Bitcoin Forum

This poll is inspired by a debate I had on another thread recently.

As the resource requirements of running the bitcoin client continue to increase, fewer and fewer people will be running a full node. I think that in the future most people will use an online wallet or run a thin client that connects to a third party service.

I personally find that need to use a third party takes away some of the freedom of bitcoin and I long for the development of a scalable protocol.

But, what do you think?

I was wondering the same thing.

there is no more need to use a third party than there is a need to use a third party e-mail provider..

you can run your own mail server, or you can run your own bitcoin node, etc etc etc.

In the future the resource requirements of running the full client will be out of reach of the general user.

That could be another area where altcoins could be useful. Hopefully bitcoins will be worth huge sums of money per coin by then. People will be able to have a lifesavings bitcoin account they hopefully won't have to worry about accessing until they retire, or until the beneficiaries of their will want to break it up, and use some cheaper coin with a blockchain still small enough for general users to run the full client for everyday transactions.

-MarkM-

you're not envisioning a world where petabyte hard drives are available at bestbuy for $99 :P

Last week I picked up a 2tb usb drive for $99 from the post office  :D

I have added a sixth option for you.

The blockchain doesn't need to be as big as it is, right? It's in the white paper. I don't think the dev deities have implemented the method of decreasing the size of the block chain...yet.

It's the bandwidth and processing requirements of transactions that's going to be the problem.

Oh, this isn't how I perceived the poll question. Now I can't change my vote.

p2p aspect of Bitcoin is absolutely vital, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to connect p2p. What's vital is that Bitcoin stays p2p and anyone can connect directly to the network. I'm guessing in the near future I'll be running my own Electrum server and invite friends and family to connect to mine. Hopefully there will be remedies to keep the chain size small enough for me to run a full node on a VPS for some time.

In the further future I might settle for using many such servers simultaneously, since they will all be equal (p2p ensures this as well: no hidden deals), maybe with a lighter premix routing protocol to help with anonymity.


Sorry I have some difficulty getting this. If the smaller blockchain is used by everyone for smaller transactions, that blockchain will grow rapidly to match Bitcoin. Then you'll switch to a new alt and throw away the old one? Or use many of them in parallel? It sounds like a nuisance.

I just tried to change the poll options so that people can change their votes but it wont let me do it.

p2p is the future of everything imo.

We don't need everybody run a full node, we just need enough merchants run full nodes.
Dont' worry ,relax.

One thing I have never seen discussed is the fact that as the Internet transitions to IPv6, the Internet is also getting a multicast feature with it, ostensibly to enable highly efficient and highly scalable point-to-multipoint video streaming.

While that feature is probably not all that mature or in widespread use today, give it a few years, that will probably support a highly efficient way to distribute a stream of Bitcoin transaction information to numerous nodes.

It's like you're saying the Bittorent is not p2p because not everyone runs a tracker. Or alternatively, that it's not p2p because some files only have a few seeds.

Lightweight clients are/will be fairly smart, they are worlds apart from an eWallet, and if most people run them it's still p2p. And even a full node should still be runnable by an enthusiast, that's all you really need to get the important benefits of decentralization.

good question!

it rises other questions...

what features or freedoms would be taken away if one uses a thin client?
would the users need to trust the third party?
would the third party have any kind of power over its users?

is third party connectivity the only solution, could a new protocol avoid this issue?

There are various models of thin client now but with MultiBit it connects to multiple (Satoshi) peers. It relays your sends and listens for zero-confirmation transactions from all peers.

Mainly to minimise bandwidth usage it does download the blocks from one 'download peer' but this peer is selected at random.

There is not a specific third party involved. It is all p2p.

Portable storage will increase in capacity and decrease in size faster then the block chain (hopefully)

I voted "No, not very"

In the event that  100 000 000 end up using Bitcoin I would think 50 000 core nodes would be safe enough.

This come to mind : http://convergence.io/details.html

Could you add a link to the thread in question ?

Probably this one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89713).

Hi Meni,

Yep, that's the thread I was referring too.

The first page and a half is talking about the size of the blockchain which I agree there is a solution too. The rest of the thread talk about other potential problems of scaling.

I don't think it's a problem. People can form co-ops to run a single node, providing electrum or other similar access for co-op members. Others might run nodes and offer lightweight client access to subscribers for a small fee. It's the open protocol, and open access to the network that's important.

I think the Federal Reserve should be the central authority for the blockchain.

Bigger cheaper storage AND eventual switch to open source mesh networking will likely keep issues at bay.

Decentralized currency.