|
DumbFruit
|
 |
June 16, 2015, 08:01:02 PM |
|
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at? The cap will increase eventually, as more people use it. Offchain or not, the bitcoin network has to handle atleast 10000 transactions/minute, for it to become a worldwide used currency. Just my thoughts. Otherwise it will become centralized, as only big guys could afford to host the network. What's this "otherwise"? We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick. |
By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
June 16, 2015, 08:12:51 PM |
|
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at? The cap will increase eventually, as more people use it. Offchain or not, the bitcoin network has to handle atleast 10000 transactions/minute, for it to become a worldwide used currency. Just my thoughts. Otherwise it will become centralized, as only big guys could afford to host the network. What's this "otherwise"? We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick. Thats a trap question. So you are saying either way centralization is inevitable? Its very sad. I`d take the centralization of nodes anytime, vs the transactions, but that increases the risk significantly of rogue nodes. The less nodes the less confirmation accuracy, which is the whole point of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
August 07, 2015, 10:25:52 AM |
|
Looks like with the 7mb block size proposal, this theory can become closer to true i`m afraid. Already the number of nodes are down, due to the size of the blockchain, soon it will be further down due to the size of individual blocks. Bitcoin will inevitable become centralized, but if the price would go up suddenly then we can avoid centralization  |
|
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
August 07, 2015, 11:41:45 PM
Last edit: August 07, 2015, 11:57:40 PM by TransaDox |
|
What's this "otherwise"?
We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick.
I pick neither. Clients could process transactions instead of miners which fully decentralises the operation of the network. Miners would still do as their name suggests, mine new bitcoins  . A block could essentially be one transaction but a few more might be more efficient. This would mean that the tx/sec is intrinsically linked to the number of nodes rather than hashing power and bandwidth load balanced amongst many clients. You don't need the entire block chain to process or send/receive bitcoin. You just need traceability of the latest hashes. You could keep the block chain distributed amongst the network clients and reconstitute only those pieces required in a particular client to process transactions. If you were worried, you could audit the entire block chain at regular intervals by pulling every distributed block from the network and running the normal block verify. The block chain is essentially a hash table, it just needs to be distributed (dCache? DFSgc?). Several existing replicating storage systems (such as usenet) could be used to persist reference blocks (like the genisis block) to avoid encirclement of a client by naughty people  . |
|
|
|
|
tonycamp
Member
 Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 08, 2015, 10:02:15 PM |
|
well a 35 GB may take sometimes a bit like 1 day to resync intoa pen or cpu wallet but its ok the full 120 bitcoin years will have more GB and more internet speed too. and more solutions to come
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 11:51:57 PM |
|
I see that with blockchain pruning the size can be further compressed.
However now we face the blocksize raise, that is already a big problem for shitty pc's or smaller miners.
Now imagine if we were to get to the point where this "singularity" would happen. And the internet connection speed were the real issue.
There is only fiber optics you know, no other internet is faster than that.
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
October 26, 2015, 09:38:42 AM |
|
Even though I believe this download speed will eventually cause a problem.
I am in support for the bigger block size (perhaps with some pruning techniques).
This will be a problem, but not in the foreseeable future, and until then there is no really excuse for not raising the block size.
|
|
|
|
CoinSkipper
Member
Offline
Activity: 136
Merit: 10
|
|
October 26, 2015, 11:34:05 AM |
|
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
October 26, 2015, 12:01:31 PM |
|
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
Doesnt matter if you torrent, it will eventually become the same problem, unless bandwidth will grow exponentially too, which it wont. You can torrent the blockchain, and then the remaining blocks you download normally. |
|
|
|
|
iram66680
|
|
October 26, 2015, 12:37:36 PM |
|
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
Torrent was for users who want their blockchain to be downloaded fast. It was applicable when headers-first synchronization was not implemented (before v0.10.0). After that, users were able to download from different peers and verify them simultaneously and torrenting was no longer needed. If you want to torrent it, it would be to do the full verification first then download the remaining blocks. |
|
|
|
|
makcik
|
|
November 01, 2015, 02:44:07 PM |
|
Since most of us have thought about the size of the blockchain, but what about the download speed.
Think of it this way, the size of the
blocks have to increase at some point to absorb more and more transactions , or the block creation interval has to become shorter .
If the block creation interval becomes shorter, then at some point we have to get to an interval of less than 1 second, and after that there will be more transactions / time, than the speed of the average user, thus he cant keep up with the exponentially increasing blockchain, and the network will fall apart. This is true with supernodes , because this doesnt depend on the bandwidth , but the connection speed, which is bounded by the speed of light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin (OP)
|
|
December 09, 2015, 01:55:21 AM |
|
Well after putting more thought into this I realized that this doesn't really matter that much for sending data, or its insignificant problem.
However It can matter in terms of pinging peers. If the network is interpinging eachother,then if the bitcoin network becomes too big, the pings will really slow it down.
However, the internet is the parent network of BTC, so the internet itself would be in danger of this.
But my proposal is so theoretic that I dont think practically it will happen in the nearby 1000 years. Although it's still a good thing to wander upon.
Any final words? I will close the thread soon, so if you have any final words say it now.
|
|
|
|
|
