Topic: The Bitcoin blockchain (Read 1058 times)

the requirement of such large scale complicated computations using thousands upon thousands of chips, is what secures it. if it onlyrequired 10 PC's to compute the block.. then i can easily turn on 11 computers myself and destroy the lot.

although its not energy efficient. MANY studies have shown the electricity usage of bitcoin mining is less than what las vegas use... and their currency is plastic poker chips (sarcastic joke)

bitcoins energy usage for world wide currency is many many times less then wall street (one district of new york) and their currency is USD
bitcoins energy usage for world wide currency is many many times less then london and their currency is GBP

so if we added up the power consumption of lasvegas, new york and london. then the total power usage of 'centralised currencies' is hundreds of times more then bitcoins 'peoples currency'.

putting it another way. if you were to imagine how many ATMS exist in the world. how many customer facing local banks there are in every town of the world. and how many office computers exist in them. then add the corporate offices and call centres. then add on the offices and call centres of mastercard and visa. then add on the offices of western union, then add on the offices the forex and stock exchanges..

bitcoin does not have that much amount of network cabling, does not have that many humans playing around with computers, does not have that many office desks, chairs lighting coffee rooms, toilets, etc..

so im not that bothered by it that much.,
and after all with ASICS
a single 1thash ASIC that has a power consumption of 2PC's yet has the computational power of 18000 CPU's(~56mhash). meaning that if the hashing power was the same today, but smart people did not make ASICS. then we would need 18k PC's per Thash. thus smart asic manufacturers are actually doing a great job reducing the amount of computers needed to protect bitcoin and making it more energy efficient.

give it a few years and petahash miners would have the same power consumption as a pc / thash miner

No. They don't

First of all, Bitcoin mining doesn't "solve the encryption".  There is nothing encrypted to solve.

Bitcoin "mining" uses hash functions to provide a proof of work. This proof of work is used to maintain a consensus on the ordering of transactions.  In exchange for doing this valuable and important work, "miners" are rewarded initially through the distribution of new value (inflation).  Eventually this work will be paid for with transaction fees.

franky1, thanks for contributing to my post.

Honestly, I think Bitcoin is the most evolutionary invention that I have encountered in my lifetime. I was not convinced at all that digital money can exist, as in'pure' digital money, that which cannot be copied or duplicated or double-spended, until I found out about Bitcoin and its public ledger solution. So now we have cryptocurrencies, which is odd cause I'd never imagined cryptography to be the core and the basis for digital currency but nevertheless, it happened to be realized so I'll just have to go with that. Perhaps there can be other basis for digital currency but at the end of the day what we have now is cryptos, and they work(so far), so might as well go with it.

I'm convinced that sooner or later, there must be an evolution of physical currencies to digital currencies. That I'm sure of. But as to what basis should digital currencies be, that I'm not so sure.  Cryptography-based currencies involves the computational power of the fastest highest available CPU with lots of electricity consumption to decrypt and to solve the encryption  in order to produce newly minted coins so to speak, and I'm not sure if that's the best, most efficient solution to create a currency IMO

if humanity has disapeared, who would be alive to use it? if humanity was lost, bitcoins would be the least of your worries

the same was said in the 1980's when people were wondering about games and programs... solution: technology grew.
15 years ago a 5gb hard drive seemed huge amount of storage, now we have 64gb SD cards the size of a postage stamp

the actual blockchain is stored on thousands of PC's ... it is not in one location ... the blockchain.info is just one persons display of information. no one should solely rely on blockchain.info, there are other services and websites for those that dont want to have their own copy. but still. no one should be relying on these third party services.

if unspent coins were deleted off of every copy of the ledger.. the chain would be broken, so its imperative that as long as bitcoin exists the chain of unspent coins is never broken. that is why the idea of 'pruning' the blockchain is being scrutinized and not automatically implemented

Yes, I did.  Thanks.  I've fixed it.

DannyHamilton, thanks for contributing to my post. You spelt ridiculous wrong btw

That is an extremely unlikely thing to have happen.  Every full node in the world currently has a complete copy of the blockchain.  You would have to destroy all copies globally to destroy "the blockchain".


While I suppose it isn't technically "impossible", it is unlikely enough that it isn't really something worth being concerned about.


Why would we need the blockchain if all humanity disappeared? Why would we care what happened to it under those circumstances?


It is impossible to predict how big data storage will be hundreds of years from now, so it's impossible to predict if the blockchain will ever grow to big to store.

At the moment, the maximum block size is 1 megabyte, and the protocol adjusts so that blocks are created approximately every 10 minutes. It is possible today to purchase a 6 TB Western Digital desktop harddrive for less than $300.  At a rate of 1 MB every 10 minutes, it would take 114 years to fill the single hard drive.

Beyond that, it is possible to set up an array of hard drives. As an example, you could load up a Drobo B800fs with eight 4 TB hard drives.  this would give you access to 29 TB of storage.  That's enough to store maximum blockchain size for the next 550 years.

Larger capacity drives and larger arrays are likely to be created in the next 500 years, so it is reasonable to assume that storage of the blockchain for the next 1,000 years shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle.  Beyond 1,000 years, I think it is okay to let future generations decide for themselves how they want to handle commerce.  


Why do we care?  Blockchain.info is jsut one company that has decided to create a block explorer.  There are nearly a dozen of them out there.  If they all go away, you are welcome to check your own blockchain (or hire a programmer to do it for you).


Not much thought was put into your post, and there really isn't much food there.  It's mostly just a waste of time and a bunch of ridiculous rambling stream-of-consciousness garbage.

As we all know Bitcoin is all about the blockchain. This single, ever growing digital file that is the core of what bitcoin is all about, the ultimate public ledger that stores all the transactions that's ever occured and will occur within the Bitcoin system. So the big WHAT IF is, something happens to the blockchain. Can nothing ever happens to the blockchain, and that no matter what, this blockchain will survive even if all of humanity has disappeared? Will it never grow so big that it can never fit into a computer's harddrive? Will blockchain.info never be put out of service and never expire so that even in year 2530, we can still check up on Satoshi's genesis block that he never spent a single coin from that block? Food for thoughts everyone, have a happy Sunday.