Topic: new feature - bitcoin v.9 (Read 4526 times)
I love this feature!
I like this feauture, thanks
Figure out a way for late adopters to not have to download +8gb of data when they first start Bitcoin-qt.
Use a web wallet. Problem solved.
Yes, there are tradeoffs, but everything in life is about tradeoffs.
TradeFortress is it true your Satoshi?
They're built using it, not inspired by it. bitcoinj is the module that handles all the communication with the Bitcoin network. The apps add a GUI on top.
Thank you. I will fix it. I was trying really hard to give everyone credit, and I still dicked it up.
They're built using it, not inspired by it. bitcoinj is the module that handles all the communication with the Bitcoin network. The apps add a GUI on top.
I am using Bitcoin Wallet by Schildbach on my Android tablet. It is fast and cool, although I still don't know how it works.
Now I know how it works:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2690447
And Schildbach is:
http://schildbach.de/
MultiBit by Jim Burton (lead developer) with Gary Rowe and Tim Molter (contributors), and Android "Bitcoin Wallet" by Andreas Schildbach, with both projects incorporating the innovative code from bitcoinj by Mike Hearn https://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/
When measuring exponential growth, average block size is more useful than total block size. Since 2011, average block size is doubling only once per year.
Its a pity that my disk does not know anything about average block size.
Sorry if I did not make my point clear. I'll elaborate.
We are talking about the sum of a geometric series. However, this sum is not strictly exponential. The formula is proportional to (1−qn)/(1−q), where q is the growth factor in average block size and n is the number of blocks. When n is large, the formula can then be approximated as qn−1. When n is small, however, this approximation is not successful.
Consequently, to predict future block sizes, we must take into account the fact that the future approximation does not currently hold. A better prediction is to use the ratios of q itself, which is the growth factor in average block size.
Regardless the details upon which growth factor depends (you can't predict it precisely anyway), competition between blockchain size and hard drive densities is silly. Waste of resources. Bitcoin blockchain is just quick and dirty solution, and I hope, in the future, a crypto-coin will come out wich solves this problem in more elegant way.
http://thegenesisblock.com/significant-merchant-improvements-planned-for-bitcoin-v0-9/
seems like innovation is continuing. what do people think? what should be added to v1?
seems like innovation is continuing. what do people think? what should be added to v1?
Coin control.
Doesn't MultiBit still store private keys unencrypted by default, and require major gymnastics every session to encrypt then delete unencrypted version?
"all private keys are kept encrypted on your local machine (or on a USB stick)"
http://www.multibit.org/features.html
Ah, just downloaded and poked the .wallet files in ~User\Library\Application Support\Multibit with the TextEdit stick. They aren't in clear text anymore. Cool.
When measuring exponential growth, average block size is more useful than total block size. Since 2011, average block size is doubling only once per year.
Its a pity that my disk does not know anything about average block size.
Sorry if I did not make my point clear. I'll elaborate.
We are talking about the sum of a geometric series. However, this sum is not strictly exponential. The formula is proportional to (1−qn)/(1−q), where q is the growth factor in average block size and n is the number of blocks. When n is large, the formula can then be approximated as qn−1. When n is small, however, this approximation is not successful.
Consequently, to predict future block sizes, we must take into account the fact that the future approximation does not currently hold. A better prediction is to use the ratios of q itself, which is the growth factor in average block size.
When measuring exponential growth, average block size is more useful than total block size. Since 2011, average block size is doubling only once per year.
Its a pity that my disk does not know anything about average block size.
If blockchain size doubles every half year, and hard drive density doubles every year, I wonder, who will finally win?..
When measuring exponential growth, average block size is more useful than total block size. Since 2011, average block size is doubling only once per year.
If blockchain size doubles every half year, and hard drive density doubles every year, I wonder, who will finally win?..
10 GB block chain size is an issue. We are only 4 years into the use of bitcoin with relatively low amount of transactions. Fast forward 10-15 years once bitcoin is main stream, and block size definitely could become a major issue. It would be nice if a "new" genesis block could be created every 5 years or so. All the past transactions could be rolled up into an offline archive. The block chain size also becomes an issue for mobile (phones) devices. Nobody wants to download a 25-50 GB file before they can use their phone wallet.
Take into account that blockchain size doubled since early this year. If it continues to grow at same rate, in early 2017 it will exceed 1TB, in the middle of 2018 10TB, by the middle of 2020 100TB, etc.
No, this is not an issue at all
I wonder what else doubles every year...
Doesn't MultiBit still store private keys unencrypted by default, and require major gymnastics every session to encrypt then delete unencrypted version?
"all private keys are kept encrypted on your local machine (or on a USB stick)"
http://www.multibit.org/features.html
"Faster to synchronize - usually a minute or so"
But how does it work? described here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/block-chain-sizestorage-and-slow-downloads-for-new-users-252937
We've changed the default client recommendation on bitcoin.org to be MultiBit, so new users should be downloading that instead. MultiBit syncs the block chain in a few seconds for new users, because it's an SPV client. The security model is stronger than a web wallet and not quite as strong as Bitcoin-Qt, it's somewhere in the middle.
Basically - as long as the majority of mining power is honest, MultiBit is secure. Caveat: unconfirmed transactions when you have a malicious internet connection, then, you may see bogus unconfirmed transactions that are garbage and will never confirm.
Basically - as long as the majority of mining power is honest, MultiBit is secure. Caveat: unconfirmed transactions when you have a malicious internet connection, then, you may see bogus unconfirmed transactions that are garbage and will never confirm.
Use a web wallet. Problem solved.
Not for web wallet. With exponentially growing blockchain size, it will become a problem for them very soon.Of course yes. They will need to double their storage every several month. Do not think that it will be for free.
I have visions of sysadmins frantically purchasing new drive after new drive to add to their servers, all sitting empty.
Hint: with the current block size limit, a 1 TB drive will die of old age long before it fills up in 2032 (at the soonest).
Use a web wallet. Problem solved.
Not for web wallet. With exponentially growing blockchain size, it will become a problem for them very soon.Of course yes. They will need to double their storage every several month. Do not think that it will be for free.
Use a web wallet. Problem solved.
Not for web wallet. With exponentially growing blockchain size, it will become a problem for them very soon.
Dont you guys agree with that?
Jump to: