Bitcoin Forum

There are a lot of users who use the Bitcoin core wallet.

For a fully verified node，they face a huge problem, that is, more and more hard disk space. up to now（2018）, more than 200G space is required. cpu and memory，it is continuous consumption and will recover after use，however, the hard disk space is a hard requirement and cannot be released after being occupied.

The beginning of Bitcoin, 2009--2012，the hard disk space less than 1G,
in 2015, 20G space is required for a full node.
now, more than 200G.
so, follow this, more and more nodes can only be simple payment verification nodes. Machines running full nodes are concentrated in the hands of large disk users, like a mining pool and ASIC, contrary to decentralization, will also become a security risk for Bitcoin.

Not going to check if Your calculations are precise, but this is what I have been telling here from start: BTC can not scale reasonably to wide usage! Its mathematically impossible. BTC is a scam, monetary scheme.

It's not BitcoinCore "full node" that takes all that space but "Bitcoin blockchain". Full size to date is 178 GB[1].
If you are upset about that space you can:

 - use  SPV wallet: You do not need to download the entire blockchain.
 - use prune: don’t need to download old blocks.

With the evolution of technology, I do not expect 200 GB to be a large space, in the past, the hard disk was about 80 gigabytes. "also, fast internet connection."
 
[1] https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/blocks-size

200 GB is not that big in terms of space if you take into account that how far the technology has come to. Maybe it is time to get an upgrade.

Given how advanced the technology is nowadays, it will be better to give your PC an upgrade otherwise switching to a new wallet is a lot of hassle.

Try using a different wallet of there are issues with the current state of you PC. If you are unwilling then maybe go for a better CPU.

The size of the blockchain is 178 GB as hugeblack has pointed out. This is not very large by today's standards, even my phone has enough storage space to hold the full Bitcoin blockchain. Yes the blockchain will continue to grow in size, but there is a fixed amount it can grow yearly, it cannot continue to grow exponentially, so there is no reason not to think that this aspect of Bitcoin can't scale.

There are a certain amount of blocks per year, and those blocks can only hold so much space. So with 52,560 blocks per year (avg 144 blocks/day * 365 days/year), and with each of those blocks having 100% segwit tx usage, that would put the block size at about 4 MBs (some say 1.6MB - 2 MB). 4 MB/block * 52,560 blocks/year is a maximum of 205 GBs of data added to the blockchain per year. This is not an exponential number. We aren't even close to the blocks being this full/large, but we already have the storage to meet this demand. Once we are seeing 100% full blocks at 4 MB/block I'm sure 205 GBs of data per year will be nothing in terms of storage space.


You guys are ruining this forum. OPs post wasn't him having an issue, it was him talking about the limitations of storing the blockchain and the risk for centralization. Go spam in the altcoin subforum spam cesspool.

Nice phone. Haha! I also got a 200 GB SD card last year, it's very nice. I don't come anywhere close to filling it up though, of course.

I don't understand that much about how the blocks work, so thanks for your explanation. I read on another thread that people were concerned that the blockchain size is doubling every year. It's nice to know that that's not possible. I found a graph of the current blockchain size. (https://www.blockchain.com/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all). It seems a bit alarming, but judging by what you said, I guess it'll become more linear in the near future. I think Bitcoin has a bunch of problems, but storage space shouldn't be one of them. In 2016 Seagate shows off a 60TB SSD. Storage space is growing extremely quickly, much faster than blockchain.

For me an upgrade is very necessary considering the volume of work a system is doing. I always make sure that my hard drive capacity is always twice bigger then my system files to aid good  and effective performance ...

Think about it - what was the size of your hard disk 10 years ago, when Bitcoin started and what is it now. Most people would have had 128GB or 256GB hard disks at that point, while now disk capacities are measured in TB. Technology is advancing quickly. Otherwise, people can prune the blockchain and continue using Bitcoin Core; else they can switch to light wallets.

First of all, you are not bound with those heavy wallets, you can simply choose a light for that instead. I know there are many security and ownership type of stuff but why don't use a shared wallet when the size is getting larger then there is no point that everyone should have a 200+ GB of space reserved only for the wallet. Instead of all of these, some company or a group of people can decide to use a single wallet with multiple users. That will reduce a large amount of data storage because it will reduce the redundancy.

The growth rate of blockchain file is both predictable and linear, and thanks to the limited blocksize it shouldn't exceed the threshold that would make this file too big to be kept by average users. The devs are taking this problem very seriously, they are doing everything they can to keep Bitcoin decentralized by making it accessible to every user, even with old machines. It's the altcoins that should be worried about this bottleneck, they have ridiculous blocksizes, and coins like Ethereum that manage to get close to their transactions cap are quickly becoming more centralized because of the problems you've described.

I agree with you hugeblack.

OP seems to be making some kind of exaggerated bullshit claims. Of course, the blockchain space is going to grow over time, and part of the rationale to keep the blocksize limits low is to keep the whole chain from becoming too BIG, but also to lessen latency and bottleneck (to use OP's word) problems in the network verification and confirmation of blocks.  

Of course, some solutions are to NOT store the whole block and NOT to run a full node, but also even the desire to run a full node is relatively NOT that expensive and regular peeps can do it with relatively old processors.. and we can even assume that the blockchain will grow to a terabyte within 5-10 years, and still that seems completely reasonable and affordable for regular peeps, given the already inexpensive availability of such storage on regular consumer computers for far less than $1k... .which is even affordable in poverty stricken areas (even though network band with might be a potential BIGGER issue) that requires more sophistication in terms of keeping a connection.

$1K is too much , 2TB storage is now very cheap, I think a desktop application with 2 TB storage will come less than $250.
I think OP is confused with mining power for mining bitcoin vs requirement to run full node.

You can use raspberry pie to run a full pruned node and can use banana pie with external harddisk to run a full node on it.

Might be this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4549817) topic will be of your interest.

Is 200GB a lot? It sure was in 2009 but now? I remember when I had my old computer with 15GB hard disk. That drive costed me close to 100 USD. Now for 100 USD I can get a 3TB drive. Times are changing. This is a quote from Forbes from over a year ago.
Generally it will cost you less than 10USD to store the whole blockchain on your computer. That cost will grow but not by a lot. Maybe next year it will be $12. Is that a lot? Not for me.

Core clients have seen quite some decent performance boosts throughout the last year or two, which makes it even less of an obstacle to use on relatively older machines.

If we assume every 1MB block is filled (which in reality isn't always the case) and the average block time is still 10 minutes, then the following applies;

144MB per day is added to the blockchain.
52.56GB per year is added to the blockchain.
525.6GB per decade is added to the blockchain

525.6GB + 180GB = ~705GB in 2028.

Ethereum's blockchain has already exceeded 1TB.

Bitcoin's blockchain size is a joke (in a good way). People will be able to run it without problem from their home computer for many more decades.

No, storage really isn't an issue for Bitcoin anymore -- at least not at the current growth rate, based on the current block weight limit. The premise of the OP is totally wrong.

The bottlenecks to worry about are probably bandwidth and latency.


There will be more data to store, but storage is also getting cheaper and cheaper.


The other thing is, you don't need to run an archival node (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Archival_Nodes) to run a full node.