Quote
You should make sure that you have enough bandwidth and storage for the full block chain size (over 100GB)
is this the size of the core or the size that has right now the blockchain. i guess the blockchain is downloaded by the core, am i right 
Topic: I've read somewhere in 4 years the blockchain will be 700GB (Read 4986 times)
when you go to the the site bitcoin.org and go to download section says
When I bought my first 1TB harddrive, it was more than 5 years ago.
I believe most people can afford 700GB for now.
I believe most people can afford 700GB for now.
once we start operating off the block chain, then we are open to security issues. keep in mind that a new or casual user these days or a "commerce" user in the near future does not know enough about the way bitcoin works to not get taken advantage of.
In part (as far as I understand LN and other similar proposals) I agree. There are more things an user must know and evaluate when using these off-chain systems than with regular on-chain transactions.
But in my opinion, LN and other off-chain methods are still suitable if you use them for small micropayments (everything less than 5-10 USD). Most people in first-world countries could afford to "risk" enabling a LN payment channel for, let's say, 100 USD per month. It would be like a prepaid card, and for potential scammers there would be probably not enough incentive to attack single users. (If there are attack scenarios that could affect multiple users at the same time, that may change, though).
Internet bandwidth is more of a concern when we talk about block sizes than HD space.
As Lauda already mentioned that's why synchronizing and reindexing a large blockchain would be a pain. The most obvious and easy solution would be to download blockchain snapshots before synchronizing, but that should be no solution for reindexing and it also could lead to some centralization (e.g. when most users use a certain source, that repo could develop into a single point of failure).
So in my opinion, it's absolutely a "must" that Bitcoin gets enhanced features which allow the main blockchain to inter-operate in a trustless manner with sidechains and alt-chains, and to do off-chain transactions (LN and similar solutions). However, a slight maximum block size increase should be doable (10-20% per year), as this is approximately the average internet bandwith growth per year.
As Lauda already mentioned that's why synchronizing and reindexing a large blockchain would be a pain. The most obvious and easy solution would be to download blockchain snapshots before synchronizing, but that should be no solution for reindexing and it also could lead to some centralization (e.g. when most users use a certain source, that repo could develop into a single point of failure).
So in my opinion, it's absolutely a "must" that Bitcoin gets enhanced features which allow the main blockchain to inter-operate in a trustless manner with sidechains and alt-chains, and to do off-chain transactions (LN and similar solutions). However, a slight maximum block size increase should be doable (10-20% per year), as this is approximately the average internet bandwith growth per year.
once we start operating off the block chain, then we are open to security issues. keep in mind that a new or casual user these days or a "commerce" user in the near future does not know enough about the way bitcoin works to not get taken advantage of. right now, that block chain, whether downloaded or accessed via the network is the one thing that will keep the novices safe
Internet bandwidth is more of a concern when we talk about block sizes than HD space.
As Lauda already mentioned that's why synchronizing and reindexing a large blockchain would be a pain. The most obvious and easy solution would be to download blockchain snapshots before synchronizing, but that should be no solution for reindexing and it also could lead to some centralization (e.g. when most users use a certain source, that repo could develop into a single point of failure).
So in my opinion, it's absolutely a "must" that Bitcoin gets enhanced features which allow the main blockchain to inter-operate in a trustless manner with sidechains and alt-chains, and to do off-chain transactions (LN and similar solutions). However, a slight maximum block size increase should be doable (10-20% per year), as this is approximately the average internet bandwith growth per year.
As Lauda already mentioned that's why synchronizing and reindexing a large blockchain would be a pain. The most obvious and easy solution would be to download blockchain snapshots before synchronizing, but that should be no solution for reindexing and it also could lead to some centralization (e.g. when most users use a certain source, that repo could develop into a single point of failure).
So in my opinion, it's absolutely a "must" that Bitcoin gets enhanced features which allow the main blockchain to inter-operate in a trustless manner with sidechains and alt-chains, and to do off-chain transactions (LN and similar solutions). However, a slight maximum block size increase should be doable (10-20% per year), as this is approximately the average internet bandwith growth per year.
I've got a cheap HP notebook that is over a year old, and the hard drive is 2Tb. I expect my next one will be much larger than that.
while that may be true, technology is going fast too. at this moment, there are two distinct wallet types for a computer, one that needs the block chain downloaded and one that does not. for common practice, a lightweight wallet is fine. i would imagine that those downloading the full boat, there are reasons, such as coding and programming tx's that they wish to do, that is why we have the whole chain.
also, tech for storage is going fast too. it was not long ago that a usb drive was restricted to under 64 GB, they are much bigger now. i would wager that a quick search could bring up a 1 TB usb drive, i could be wrong, but i bet if not right now, within a year it will be out there
also, tech for storage is going fast too. it was not long ago that a usb drive was restricted to under 64 GB, they are much bigger now. i would wager that a quick search could bring up a 1 TB usb drive, i could be wrong, but i bet if not right now, within a year it will be out there
Common hard drive space will keep up with the demands of the blockchain just fine. 1TB will be nothing in ten years and by the mid 2020s we will probably have 1TB on mobile devices and such to keep up with 4K video and larger file sizes of all kind. I remember not that long ago when 1GB of storage was a big deal. The size of the total blockchain is the least of bitcoins worries right now.
