcoin . . . it seems all one would need to do is set up two accounts to automatically send one Bitcoin back and forth multiple times a second (perhaps hundreds or thousands of times a second) . . .

This is currently handled with enforced transaction fees.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
Thanks everyone for the solid answers and follow-up links. I see this matter has had a lot of discussion!

Seems that trimming the block chain is a viable solution if properly implemented.

Is it correct that every transaction that happens is written to the block chain of every user?

If so this would appear to present its own bandwidth problem.

In order to be viable as a long term sustainable currency, Bitcoin ultimately needs to be able to scale to billions of transactions per day (thousands per second). Is this possible if each transaction needs to update every single block chain stored on every user's computer? (Moore's Law aside...)

Pages:
Jump to: