Pages:
Author

Topic: Memory is cheap - (Read 2983 times)

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
June 01, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
#91
The post is about cheap memory.
Correct.

Bandwidth is another issue.
They're correlated in this case.

Bandwidth is very cheap also.
The definition of 'cheap' is subjective and internet speeds (and provided plans) have a huge variation based on regions. This is why the global average speed is quite low.

i guess its about the difficulty to mine as years goes by the deeper and deeper it would be. just like gold as the time goes by it is harder to find and its price is increasing because of the difficulty same in bitcoin. So the mining site will provide new technology to cope up in mining bitcoins and it will be m more expensive to us to buy more powers.  Grin
This post does not have any relevance to the original post. In other words, signature spam.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
June 01, 2016, 10:10:26 AM
#90
i guess its about the difficulty to mine as years goes by the deeper and deeper it would be. just like gold as the time goes by it is harder to find and its
price is increasing because of the difficulty same in bitcoin. So the mining site will provide new technology to cope up in mining bitcoins and it will be m
more expensive to us to buy more powers.  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
May 21, 2016, 10:53:09 AM
#89
The post is about cheap memory. Bandwidth is another issue. Bandwidth is very cheap also. The only issue is with the Network Infrastructure, the protocols used and handshaking between different types of network and so on.  
Look at the chart again. It is related about Bandwidth and not about the cheap memory. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
May 18, 2016, 10:22:21 AM
#88
memory these days are cheap because there are so many sorts of them.

That is not the cause. The principle cause is miniaturisation of the process that manufactures the memory types, not the range of types itself.

yesterday i bought a new one with the amount of 4tb the one with 4tb was half of the size of the one i bought 4 years ago that's so strange.

Again, miniaturisation is the reason for your wonder.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
May 18, 2016, 09:38:08 AM
#87
memory these days are cheap because there are so many sorts of them. They are getting smaller and smaller each year but the memory gets bigger and bigger how is that even possible. I bought a 2tb memory stick about 4 years ago and yesterday i bought a new one with the amount of 4tb the one with 4tb was half of the size of the one i bought 4 years ago that's so strange.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 18, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
#86
Irony alert lol. Cheap RAM is an argument for Lightning channels, not Gavin Andresen BloatCoin. Duh, OP. Duh.

Exactly.

The BloatCoiners love to make fancy charts. They are experts at linear extrapolation with very limited real data or by showing data irrelevant to the issues that are being debated. Remember that alarming graph that showed hitting the block limit with all painted red and drama? Guess what: Nothing happened.

To repeat it here for the 100th time: Memory is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is the network.

Also in general, assuming that capacity increases of the past decades can be extrapolated into the future without any decrease in the growth rate is science fiction. There are physical limits in miniaturization. We are already very close to these limits.

ya.ya.yo!
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The
old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
In the past memory was pretty expensive but know with technology improving it is allot cheaper then before. They can now store more memory in a smaller platform which is ideal in most situations. 
Memory was expesive but know you can buy more memory for less money. Technology is going so fast these days some people even say that is goes to fast.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 17, 2016, 03:39:27 PM
#85
exactly, 2MB every 10 minutes is basically nothing. that's about 416 Bytes per second (~3Kb)
Did you forget that blocks have to be validated? You can't just do the calculations like that and assume that the network would be healthy if it took 10 minutes to receive each block (assuming regular time between blocks). There's even that potential attack vector at 2 MB where the validation could take more than 10 minutes. However, this would go a bit away from the topic(?).
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
May 17, 2016, 03:36:02 PM
#84
I think the larger problem is network bandwidth rather than hard device capacity. Even with high speed Internet connection (> 20 Mbit/sec) it can take a couple of days to download the block chain from scratch.
lol.  You only have to download the chain one time - forever.  

People sit in their living room all over the planet streaming movies every night and you worry about 2MB every ten minutes?  Clearly you failed your math A levels.  

exactly, 2MB every 10 minutes is basically nothing.

that's about 416 Bytes per second (~3Kb)

even a dialup 56k modem could easily deal with that.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 506
May 17, 2016, 12:53:09 PM
#83
Most memories are cheap now a days
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 17, 2016, 12:51:59 PM
#82
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The  old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
This post makes little sense and does not necessarily contain the right information. The old generation of memory did not become "very cheap" (e.g. DDR2 2GB costs more than a DDR3 2GB stick). Unless you're talking about storage, then that might be a different case.

They can now store more memory in a smaller platform which is ideal in most situations.  
It really isn't about the space required to store memory when it comes to Bitcoin.

Now you can buy MicroSD cards with 1TB capacity and even higher if you so wish. So much memory in such a small piece of plastic. It's mind blowing.
The only thing that is mind blowing is that there are some fools that are willing to pay insane premiums to get those cards. I've managed to find a 512GB card and it costs a ridiculous ~350 euros.


Did some small calculation: If we assume a 2 MB block size limit and that 100% of the blocks are full (which is unreasonable) we have:
2MB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours a day * 365 days a year = 105.1 GB. A more reasonable view (75%) would result in the blockchain size increasing at around 78 GB's per year. This doesn't seem as much, but I'd hate downloading that from scratch (combined with the size today).
The price per gigabyte in 2015 is 0.03$ (according to this) which equals to ~2.4$ for that year. Which does not seem much at all (if we assume that these prices are available everywhere).
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1179
May 17, 2016, 04:45:02 AM
#81
Irony alert lol. Cheap RAM is an argument for Lightning channels, not Gavin Andresen BloatCoin. Duh, OP. Duh.

Exactly.

The BloatCoiners love to make fancy charts. They are experts at linear extrapolation with very limited real data or by showing data irrelevant to the issues that are being debated. Remember that alarming graph that showed hitting the block limit with all painted red and drama? Guess what: Nothing happened.

To repeat it here for the 100th time: Memory is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is the network.

Also in general, assuming that capacity increases of the past decades can be extrapolated into the future without any decrease in the growth rate is science fiction. There are physical limits in miniaturization. We are already very close to these limits.

ya.ya.yo!
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The
old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
In the past memory was pretty expensive but know with technology improving it is allot cheaper then before. They can now store more memory in a smaller platform which is ideal in most situations. 
Technology moves forward in a very quick fashion.

I remember buying a 128MB memory card was very expensive which made me stick to 64MB cards for quite a while. Grin

Now you can buy MicroSD cards with 1TB capacity and even higher if you so wish.

So much memory in such a small piece of plastic. It's mind blowing.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
SkyFall
May 17, 2016, 04:19:04 AM
#80
Irony alert lol. Cheap RAM is an argument for Lightning channels, not Gavin Andresen BloatCoin. Duh, OP. Duh.

Exactly.

The BloatCoiners love to make fancy charts. They are experts at linear extrapolation with very limited real data or by showing data irrelevant to the issues that are being debated. Remember that alarming graph that showed hitting the block limit with all painted red and drama? Guess what: Nothing happened.

To repeat it here for the 100th time: Memory is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is the network.

Also in general, assuming that capacity increases of the past decades can be extrapolated into the future without any decrease in the growth rate is science fiction. There are physical limits in miniaturization. We are already very close to these limits.

ya.ya.yo!
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The
old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
In the past memory was pretty expensive but know with technology improving it is allot cheaper then before. They can now store more memory in a smaller platform which is ideal in most situations. 
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
Forza Italia
May 17, 2016, 03:52:12 AM
#79
Irony alert lol. Cheap RAM is an argument for Lightning channels, not Gavin Andresen BloatCoin. Duh, OP. Duh.

Exactly.

The BloatCoiners love to make fancy charts. They are experts at linear extrapolation with very limited real data or by showing data irrelevant to the issues that are being debated. Remember that alarming graph that showed hitting the block limit with all painted red and drama? Guess what: Nothing happened.

To repeat it here for the 100th time: Memory is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is the network.

Also in general, assuming that capacity increases of the past decades can be extrapolated into the future without any decrease in the growth rate is science fiction. There are physical limits in miniaturization. We are already very close to these limits.

ya.ya.yo!
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The
old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 11, 2016, 12:46:42 PM
#78
Getting ~3GB/day here : http://213.165.91.169/
That is unusually low. Are you limiting your connection or something else somehow? What are your internet speeds? At this very moment my node has about 4-5 times more unconfirmed TX than your node.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
May 11, 2016, 11:59:03 AM
#77
What are you talking about? Running a node with the default configuration will easily use this much bandwidth.

Getting ~3GB/day here : http://213.165.91.169/
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
May 11, 2016, 11:52:09 AM
#76
Edit: Still waiting for halp Sad
...
It would cost me over $50 to download the btc wallet which is ridiculous.

And how much would it cost you to download the wallet if the blocks remain @1MB? Could you help me out with the math?

I don't have time to deal with trolls or people who are stupid trying to act smart. If you want to actually have a discussion then I would suggest reading and not posting nonsense.

It would have taken you far less time to say "It would cost me a ridiculous sum of money *regardless of blocksize*, because I pay $94/month for 500 gb of bandwidth." I would commiserate, and say something like "I hope that's a tv/phone/internet deal, or you live in some God-forsaken wilderness, 'cos otherwise you're paying way too much."

Had you chosen to elaborate, you could have also mentioned that you can't into math, because confusing 2MB blocksize limit with every block being 2MB, something that has, roughly, zero chance of being the case.

At that point I would have taken pity on you, and helped you with your math.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1005
https://cryptodatabase.net
May 11, 2016, 11:32:20 AM
#75
Edit: Still waiting for halp Sad
...
It would cost me over $50 to download the btc wallet which is ridiculous.

And how much would it cost you to download the wallet if the blocks remain @1MB? Could you help me out with the math?

I don't have time to deal with trolls or people who are stupid trying to act smart. If you want to actually have a discussion then I would suggest reading and not posting nonsense.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
May 11, 2016, 11:24:12 AM
#74
-snip-
Still doesn't fit. You've chosen to ignore the data again:
Running a node with the stock configuration will easily use this much bandwidth.
Apparently stock configuration means that your node is misconfigured.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
May 11, 2016, 11:23:19 AM
#73
Assuming that his node is misconfigured just because it spent a lot of data within 6 days is foolish at best.
Your node could easily send out terabytes of data in 1 month if you don't restrict it.

I added some color for you. Misconfiguring a node with some ridiculous maxconnections (running it wide-open) is possible

What are you talking about? Running a node with the default configuration will easily use this much bandwidth.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
May 11, 2016, 11:21:00 AM
#72
I added some color for you. Misconfiguring a node with some ridiculous maxconnections (running it wide-open) is possible, and even a nice thing to do if you have unlimited bandwidth. It's also nice to tip your waiter $500 when you go out for lunch.
Allowing more users == misconfiguration for you? The analogy does not fit either.

Do you honestly not understand what I'm telling you? Tipping your waiter $500 on a $20 meal is also, technically, not a mistake (misconfiguration), but only if you understand that you're leaving an unusually large tip & can afford to do so.

For those of us living in third world countries, on <$1 a day, OTOH, leaving a $500 tip would be a mistake.
In all honesty tho, I doubt they go out to fancy restaurants anyway. So the entire issue is as moot as the cost of running the node which they do not run anyway (because they can't afford to use bitcoin).
Pages:
Jump to: