Why do you need to download 7 years of chain block - page 3.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: AmDD on August 07, 2016, 07:36:52 AM

I will say that one per household may be a stretch but what about ISPs offering them? The internet works by DNS servers but I dont have one in my house, I use theone offered by my ISP. Same with a mail server, I dont use one thats setup in my home but rather one managed by my ISP. This gets us away from decentralization a bit so Im not sure its a good answer but I can see it happening.

Sure. And we'll all use web wallets connected to the full nodes supplied by the miners. You won't have one of those full nodes in your house either. Why you think an ISP is going to offer a full node, I have no idea.

The single ledger on every machine is the trivial,naive solution. They are not even using torrent tech to distribute it so you scream at 8 nodes to give you the data and hope they have decent connections. The real solution is a distributed file system so the ledger is spread around the cloud and you index the blocks as you need them. Then you only need a cache of the latest few once you have done the first bootstrap.

AmDD

legendary

Activity: 1027

Merit: 1005

Quote from: TransaDox on August 03, 2016, 05:09:59 PM

Quote from: AmDD on August 03, 2016, 03:33:59 PM

I think that in the future there wont be one blockchain downloaded for each user as it is today but more like one per household. A family will setup a computer and download the blockchain and keep it up to date while useing other wallets to point to that BC for verification and use. A family shares resources, there is only 1 fridge, 1 stove, 1 safe, etc. Yes more can be had but typically only 1 per household. Same will happen with businesses and such.

The chain is growing pretty fast and maybe one day we will reach a point where its tough to download but technology is also fast moving. I remember using dialup to downlaod Photoshop years ago.... took 3 days, but it was worth the trouble. Bitcoin is the same, if you want to use it then you'll do whats needed.

I think that's just clutching at a fantasy because you know deep down it's untenable.

Today in my pocket I have a tap & pay debit credit card that I can use in any shop around the world. I choose the product. Tap and wait for the fries. In the future I will still have a tap and pay card and the bitcoin part of it will be in HSBCs datacenter as it transfers funds from my account over to Bank of America account. Why am I going to buy a top of the range PC to tun a single piece of software so that my family have to use another different piece of awkward software just to send some birthday money?

Top range computer? You mean a rpi with a multi TB hard drive attached? so less than $100 investment? Sure that means buying the hardware and building it, that means linux and such which isnt something an average person can do however by the time this is needed someone will have created a product that you buy and plug in. Actually, it already exists... its just not cheap.

I will say that one per household may be a stretch but what about ISPs offering them? The internet works by DNS servers but I dont have one in my house, I use theone offered by my ISP. Same with a mail server, I dont use one thats setup in my home but rather one managed by my ISP. This gets us away from decentralization a bit so Im not sure its a good answer but I can see it happening.

lueosjsir

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

true, more like one per household.

data1

member

Activity: 85

Merit: 10

downloading the full blockchain is nessasary because if anyone tryed to insert a fauls transactuon into the network then every other pc will found it and will say hah nice try :p

tsoPANos

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

In math we trust.

If every node enables pruning, new nodes won't be able to sync the chain on top of the genesis block, they would need to trust a third party to receive an updated chain. Practically if this happens (very unlikely in short-mid term) it will have disastrous implications on decentralization and security.
Afaik there are plans to distribute the block chain data on nodes to address the problem.

However there will still be the need to sync the entire history, which will increasingly uncomfortable in the future.
There is an interesting idea on a "Bitcoin Onchain Pruning" solution,but I don't know to what extent it can work.

will_k

sr. member

Activity: 337

Merit: 250

SPV wallets relies on a trusted servers...does that mean it's also not 'decentralized'?

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: Jet Cash on August 04, 2016, 12:29:12 AM

Am I missing something here? If you don't want to maintain the entire blockchain, you can run in pruned mode, and/or not download the segwit records (when they are in general use).

Full nodes are required to maintain the security of the blockchan. SPVs and online wallets don't do this and full nodes are disappearing as the amount of hardware needed to run one increases (disk space mainly). There are two current views of how to halt the decline.

1) Try to figure out how to make a full node profitable because only money is an incentive, right?
2) Reduce the hardware requirement and make all clients full nodes. No incentive required and increase the number of nodes by an order of magnitude.

Guess which one all the miners want?

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

Am I missing something here? If you don't want to maintain the entire blockchain, you can run in pruned mode, and/or not download the segwit records (when they are in general use).

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: AmDD on August 03, 2016, 03:33:59 PM

I think that in the future there wont be one blockchain downloaded for each user as it is today but more like one per household. A family will setup a computer and download the blockchain and keep it up to date while useing other wallets to point to that BC for verification and use. A family shares resources, there is only 1 fridge, 1 stove, 1 safe, etc. Yes more can be had but typically only 1 per household. Same will happen with businesses and such.

The chain is growing pretty fast and maybe one day we will reach a point where its tough to download but technology is also fast moving. I remember using dialup to downlaod Photoshop years ago.... took 3 days, but it was worth the trouble. Bitcoin is the same, if you want to use it then you'll do whats needed.

I think that's just clutching at a fantasy because you know deep down it's untenable.

Today in my pocket I have a tap & pay debit credit card that I can use in any shop around the world. I choose the product. Tap and wait for the fries. In the future I will still have a tap and pay card and the bitcoin part of it will be in HSBCs datacenter as it transfers funds from my account over to Bank of America account. Why am I going to buy a top of the range PC to tun a single piece of software so that my family have to use another different piece of awkward software just to send some birthday money?

AmDD

legendary

Activity: 1027

Merit: 1005

I think that in the future there wont be one blockchain downloaded for each user as it is today but more like one per household. A family will setup a computer and download the blockchain and keep it up to date while useing other wallets to point to that BC for verification and use. A family shares resources, there is only 1 fridge, 1 stove, 1 safe, etc. Yes more can be had but typically only 1 per household. Same will happen with businesses and such.

The chain is growing pretty fast and maybe one day we will reach a point where its tough to download but technology is also fast moving. I remember using dialup to downlaod Photoshop years ago.... took 3 days, but it was worth the trouble. Bitcoin is the same, if you want to use it then you'll do whats needed.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4130

Merit: 1307

I am not dismissing concerns about bandwidth or disk space. I am merely pointing out that arguments that don't take into account exponential increases in capacity in both bandwidth and storage space with stable or decreasing costs are (a) purposefully avoiding reality, (b) purposefully trying to mislead people, OR (c) trolling.

If you or anyone wishes to code the "distributed file system" and integrate it with Bitcoin Core and convince people it is a better solution so that a majority if people adopt it, please go ahead. Is there a technical paper of how this would work in bitcoin and an analysis as to how it would provide the same security that Bitcoin does now?

I am sure that any well-tested code that the people who are complaining about the block chain size (and the like) are willing to commit to Bitcoin Core to decrease the sizes would be more than welcome.

Quote from: TransaDox on August 03, 2016, 01:33:09 PM

Quote from: cr1776 on August 03, 2016, 12:21:40 PM

Danny is right, and that is just the average.

xfinity runs at least 88 Mbps right now or 8.8 MBps => 528MB/minute = >31GB/hour => 744GB/day.

AT&T Fiber (GigaPower) 300Mbps = about 2.5TB/day.

In 1980 one was lucky to get 300bps (or 180bps). No one serious thinks this has peaked.

So now bandwidth is being dismissed by the same flawed arguments as the disk space? Huh

Completely ignoring data caps and low speed restrictions imposed by providers. Completely ignoring that only first world countries have these sorts of high speed infrastructures (the US is hardly the worst performer in the world). Completely ignoring that most people want to run more than just one application that sucks up all their bandwidth. Completely ignoring that while writing a technology cheque way into some mythical rose-tinted future, the only ones that are likely to be able to afford it are corporations, governments and fat cats.

Bitcoin wasn't around in 1980 and has gone from zero to datacenter in a couple of years (let alone 40) due to the resources required to run the system and we are supposed to believe the tech available to the average Joe will be good enough in another 10 when it's struggling now?

Makes my blood boil! Angry

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: TransaDox on August 03, 2016, 01:33:09 PM

So now bandwidth is being dismissed by the same ~~flawed~~ arguments as the disk space? Huh

Now?

Always has been.

Quote from: TransaDox on August 03, 2016, 01:33:09 PM

(the US is hardly the worst performer in the world)

Nor the best.

Quote from: TransaDox on August 03, 2016, 01:33:09 PM

Completely ignoring data caps and low speed restrictions imposed by providers. Completely ignoring that only first world countries have these sorts of high speed infrastructures (the US is hardly the worst performer in the world). Completely ignoring that most people want to run more than just one application that sucks up all their bandwidth. Completely ignoring that while writing a technology cheque way into some mythical rose-tinted future, the only ones that are likely to be able to afford it are corporations, governments and fat cats.

Bitcoin wasn't around in 1980 and has gone from zero to datacenter in a couple of years (let alone 40) due to the resources required to run the system and we are supposed to believe the tech available to the average Joe will be good enough in another 10 when it's struggling now?

Makes my blood boil! Angry

So invent a better decentralized system. Until you do (or someone else does), this is the best we've got. Might as well calm down and accept it (or abandon bitcoin) or you'll kill yourself over the stress of it all. Complaining about the way it works isn't going to get it fixed any faster.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: sandaq on August 01, 2016, 06:52:39 AM

ok, so I installed bitcoin core latest version and it downloaded over 80G of chain block. Let's assume, just for the fun of it, there are 1000 bitcoin core users out there. That's ~8T of wasted disk space. and considering bitcoin will live another 7 years and it will grow of couse, that's like ~20T of disk space (1000 users remember?) for what? couldn't be a centerlaize, maybe mirrored, location that the client will ask for the chain block from there? Why do we need to download it?

The short answer is you don't. They could make it a distributed file system but all the people that actually know how it all works are tied up working on schemes to try and screw as much money out of the users rather than improving the protocol.

I don't know why they don't just put the thing on newsgroups and we all use web wallets seeing as the only people that really matter are the miners.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: cr1776 on August 03, 2016, 12:21:40 PM

Danny is right, and that is just the average.

xfinity runs at least 88 Mbps right now or 8.8 MBps => 528MB/minute = >31GB/hour => 744GB/day.

AT&T Fiber (GigaPower) 300Mbps = about 2.5TB/day.

In 1980 one was lucky to get 300bps (or 180bps). No one serious thinks this has peaked.

So now bandwidth is being dismissed by the same flawed arguments as the disk space? Huh

Completely ignoring data caps and low speed restrictions imposed by providers. Completely ignoring that only first world countries have these sorts of high speed infrastructures (the US is hardly the worst performer in the world). Completely ignoring that most people want to run more than just one application that sucks up all their bandwidth. Completely ignoring that while writing a technology cheque way into some mythical rose-tinted future, the only ones that are likely to be able to afford it are corporations, governments and fat cats.

Bitcoin wasn't around in 1980 and has gone from zero to datacenter in a couple of years (let alone 40) due to the resources required to run the system and we are supposed to believe the tech available to the average Joe will be good enough in another 10 when it's struggling now?

Makes my blood boil! Angry

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4130

Merit: 1307

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 03, 2016, 11:57:05 AM

Quote from: Gahs on August 03, 2016, 11:22:36 AM

How do you download tons of Gigabyte?

...
According to speedmatters.org, average USA broadband speed is 11.7 Mbps.
...

Danny is right, and that is just the average.

xfinity runs at least 88 Mbps right now or 8.8 MBps => 528MB/minute = >31GB/hour => 744GB/day.

AT&T Fiber (GigaPower) 300Mbps = about 2.5TB/day.

In 1980 one was lucky to get 300bps (or 180bps). No one serious thinks this has peaked.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: Gahs on August 03, 2016, 11:22:36 AM

How do you download tons of Gigabyte?

You mean Terabytes?

Patiently.

According to speedmatters.org, average USA broadband speed is 11.7 Mbps.

If you want to download 3 Terabytes (3,000 Gigabytes) at that speed it would take you about 23.75 days.

Of course if the blocksize stays at 1 megabyte per block, it will take more than 50 years to reach 3 Terabytes.

Do you really think that communication speeds for the average person will still only be 11.7 Mbps 50 years from now? Doesn't it seem much more likely that faster forms of communication will be developed and implemented over the next few decades? How fast was electronic communication for the average person 50 years ago (back in 1966)?

If communications in 50 years is 10 times faster than it is today, then it will only take about 2.5 days to download a 3 Terabyte blockchain.

Now, if we increase the blocksize, then we'll need storage space and communications speeds to increase fast enough to keep up.

Gahs

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Minter

The block chain should be placed in segments: year by year. So the miner selects the year(s) he wants to download, you can imagine the data load 50 years from now. How do you download tons of Gigabyte?

bill gator

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1123

Quote from: shorena on August 03, 2016, 07:54:14 AM

Quote from: Ned Kelly on August 03, 2016, 07:33:33 AM

Quote from: Laviathon on August 02, 2016, 11:09:56 PM

Eventually they need to find some way to better compress the chain would be nice for a start.

I think no need for that. Even if all blocks will be full, blockchain will grow by 52G per year. And modest 1T hard drive, will be enough for ~20 years. Such HDD costs $50 it's BTC0.1.

Block must be bigger in the future, they will indirectly with SegWit already. Keep in mind that someone new must also be able to download all that data in reasonable time. Its not only about diskspace.

I just moved out to a rural area, and I have the fastest internet available to me. I recently accidentally corrupted my Core Client with a bad re-boot.. So I had to completely re-sync the entire blockchain. This took me literally 56-Hours of leaving my laptop running with exclusively Core Open. It definitely is about being about to get that data in a reasonable time, which currently is constrained and only getting worse.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Ned Kelly on August 03, 2016, 07:33:33 AM

Quote from: Laviathon on August 02, 2016, 11:09:56 PM

Eventually they need to find some way to better compress the chain would be nice for a start.

I think no need for that. Even if all blocks will be full, blockchain will grow by 52G per year. And modest 1T hard drive, will be enough for ~20 years. Such HDD costs $50 it's BTC0.1.

Block must be bigger in the future, they will indirectly with SegWit already. Keep in mind that someone new must also be able to download all that data in reasonable time. Its not only about diskspace.

Ned Kelly

full member

Activity: 170

Merit: 101

Quote from: Laviathon on August 02, 2016, 11:09:56 PM

Eventually they need to find some way to better compress the chain would be nice for a start.

I think no need for that. Even if all blocks will be full, blockchain will grow by 52G per year. And modest 1T hard drive, will be enough for ~20 years. Such HDD costs $50 it's BTC0.1.

Topic: Why do you need to download 7 years of chain block - page 3. (Read 9120 times)