Title: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: bitpump on June 15, 2015, 05:39:27 PM Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution?
Summary: client will include only last 1.000 full blocks and 10% of all other blocks. Details: for last 1.000 blocks : 100% include for all other blocks (before these last 1.000 blocks) decision either A. to include or B. storing the following info from a block - block number - hash of block - list of (first 16 characters of) all bitcoin addresses impacted by this block choosing between A and B is based on some randomness and if it has an acceptable distribution (10%?) on the network (using a Distributed Hash Table, just like with bittorrent?) now, if a client wants to know the "balance" of a specific bitcoin address, it can just check which blocks to download (P2P) to provide a solid confirmation of this "balance" to get an immediate non-solid indication of a "balance" of an address, consumers can use a trusted party website (which has downloaded the full blockchain) Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: R2D221 on June 15, 2015, 06:20:29 PM Isn't this what pruning already achieves?
Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: R2D221 on June 15, 2015, 06:22:04 PM to get an immediate non-solid indication of a "balance" of an address, consumers can use a trusted party website (which has downloaded the full blockchain) Why not SPV? Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: bitpump on June 15, 2015, 06:27:21 PM Isn't this what pruning already achieves? thanks for pointer! http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10333/blockchain-long-run-issue/10334#10334 so is pruning already being used / implemented? if so, why do I keep seeing this argument (size of blockchain) being used? Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: bitpump on June 15, 2015, 06:30:15 PM to get an immediate non-solid indication of a "balance" of an address, consumers can use a trusted party website (which has downloaded the full blockchain) Why not SPV? thanks again for the education, so apparantly, a "thin" and a "thick" client already have been designed in the original bitcoin whitepaper https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security#Simplified_Payment_Verification_.28SPV.29_Clients I should do some more homework before asking more questions like this Thanks for your time ! Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: Nrcewker on June 16, 2015, 03:46:25 AM because the outcome plan involves the redistribution of profits, vested interests will not agree
Title: Re: Instead of carrying full blockchain, why not this solution? Post by: NorrisK on June 16, 2015, 05:57:14 AM because the outcome plan involves the redistribution of profits, vested interests will not agree Why would profits be redistributed? It only shares the storage space for archived blocks. Still 10% of all nodes will publish any specfifc block and all would publish the last 1000 blocks. Doesnt look like a bad idea imo. |