Is it possible for the block chain records to be compressed and rebased?

[calidion]

only the recent 6/3 months record being recorded in main blockchain?

[bob123]

only the recent 6/3 months record being recorded in main blockchain?

Yes and it's called pruning or prune mode

I think OP is talking about a mechanisms which creates snapshots of the blockchain (to keep the size smaller), not about the locally stored blocks (but i might we wrong).

IOTA is using this mechanisms, where a (centralized) coordinator creates a snapshot each X days/weeks/months.


@OP:
If you are talking about 'the' blockchain, then no. Bitcoin is not intended to function this way. Though, it is still possible in theory.

If you are talking about the locally stored blockchain on your computer (to save space), then yes (it's called pruning, as mentioned in the previous post).
You can read more about pruning here.

[calidion]

Is it possible for the block chain records to be compressed and rebased?

Yes, but i'm sure Bitcoin Core (and other client) already apply compression on block DB

only the recent 6/3 months record being recorded in main blockchain?

Yes and it's called pruning or prune mode

thanks.

[calidion]

only the recent 6/3 months record being recorded in main blockchain?

Yes and it's called pruning or prune mode

I think OP is talking about a mechanisms which creates snapshots of the blockchain (to keep the size smaller), not about the locally stored blocks (but i might we wrong).

IOTA is using this mechanisms, where a (centralized) coordinator creates a snapshot each X days/weeks/months.


@OP:
If you are talking about 'the' blockchain, then no. Bitcoin is not intended to function this way. Though, it is still possible in theory.

If you are talking about the locally stored blockchain on your computer (to save space), then yes (it's called pruning, as mentioned in the previous post).
You can read more about pruning here.

If there is very little hosts which can host bitcoin node, does it mean that bitcoin are centralized?

[Rath_]

If there is very little hosts which can host bitcoin node, does it mean that bitcoin are centralized?

Yes, full nodes are responsible for validating blocks and transactions, and relaying them to other nodes. They can also filter transactions on behalf of lightweight clients which are used by the vast majority of users (e.g. Electrum). Increasing the blocksize leads to higher disk space and bandwidth usage - this might discourage volunteers from running their own full nodes. Mining centralization is also a big problem. If one mining pool controls the vast majority of hashrate, it can reject certain transactions.

[calidion]

If there is very little hosts which can host bitcoin node, does it mean that bitcoin are centralized?

Yes, full nodes are responsible for validating blocks and transactions, and relaying them to other nodes. They can also filter transactions on behalf of lightweight clients which are used by the vast majority of users (e.g. Electrum). Increasing the blocksize leads to higher disk space and bandwidth usage - this might discourage volunteers from running their own full nodes. Mining centralization is also a big problem. If one mining pool controls the vast majority of hashrate, it can reject certain transactions.

Does this mean that decentralization is doomed?

[Rath_]

Does this mean that decentralization is doomed?

Fortunately, not. Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin which can have 32 MB blocks and doesn't support SegWit. It can process more transactions than Bitcoin thanks to the increased blocksize but barely anyone uses it. We are now focusing on off-chain scaling (the Lightning Network, RSK, Liquid Network) which brings us new benefits, for example, instant and cheap transactions while not doing any harm to the decentralization. I would be more concerned about mining pools but it's better for them to make a long-term profit on Bitcoin mining rather than try to double spend some coins.

[calidion]

Do these technology cut size of blockchain storage?
Or should the block chain history be packed for storage scaling problems?

We are now focusing on off-chain scaling (the Lightning Network, RSK, Liquid Network) which brings us new benefits, for example, instant and cheap transactions while not doing any harm to the decentralization.

Don't forget on-chain scaling is still important since those off-chain scaling solution still need on-chain transaction to "move" Bitcoin, such as open & close channel on LN.
And i'm not talking about increasing limit of block size/weight, but other solutions including :

• MAST
• Schnorr
• Bellare-Neven
• MuSig
• BLS signature (AFAIK it's won't be used on Bitcoin)

More info :
https://bitcointechtalk.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-merklized-abstract-syntax-tree-mast-33fdf2da5e2f
https://prezi.com/amezx3cubxy0/schnorr-signatures/
https://medium.com/cryptoadvance/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716

[bob123]

Do these technology cut size of blockchain storage?

The technologies mentioned by ETFBitcoin do not decrease the size of the blockchain (not necessary at all).
They decrease the size of a transactions which will result in more transactions being able to fit into one block.

Or should the block chain history be packed for storage scaling problems?

Storage scaling problems ?

The size of the blockchain isn't a problem at all. Storage is getting cheaper each year, way faster than the blockchain can grow.
9 years of BTC gave us ~180 GB. With a 1TB HD at about 60$, thats not even close to being a problem.

The scaling 'problem' is the amount of transactions the bitcoin network can handle, not the size of the blockchain.


If one doesn't want to store the whole blockchain on their computer, they are free to use a pruned node which allows to set the maximum amount of storage the node is allowed to occupy on the HD.

[HeRetiK]

Or should the block chain history be packed for storage scaling problems?

Storage scaling problems ?

The size of the blockchain isn't a problem at all. Storage is getting cheaper each year, way faster than the blockchain can grow.
9 years of BTC gave us ~180 GB. With a 1TB HD at about 60$, thats not even close to being a problem.

[...]

Given Bitcoin's current blocksize policy.

I doubt that storage could keep up if Bitcoin were to use, say, 1 GB blocks like some on the extreme end of on-chain scaling have been proposing.

I do agree though that storage is the lesser problem. More acute problems regarding blocksize are bandwidth and network propagation.

[ABCbits]

The technologies mentioned by ETFBitcoin do not decrease the size of the blockchain (not necessary at all).
They decrease the size of a transactions which will result in more transactions being able to fit into one block.

Yes, additionally :
1. Some of it allow shorter signature verification time, while BLS have longer verification time
2. Bellare-Neven and MuSig can be combined with Schnorr Signature for better result (with different method). Currently Bitcoin will use MuSig - Schnorr
3. MAST reduce script size by remove/don't include unused script parts (not compression). Additionally, it improves privacy as not all parts of script (which usually contain public key) must be submitted.

Given Bitcoin's current blocksize policy.

I doubt that storage could keep up if Bitcoin were to use, say, 1 GB blocks like some on the extreme end of on-chain scaling have been proposing.

I do agree though that storage is the lesser problem. More acute problems regarding blocksize are bandwidth and network propagation.

Storage speed and RAM usage also important when we're talking about block size/weight scaling. Looking at ETH, HDD isn't fast enough to keep up with all transaction and those who want to run full nodes must use SSD and it's RAM usage is more than average pc/laptop (at least 4GB, depending on client).