You are probably right, perhaps in a decade there will be more devices with a lot of storage capacity, but I do not want to imagine the amount of time it will take to download the entire chain, maybe the future lies in light wallets, and large chains will be stored in data-centers, If you look on the graphs of the size of the chain , it is being stretched to form a straight line upwards, and when this happens the size will grow at an exorbitantly large rate, perhaps it will be the largest system of data storage known by the human since the beginning of mankind, That is why other insurance projects are offering alternatives that are much more economical and more practical to perform, but since all are represented as pairs of BTC continue to carry on transactions to the huge chain.
I guess that means you do not really see the need for Segwit and Lightning network?
Common hard drive space will keep up with the demands of the blockchain just fine. 1TB will be nothing in ten years and by the mid 2020s we will probably have 1TB on mobile devices and such to keep up with 4K video and larger file sizes of all kind. I remember not that long ago when 1GB of storage was a big deal. The size of the total blockchain is the least of bitcoins worries right now.
1.6 Mega (after segwit) * 144 * 365 = 80 Giga per year
80 * 4 + 90 = 410 GB by the end of 2020
80 * 4 + 90 = 410 GB by the end of 2020
+1 for this...
I think it may reach the 700Gb only after 2023 or after.
and Segwit increases the size not the other way.
Hard drive space growths exponentially. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
That is a very nice graph. It does a good job explaining why this shouldn't be so much of concern. SPV clients make it easier for the average joe to spend btc and nodes are the only ones that will need beefy drives.
Only Moores law isn't linear so that graph is misleading.
Don't be fooled by the deniers. Moores law is an observation, not a "law", and the tech industry is already downplaying its significance. CPU speed has plateaued and memory (which is the tech being flouted by the 700GB fanantics) hasn't been following Moores law for quite some time.
Physics is a bitch and if one looks at all the technologies then the industry has come to the conclusion that Moores law is no longer valid. Intel, recently, changed Moores law to a "design goal" rather than a rigid expectation.
The shamen praying to Moores law for future proofing the blockchain will be finding their incantations insufficient.
But it does contribute to the network. It still has outgoing connections and it still validates and then relays all blocks and transactions that it receives to its peers.
The distinction should be that a full wallet is a full node, but not the other way around. A full node fully verifies and validates every block and transaction it receives and then relays them to its peers. However a full node need not necessarily have wallet capabilities. A full wallet is a full node with wallet capabilities.
The distinction should be that a full wallet is a full node, but not the other way around. A full node fully verifies and validates every block and transaction it receives and then relays them to its peers. However a full node need not necessarily have wallet capabilities. A full wallet is a full node with wallet capabilities.
But it doesn't need 100GB of disk storage to do that after it has synch'd.
On an aside to your last sentence......
Something like libbitcoin should be the reference implementation, preferably with a run-time plugin architecture for custom coins, and the community should supply pre-built binaries. Then developers across platforms can get their teeth into applications instead of trying to rip out bits out of another application. An RPC interface isn't good enough for developers.
I'm curious.
In your opinion, what's the difference between a "full wallet" and a "full node"?
I would say that a full node is a system which is using a full client implementation and has their port(s) open, thus it is sharing their data with the network (blocks and transactions). I have such a system somewhere. I also have Bitcoin Core on my laptop, which does not have any ports open and is only run when I want to transact (i.e. it is only used as a wallet). So a 'full wallet' would be a fully validating client that is used primary as a wallet and does not contribute to the network.In your opinion, what's the difference between a "full wallet" and a "full node"?
The distinction should be that a full wallet is a full node, but not the other way around. A full node fully verifies and validates every block and transaction it receives and then relays them to its peers. However a full node need not necessarily have wallet capabilities. A full wallet is a full node with wallet capabilities.
I'm curious.
In your opinion, what's the difference between a "full wallet" and a "full node"?
I would say that a full node is a system which is using a full client implementation and has their port(s) open, thus it is sharing their data with the network (blocks and transactions). I have such a system somewhere. I also have Bitcoin Core on my laptop, which does not have any ports open and is only run when I want to transact (i.e. it is only used as a wallet). So a 'full wallet' would be a fully validating client that is used primary as a wallet and does not contribute to the network.In your opinion, what's the difference between a "full wallet" and a "full node"?
Update: I guess I was slightly wrong here assuming that a node does almost spends no upload bandwidth on incoming peers.
- snip -
There are people that value their security and privacy and thus run full wallets (full wallet != node).
There are people that value their security and privacy and thus run full wallets (full wallet != node).
I'm curious.
In your opinion, what's the difference between a "full wallet" and a "full node"?
Well if we can get the blocks smaller, it won't matter. Also, if memory space is growing at a good rate, 700GB won't really be a big deal.
That is not going to happen. Smaller blocks? Where did you get that absurd idea from? Luke-jr? 
Hard drive space growths exponentially. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
That is a very nice graph. It does a good job explaining why this shouldn't be so much of concern. Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
1) Synchronize a blockchain of 700gb in 4 years.
2) Re-indexing such a chain, since "this shouldn't be so much of concern".
SPV clients make it easier for the average joe to spend btc and nodes are the only ones that will need beefy drives.
There are people that value their security and privacy and thus run full wallets (full wallet != node). Hard drive space growths exponentially. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
That is a very nice graph. It does a good job explaining why this shouldn't be so much of concern. SPV clients make it easier for the average joe to spend btc and nodes are the only ones that will need beefy drives.
Hard drive space growths exponentially. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
Bitcoin blockchain growths lineally.
Simple calculation shows what 1 modern hard drive can store full blockchain. That is not a problem.
Well if we can get the blocks smaller, it won't matter. Also, if memory space is growing at a good rate, 700GB won't really be a big deal.
Jump to: