Here is a calculator to help you.
https://iancoleman.github.io/blocksize/#_
I would suggest 1.5MB is a good average to set it to for the next 4 years. You are looking at about 205 GB a year max or under ~800GB after 4 years.
Topic: I've read somewhere in 4 years the blockchain will be 700GB - page 2. (Read 4986 times)
Yes it will be. It is already around 100gb and it just doesn't make sense to download all those senseless crap to your precious harddrive. I am using electrum because of this. Bitcoin core database can also get corrupted once in a while and its a pain in the ass to fix it back. (it takes days to fix it)
What happens once the size goes beyond 1TB, or beyond the biggest HD? what happens when you can't fit the blocksize in a regular HDs? Can you run 3/4 of the blockchain then the remaining 1/4 part in another HD?
LVM will do the trick. Anyone can build a virtual 2TB HDD from 2 hdd 1TB cap.It's not a HDD cap problem, it's how btc works.
I want to open a full node now (not for mining but for developing) and I can't because it's too big!
You don't have 100 GB of storage? Otherwise, I don't see why you can't. Optionally you could run a pruned node.700gb is x700000 then the current block size, even if the whole world are going to use bitcoins at a daily basis we won't need such a block size.
No, you don't understand what is being talked about here. They are not talking about 700 GB blocks, but the blockchain size growing towards 700 GB (currently ~100GB).-snip-
Obvious spam post. You have clearly read nothing and just wrote up some nonsense that you think is relevant when in fact it is not.
Do you remember floppy disks, size was 1.44 mb. I bought 1tb external hard disk two years ago, and now there is even bigger hard disks. So what we are talking about, digits goes up each year? And everything is happening very fast.
Welcome to technology era, new things are invented, old are upgraded, and upgrades are upgraded. Things will be alright, this will never happen, they are arguing now about block size, to increase it to 700 MB in 4 years is impossible. Where ever you read this guy who wrote it doesn't know nothing about bitcoins.
Welcome to technology era, new things are invented, old are upgraded, and upgrades are upgraded. Things will be alright, this will never happen, they are arguing now about block size, to increase it to 700 MB in 4 years is impossible. Where ever you read this guy who wrote it doesn't know nothing about bitcoins.
hardware capacity will increase ok, but what if people need to put the full node online 24h\24h because they have web services and things like this?
It would be impossible!
I want to open a full node now (not for mining but for developing) and I can't because it's too big!
It would be impossible!
I want to open a full node now (not for mining but for developing) and I can't because it's too big!
There are thousands of full nodes, so clearly it is not "impossible". There are many, many places you can launch a full node on a VPS or colo hardware for a full node.
I remember reading this here the other day I think, and it was at a 1MB blocksize rate.... I would guess that in 4 years maybe the blockchain has been increased, at least doubled.
Anyway, let's imagine it doesnt, and we stay at 1MB.... what do you think the price for 700GB will be in 4 years? If things don't change much, it means running a node will take almost an entire HD (let's say the usual HD size is 1TB).
What happens once the size goes beyond 1TB, or beyond the biggest HD? what happens when you can't fit the blocksize in a regular HDs? Can you run 3/4 of the blockchain then the remaining 1/4 part in another HD?
Anyway, let's imagine it doesnt, and we stay at 1MB.... what do you think the price for 700GB will be in 4 years? If things don't change much, it means running a node will take almost an entire HD (let's say the usual HD size is 1TB).
What happens once the size goes beyond 1TB, or beyond the biggest HD? what happens when you can't fit the blocksize in a regular HDs? Can you run 3/4 of the blockchain then the remaining 1/4 part in another HD?
There is no reason for the core developers to do that.
700gb is x700000 then the current block size, even if the whole world are going to use bitcoins at a daily basis we won't need such a block size.
Anyway, such a block size would hurt the community, as machines who stores the whole blockchain will need to have a massive built-in memory, which is almost impossible, and will make running a node alot harder and much more expensive then it used to be.
hardware capacity will increase ok, but what if people need to put the full node online 24h\24h because they have web services and things like this?
It would be impossible!
I want to open a full node now (not for mining but for developing) and I can't because it's too big!
It would be impossible!
I want to open a full node now (not for mining but for developing) and I can't because it's too big!
I already put a link to this draft of mine in one similar thread here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07926 . Going to polish it soon to announce then widely. PoW has ben changed(to solve incentives problem as well), so Bitcoin can't go this way definitely.
There is no will to resolve this issue. indeed. It is being actively resisted because....money. It seems that many of those that are worried about it are only interested because it is the last thing they might be able to monetise because mining is now out of their reach.
Quote
Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
Satoshi Nakamoto network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
FWIW, the biggest segwit block so far on testnet (#894090) is 3876524 bytes.
So, had all of them been as big as that one, it's 144*365*3876524, giving almost 204 GB per year.
Some method of snapshoting an entire UTXO set, at each/certain chain height and broadcasting/distributing these snapshots in a secured way - this is becoming more and more desirable... Not to say necessary.
But after it's finally done and accepted by the network, the blockchain size should not matter much anymore.
So, had all of them been as big as that one, it's 144*365*3876524, giving almost 204 GB per year.
Some method of snapshoting an entire UTXO set, at each/certain chain height and broadcasting/distributing these snapshots in a secured way - this is becoming more and more desirable... Not to say necessary.
But after it's finally done and accepted by the network, the blockchain size should not matter much anymore.
I already put a link to this draft of mine in one similar thread here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07926 . Going to polish it soon to announce then widely. PoW has ben changed(to solve incentives problem as well), so Bitcoin can't go this way definitely.
Yeah would seg wit not make a difference to this calculation now ?
FWIW, the biggest segwit block so far on testnet (#894090) is 3876524 bytes.
So, had all of them been as big as that one, it's 144*365*3876524, giving almost 204 GB per year.
Some method of snapshoting an entire UTXO set, at each/certain chain height and broadcasting/distributing these snapshots in a secured way - this is becoming more and more desirable... Not to say necessary.
But after it's finally done and accepted by the network, the blockchain size should not matter much anymore.
So, had all of them been as big as that one, it's 144*365*3876524, giving almost 204 GB per year.
Some method of snapshoting an entire UTXO set, at each/certain chain height and broadcasting/distributing these snapshots in a secured way - this is becoming more and more desirable... Not to say necessary.
But after it's finally done and accepted by the network, the blockchain size should not matter much anymore.
Let assume 10% growth of the blockchain monthly. Quite real assumption.
It means growth of 3x every year.
It means blockchain growth of 81x every 4 years.
Exponential low.
This may be somewhat slower or faster which depends on the real world acceptance of bitcoin.
I think bitcoin and other virtual coin will remain "good" communitiy experiment only. Tools for "playing" on the exchanges and creating very few very rich people - it depends on the "communities" again.
It means growth of 3x every year.
It means blockchain growth of 81x every 4 years.
Exponential low.
This may be somewhat slower or faster which depends on the real world acceptance of bitcoin.
I think bitcoin and other virtual coin will remain "good" communitiy experiment only. Tools for "playing" on the exchanges and creating very few very rich people - it depends on the "communities" again.
I remember reading this here the other day I think, and it was at a 1MB blocksize rate....
The thread you are talking about is
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fact-check-bitcoin-blockchain-will-be-700gb-in-4-years-1612543
Pepe saw this thread too, but is not convinced by the wild assumptions made in this thread.
Bitcoin was designed with the advancement of technology in mind. The whole difficulty adjustment thing is to ensure that, even as CPUs get faster, we continue to get blocks that are 10 minutes apart on average. If you feel that expecting technology to continue to advance is wrong then you should find some other hobby. Forget about bitcoin.
Condescending much? It's like arguing with creationists! 
It's not a case of forgetting about bitcoin. It's about preventing it becoming purely a back end service for VISA, Paypal and Western Union.
- snip -
You seem to have MBs and GBs confused which is very out of character. I'm guessing they are typos. Might want to correct them.Yep.
There I am explaining how easy the math is, and yet I get my units mixed up and make a mess of everything. Thanks for catching it. I think I've fixed it, but at this point I'm a but burned out today and don't have much confidence in my ability to add and subtract.
Bitcoin has been running for 8 years now and the blockchain is less than 90 megabytes. If we double that size in the next 4 years, then the blockchain will only be 135 MB.
You seem to have MBs and GBs confused which is very out of character. I'm guessing they are typos. Might want to correct them.
Hard drive capacity will continue to increase, and it will most certainly outpace the growth of the blockchain. Disk space gets cheaper by the day.
You've been excellent at answering many questions on many threads then you come out with this tired trope. Please don't disseminate this rubbish. It's not, and has never been, a solution. It is the bitcoin equivalent of "Have faith that God shall provide".Bitcoin was designed with the advancement of technology in mind. The whole difficulty adjustment thing is to ensure that, even as CPUs get faster, we continue to get blocks that are 10 minutes apart on average. If you feel that expecting technology to continue to advance is wrong then you should find some other hobby. Forget about bitcoin.
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
Quote
What happens once the size goes beyond 1TB?
It will be happening in 12 years' time. I don't see anyone I know needing more than 1 TB in 4 years, yet, if they wanted to run a bitcoin node, they would run out of space with their regular 1 TB HD
No. They wouldn't.
The math is quite simple and very clear that we won't exceed 1TB in 4 years unless block sizes get MUCH larger (more than 4X today's 1 MB size). They are currently limited to 1 megabyte.
Bitcoin has been running for 8 years now and the blockchain is less than 90 gigabytes. If we grow at double that rate in the next 4 years, then the blockchain will only be 135 GB.
If EVERY blocks is COMPLETELY full at 1 MB per block for the next 4 years, it will only grow to 300.4 GB.
If block sizes are doubled with a hard fork, and EVERY block is COMPLETELY full at 2 MB per block, it will only grow to 510.8 GB.
Try the math yourself.
Take the size (in megabytes) you think the block will grow to after a hard fork. Multiply that by 144 (blocks per day). Multiply that by 365.25 (average days per year). Multiply that by the number of years you want to know about. Add 90,000 and the result will be the size of the blockchain (in mgabytes) at that time.
Yeah but I mean in 4 years.
I don't see anyone I know needing more than 1 TB in 4 years, yet, if they wanted to run a bitcoin node, they would run out of space with their regular 1 TB HD which is more than enough for most people. People no longer store movies etc, since connections are so good that you can stream them in HD. So most HD space goes for games, and 1 TB is more than enough. The average computer user will not need more than 1 TB in 4 years at all.
We aren't going to hit 1 TB in 4 years.I don't see anyone I know needing more than 1 TB in 4 years, yet, if they wanted to run a bitcoin node, they would run out of space with their regular 1 TB HD which is more than enough for most people. People no longer store movies etc, since connections are so good that you can stream them in HD. So most HD space goes for games, and 1 TB is more than enough. The average computer user will not need more than 1 TB in 4 years at all.
You're still going to need programs, games, etc. Everything that you can't store in the cloud. Furthermore, I think there will be shift towards offline storage again because of mass surveillance by organizations like the NSA who go to the cloud hosting companies and ask them for user data.
Jump to: