Topic: Memory is cheap - - page 4. (Read 2983 times)

Glad to see you've admitted the errors of your ways and now agree with the original post.  It takes a big person to admit they were wrong.  Next time - don't launch your disagreement with a personal attack.  Sorry your upload bandwidth prices (from 2 years ago) are bad.  However, on a decent provider they remain cheap - even in view of the high load that full nodes demand.  Now get out of Zimbabwei if you want to run a node.  Maybe move to a decent country like Germany or Holland. 

Well, then it is technically correct (similar (but not the same) with a non-node full client).

I'm not using Azure. This node is located in a remote location with a normal domestic connection (albeit, almost the top tier that is available). The last time that I've talked to a higher ISP representative (which was 2-3 years ago) they've told me that upload bandwidth is quite expensive and this is why their upload speed was much lower compared to the download one.

---

---

That's not the intend behind the statement; I've just 'written down' the impression that I had. I've 'pulled it back' as it was a misinterpretation; there was no need to be hyperbolic about it.

That would be a ridiculous statement (as my background is IT). I think that you're confusing Soros Shorts's node (which is on Azure) and mine (residential connection).

---

---

Back to memory: It does not cost much (even though we should not generalize), especially in 1st world countries (e.g. USA). It might be a bigger sum for people located in 3rd world countries. My node is currently on a 250 GB drive which I've picked up for $20 and there's plenty of space left (70+ GB).

That was my assumption for movies - it was not an estimate of a full node bandwidth.  

Bandwidth is still cheap.  Your Azure package includes LOTS of other services - in addition to the bandwidth.  You are paying this price for the package of services.  You can have VERY cheap bandwidth - if that is all you need.  Your fancy Azure package is what is expensive - not the bandwidth.  

Actually, there is a need to resort to childish behaviour.  When you start your argument with 'doesn't know what he is talking about' - you've already abandon a logical response and started a personal attack.  You therefore are the childish asshole and need arises to address childish assholes with stuff they understand well.  I am just trying to get on your level my friend.

I am saying you don't know the difference between memory and bandwidth.  The post is about cheap memory.  Look at the chart.  Bandwidth is another issue - if you live in Zimbabwei.  Bandwidth is very cheap everywhere else.  Don't point to your Gucci Azure package - that fancy VM and other services (i.e. 100% uptime) is what really cost money - not the bandwidth.  

Actually that particular node is hosted in an Azure VM in their Japan East datacenter and costs me $120-$180 a month to run, depending mostly on how much bandwidth I use that month.

144GB is nothing indeed (depending where you are), however you've missed the "in 6 days" part.

Please link me to the ISP with an unlimited plan with decent speeds that is <$10 a month. Otherwise this is just hyperbolic nonsense.

The initial download is not what the problem is nor the problem with your statement:
People advocating for contentious HF's don't really care about that apparently. I can also picture memory being more expensive in those areas, am I right (storage can be quite cheap but only depending on where you're from)?

---

---

How? I was told that it was only that expensive in Zimbabwei

---

---

Update: Several updates to post; more are probably coming.

Yeah that is definitely the bigger problem. Where I live, the speed of internet is very very slow. It is like 10mbit/sec. I really hate it and I hope the internet companies do something about it.

lol!  Fuck you.  I definitely know what I am talking about.  144GB is NOTHING!!  You must be a very cheap son of a bitch to complain about this bandwidth since one can buy unlimited for about $100/yr.  Your provider is in Zimbabwei so you pay more.  

You ONLY have to download the chain once.  True, a full node relays shit all day long - but my original claim that you only have to download the chain once is correct.  So now who is the fuck wad that doesn't know what they are talking about?   That would be you.  Moron.

Your node sent out 150GB?  That has nothing to do with memory asshole.  Read the title of the thread.  Now who doesn't know anything.  Bandwidth has nothing to do with memory.  My claim is the memory is cheap.  Bandwidth is also cheap but that is not what the post is about.  By the way, you only have to download the blockchain once.  Get it dumb-ass?  Just because you sent out 150GB last month, your memory requirements didn't go up.  that is your bandwidth requirements.  How many times did you download the entire blockchain last month?  ZERO!  That's right, because my first claim was in fact correct.  You only have to download the blockchain once.  So a full node has some bandwidth issues - OK - great topic go start your own thread.  That has nothing to do with the fact that a HUGE blockchain can easily be accommodated on a bunch of cheap memory.

Lauda - you are a fuck wad.  When you start telling people they don't know what they are talking about - and then you do change the topic -  you are total bullshit.  Stick with the topic - memory is cheap, the blockchain can get huge and it doesn't cost much to accommodate it.  If you have having trouble with bandwidth - get a better subscription.  But don't say I don't know what I am talking about because I know the difference between memory and bandwidth.  Fuck off.

I know it is such an amazing thing

Just another example of a person who clearly has no idea what he's talking about. No idea how I missed this idiotic post on my first visit to this thread. You obviously don't even know how nodes work. why nodes spend this much bandwidth. Seems like the original statement was correct (more or less) and I had misinterpreted it.

Correct. Even nodes with lower upload connections and total number of connections send out a lot of data. In April my node spent ~150GB of data.

---

---

Update: Removed initial statement as it was a misinterpretation.

No you don't just download the chain and be done with it. A full node does not only download blocks - it also receives and relays unconfirmed transactions and sends out blocks to other SPV clients.

Your node could easily send out terabytes of data in 1 month if you don't restrict it.

This node has been up for only 6 days and has already sent out 144 GB.

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!

Irony alert lol. Cheap RAM is an argument for Lightning channels, not Gavin Andresen BloatCoin. Duh, OP. Duh.

And it will only keep falling in the coming years 

And electricity costs are an issue for others. If mining becomes slightly less centralized in China, I won't lose any sleep.


Segwit, or rather the promise of segwit in another Two Weeks^TM year, give me exactly the same amount as NOTHING.

Here we go again, threads that are a result of inadequate research. 2 MB block size limit:

• Increase storage requirement (the blockchain is already huge(
• Increased network requirement
• Attack vector at 2 MB (validation that takes longer than 10 minutes)
• 2x TX capacity

Segwit gives you almost the same amount of TX capacity while avoiding the attack vector, scaling down the validation from O(n^2) to O(n) making it linear. It also comes with other benefits and fixes required for LN.

The blockchain size isn't too much, we download many things online and when you think you download all the blockchain for less than 100GB it isn't too much. I'm pro 2MB/block.

I can't be the only one that remembers the time when user to user data transfers would mostly happen offline because home internet was unreliable and bandwidth was expensive. This is still the case for many countries, and home internet isn't exactly cheap for most of the world. Hard drive space isn't the only issue.

the size even, it just shows how smart human minds can develop and achieve

i think the issue with the bigger blocks isnt the hard drive space..
its the fact that right now you have to include a fee to send bitcoin.. if you dont it will surely get rejected and not sent..
but once the blocks are made bigger there will be so much empty space that even zero fee transactions will get included.. and when those blocks get filled people will start screaming for even larger blocks..

this is a problem, because the miners are supposed to get the fees.. and if you make them less needed.. they will get less..

What is this?
Another stupid thread and attempt to scream for bigger blocks??
The roadmap is out!And it's a good one.This had been discussed in a hundred threads now.
Getting tired of this.