Hey so I was asked about a problem with MaryJaneCoin's code and wondering if you guys might be able to help in some way as well?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=793704.2720
Could be some good PR to correct an issue in a coin with a hardworking community....
Topic: [HYP] HyperStake | Generous Reward Staking | Advanced Staking Controls & Wallet - page 156. (Read 679332 times)
April 11, 2015, 05:17:05 AM
April 11, 2015, 03:39:03 AM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
I just wanted to reply and make this quote thread even bigger.
why on earth would you want to do that?
I don't know, more data, more better right? Eventually we can fill the known universe with trivial historical block chain data.
Eventually we will fill a little crystal with the known universe
It can't be called trivial if somebody relies on it in his work.For Coins to survive it means that people needs to work together in order to keep relevant, gone are the days where a person should viciously guard their secrets.
April 11, 2015, 02:02:19 AM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
I just wanted to reply and make this quote thread even bigger.
why on earth would you want to do that?
I don't know, more data, more better right? Eventually we can fill the known universe with trivial historical block chain data.
Eventually we will fill a little crystal with the known universe
It can't be called trivial if somebody relies on it in his work. April 10, 2015, 08:52:52 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
I just wanted to reply and make this quote thread even bigger.
why on earth would you want to do that?
I don't know, more data, more better right? Eventually we can fill the known universe with trivial historical block chain data.
April 10, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
I just wanted to reply and make this quote thread even bigger.
why on earth would you want to do that?
April 10, 2015, 07:48:29 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
True enough, but how long do you think that will go on? I suspect that less than a dozen coins will survive that long. Most come and go rather quickly, offering really nothing new and the devs lose interest and/or pull a runner with a premine. I follow a lot of coins, but only maintain about five blockchains, one of which is NOT BTC because of Electrum
April 10, 2015, 07:07:16 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
I just wanted to reply and make this quote thread even bigger.
April 10, 2015, 05:57:45 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
thats a GREAT idea... take it a step further and make the sfx theme-able
April 10, 2015, 05:42:48 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
I think 2015 is going to be a killing field with most altcoins fading away, with those that remain becoming much stronger.
*And I also think one could 110% guarantee HYPs place as a survivor if Presstab would add in sound effects from Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure for when you stake a block ("Most Triumphant!" "Excellent!") or get an orphan ("Bogus Dude!")
April 10, 2015, 05:16:12 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
I heard PandaCoin had a lite Client a while back along with quick-sync.
I'm more along the lines that there will be many different types of Coins so although hard drives are getting bigger, you also have more Blockchains to run so it doesn't hold up to moore's law when you are holding hundreds of different Coins.
April 10, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
You guys really do like making me work hard don't you?? 
just some ideas
April 10, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
You guys really do like making me work hard don't you??
April 10, 2015, 10:10:58 AM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.I'm divided on this, but mostly I fall to the side of keep the data forever.
I also suspect that storage won't be a huge issue going forward. HDD's just keep getting bigger, and SSD are getting bigger, cheaper, and more efficient as well. Plus, there are things like Electrum, though I think at present it couldn't work for staking coins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that, because a thin client for Hyp would kick ass.
April 10, 2015, 09:14:45 AM
Something I've been really interested in is pruning off a large portion of Blocks after a certain period. The thing I notice with older CryptoCurrencies is that after 1-2 years the amount of data the Blockchain holds is quite large, especially if there is a lot of activity. Typical growth for most Coins is in the neighborhood of 500 MB - 1GB a year but if it was REALLY popular and handled a lot of transactions then it could be upwards of 5 BG a year, now this may not seem like a huge amount of growth but most people hold lots of different types of Coins AND you need to sync all those Blocks so 20 different types of Coins is a lot of space! What I was thinking with this was something along the lines of the CLAMS distribution such as where you would take all the unspent addresses into a new Genesis and kill off the old chain, as it is though that would also create 2 distinct chains so then how could it be done where you could do that automatically and always keep the size of the Blockchain within a limit?
Yeah, it's known problem of all most popular coins. The problem is not only in a disk space, but also in the wallet launch & sync time. The bigger blockchain, the more time is required to start & sync. Fresh (new) blockchain at the beginning of each year would make life easier.
April 10, 2015, 07:48:36 AM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity
The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later. April 10, 2015, 07:13:59 AM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).
April 09, 2015, 08:06:57 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction verifications as in bitcoin's MultiBit.
April 09, 2015, 12:23:03 PM
ever look at cryptonite?
April 09, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
Something I've been really interested in is pruning off a large portion of Blocks after a certain period. The thing I notice with older CryptoCurrencies is that after 1-2 years the amount of data the Blockchain holds is quite large, especially if there is a lot of activity. Typical growth for most Coins is in the neighborhood of 500 MB - 1GB a year but if it was REALLY popular and handled a lot of transactions then it could be upwards of 5 BG a year, now this may not seem like a huge amount of growth but most people hold lots of different types of Coins AND you need to sync all those Blocks so 20 different types of Coins is a lot of space! What I was thinking with this was something along the lines of the CLAMS distribution such as where you would take all the unspent addresses into a new Genesis and kill off the old chain, as it is though that would also create 2 distinct chains so then how could it be done where you could do that automatically and always keep the size of the Blockchain within a limit?
I have thought about this as well. The difficult part would be figuring out how to be able to run both chains at once, thus not making old clients have to update.
April 09, 2015, 10:32:52 AM
oh and you missed it to!
such timeless classics as ::
[21:16] nothing worse than trying to prove a point in bad grammar....ugggg hate it.
[21:03] I said GIMP IT^2
[21:04] can't you hear?
[21:04] gimp it^2
[21:04] gimp it^2
[21:00] overall i am fucking up <--me
[21:00] how are you fucking up?
[21:00] your woman on top or something?
mafort you say the irc is lacking and the only thing I see lacking is our time with you sir. We need to do a typhoon soon.. . it's been too long
such timeless classics as ::
[21:16]
[21:03]
[21:04]
[21:04]
[21:04]
[21:00]
[21:00]
[21:00]
mafort you say the irc is lacking and the only thing I see lacking is our time with you sir. We need to do a typhoon soon.. . it's been too long
True. A typhoon will be nice. Let's set up a day and bring it!!
Jump to: