Topic: Memory is cheap - - page 2. (Read 2983 times)

I think you didn't memory, but megabytes of space?
Anyway, the main problem with raising the block size is that you inevitable centralize nodes because the countries that need nodes the most are usually countries with impoverished technology with shitty economical situation venezuela. It's important that nodes are run all over the planet, not only the total node count. I hope that eventually we can hard fork for a higher MB block size, but it is not a priority at all.

Allowing more users == misconfiguration for you? That is not correct and the data that I've provided fits (50-80 connections). The analogy does not fit either.

This depends on min fee parameters.

By what comparison is that a lot of money? All the things you listed we already have, and the price of the said things in only falling down with advancement
of the technology that's happening litleraly every day forward. imho, arguments for consumption and prices of maintaining nodes are small enough and
even larger blocks pose no real expense.

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.
Doing so is in no way a prerequisite, for running a node or eating out.
Hope this helps

Edit: Still waiting for halp

Obviously 1/2 the cost of the proposed which is only $26.. Use your brain man don't rely on other humans to guide you step by step through life. I learned this math in elementary school 20 years ago..

You are starting to lead a unhealthy discussion. The only concrete data provided was either his or mine (numbers), and there is nothing more that could be referenced from within the thread. Assuming that his node is misconfigured just because it spent a lot of data within 6 days is foolish at best. It doesn't have to be his node, let's look at Shorena's node:


5 days = 247.21 GB. Case closed.

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

Here is some math for you, I really like math.

2 MB per 10 mins = 12 mb/hr

12 mb/hr * 24 hours = 288 mb/day
288 mb/day * 365 days = 105,120 mb

105,120 mb = 105.12 gb/yr

The math above should be pretty simple to understand, just basic multiplication with a small case of division at the end to turn mb into gb.

Storage shouldn't be an issue for most computers (right now anyway) as the standard laptop has 500 gb and a desktop usually has 500 gb - 1 tb of memory.

But, lets say that the 2 mb blocks are added and 2 years go by and I discover BTC. I download the core wallet and start to sync. The blockchain is already around 68 gb so we can do some more math here yay.

105.12 * 2 + 68 = 278.24 gb I would have to download. Now lets take into consideration the price of internet right now.

I pay $94/month for 500 gb of bandwidth. Roughly $0.19 per gb.

Now lets add up that cost with the size of the blockchain a couple years from now. Granted this won't be accurate as internet prices in my area have been increasing as the years go by but it will be close enough.

$0.19 * 278.84 = $52.98

It would cost me over $50 to download the btc wallet which is ridiculous. On top of that it would use 3/5 of my laptop hdd to download it. Now storage becomes a problem. Not only is it expensive to download one program but it will use up almost all of my available storage.

This isn't even taking power usage into factor. It is going to take some electricity to get that massive blockchain synced so will only increase the cost more.

Glancing through some of the other posts on this thread I saw unlimited bandwidth mentioned a few times. Here's some news for those that think unlimited will last forever. It won't. It costs ISP's too much money to let their customers just use what they want.

My ISP is one of the largest in the US (Suddenlink) and we used to have unlimited internet. Well, not anymore we don't and I foresee unlimited bandwidth going away for computer users in the near future.

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.
Doing so is in no way a prerequisite, for running a node or eating out.
Hope this helps

Here you go:
-topic questions, etc.).

Can you explain how you're getting 140 GB per 6 days (~24 GB/day)? Serious question.

That is true, yes.

That does not matter. I'm not making these statements because I would run into bandwidth problems (my node is on a unlimited plan, and so am I). I'm not exactly sure how much the internet package costs for my node.

I'm still waiting for examples of these providers (at decent speeds!). Are you talking about residential internet or servers?

I'd like to see data and a comparison chart (maybe someone could create it). However, if you're saying that 140 GB in 6 days is tiny in comparison to Netflix usage (of a single person?) in that time period then that is strange.

Memory is getting pretty cheap these days because we are getting farther which technology. It is now possible to store memory on smaller space. I wonder how the memory is going to be in the future when we are even further.

Where do you actually live Lauda?  Bandwidth is fucking nearly free.  Unlimited bandwidth for $10/month at many providers.  Of course 'unlimited' is nonsense, but it is so fucking cheap they don't bother to measure it any longer.  Most hosting providers stopped bandwidth limits a long time ago.  Even heavy bandwidth users aren't over loading the system.  Only Netflix and Brazzers is hard to handle. Bitcion nodes are FUCKING TINY in comparison.  



Exactly.  It is now too cheap to even meter.  So 'unlimited' can be purchase on the shittest hosting plans.

Dunno, probably pictures like this:


Sure, "cheap" needs to be qualified, and people living on <$1 a day most likely consider current prices prohibitively expensive, but until we have socialized internet access, this can't be helped. The point is prices are falling, so the one meg that cost us X a few years ago now costs us X/2.

More-or-less, yes. However, I'd rather that you PM me about my posts than us further spiral into off-topic discussions.

You can't really disagree with it. I never said that the network would be centralized, I said "more centralized" which is quite different.

I don't understand where people get this impression from? Bandwidth is not that cheap.

OP is is addressing the costs of "bloating" the blockchain with 2MB blocks, suggesting that cost increase would be trivial.
You, if I understand you correctly, counter by saying that trivial sums are not trivial for everyone the world over, and higher costs of running a node may adversely affect decentralization, limiting nodes to first world countries.
You punctuate your point by asking OP: "Do you want nodes only to be run by people in 1st world countries?"

Is this reading not accurate?

bandwidth or memory ?

Well... that i dont agree.
Wouldn't be centralization because a lot of places can afford that so would still be decentralized.

right now the main problem with bitcoin centralization seems to be energy for mining, where is way more profitable to do in china... so all big farms are there.

Which was followed up by questions to OP and his views. I don't see myself talking about people that are not part of the ecosystem, nor people for which $30 is a lot in particular (aside from replying to you). Focusing on a single sentence or figure will lead up to a misinterpretation of the post.

---

---

This is becoming off-topic.