Oh - you think the blockchain is getting too big?

[DGulari]

No problem.  16 terabyte.  http://www.fastcompany.com/3049876/fast-feed/samsung-debuts-worlds-largest-hard-drive?position=5&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=08152015&utm_content=buffer85858&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[unamis76]

Precisely what I've been saying for quite some time: hard drives will be faster, cheaper and bigger with time... Holding the blockchain will be less and less of a problem

[worldinacoin]

I have to spent 12 hours to update it is really very very huge

[hexafraction]

No problem.  16 terabyte.  http://www.fastcompany.com/3049876/fast-feed/samsung-debuts-worlds-largest-hard-drive?position=5&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=08152015&utm_content=buffer85858&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Yes, but at this point the given disk is for enterprise only, $6000, and not sold yet. It's a bit out-of-reach (but since beyond some points cost/GB grows due to density) RAID-based solutions for having more space (and redundancy) will be useful and possibly required (not that I want to see that day).

[rax]

Post a photo of thy real thing. Or don't.

[Yofun]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

[unamis76]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology...

[RGBKey]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology...

Tell that to companies like Time Warner Cable, and Comcast. They're not going to give you fast internet until more people take action.

[unholycactus]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology...

You have control over which hard disk you buy, but you don't have any control on networking development near your location.

[tokeweed]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

This.  And bigger HD's aren't the (only) solution.  I think off chain transactions will be the norm for BTC in the future.  I was thinking Ripple could be the network to do it, but no...  They sucked and sucked as they went.  Stellar is out of the question.  I wonder what happened to Open Transactions and Hyper Ledger...  Those two looked promising.

[Yofun]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology...

Bullshit.

I been in areas where the only internet you can get is dial-up.

And most US ISPs limit their clients alot.

[Carlton Banks]

It's not so much a storage problem.

It's the matter of downloading it.

Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.

Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology...

Bullshit.

I been in areas where the only internet you can get is dial-up.

And most US ISPs limit their clients alot.

And also, we're moving into the era where KB/s is becoming commoditised; Illinois state recently imposed a "Download" tax. Unlimited data plans are likely to become either increasingly expensive or totally extinct. The revolution will not be over corporate TCP/IP?

[VirosaGITS]

Anyone else noticed the picture is fake or irrelevant? A 60GB SSD is not exactly a 16TB HDD or anything.

And SPV wallet work just fine on dialup/cellphone so no, the blockchain being big is a non issue. If someone want to run a node he may one day be interested in a 16TB HDD so sure, this is totally appropriate for a node user.

[DGulari]

Anyone else noticed the picture is fake or irrelevant? A 60GB SSD is not exactly a 16TB HDD or anything.

And SPV wallet work just fine on dialup/cellphone so no, the blockchain being big is a non issue. If someone want to run a node he may one day be interested in a 16TB HDD so sure, this is totally appropriate for a node user.

The picture is the picture Samsung used on their press release.  It is merely supposed to give the impression of a 2.5 hard drive.  Nobody gives a fuck what is printed on the label.  They will finally print a new label for the 16TB. 

You guys are all fucked up. 

[LiteCoinGuy]

storage no problem. bandwidth no problem:

Extracting the figures gives:

#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit

#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit


http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551

[lottery248]

in average, use HDD and RAID 1 would be the cheapest.
you will need a fast network speed as well to synchronise.
i could not afford the major storage costs.

[ajareselde]

It seams to me that blockchain size and higher bandwidth demand are only being noted as a problem to justify leaving bitcoin as it is.
The real problem of bitcoin development is lack of consensus and sort of rioting within the community, where many just want to push their way, disregarding the benefits.
It's clear that bitcoin needs to change through time, higher block size is only the beginning.

[Blazr]

Precisely what I've been saying for quite some time: hard drives will be faster, cheaper and bigger with time... Holding the blockchain will be less and less of a problem

You don't even need to store the blockchain. You can safely delete it after you have verified it and built the UTXO. All you actually need is the UTXO, which is basically a list of every address that currently has Bitcoins, you don't need to store the historical data of where those Bitcoins were before, you only need verify it once and then you can safely delete it.

The big problem with scalability is bandwidth. Internet speeds vary greatly around the world and don't grow at as fast a rate as hard drives do. However this isn't as big as a problem as most people think. Usenet is a decentralized computer network, yet there are only a handful of usenet servers. Not everyone needs to run a Bitcoin node, if that was the case then Satoshi would have never wrote about SPV wallets. You only need to connect to 1 Bitcoin node that is honest, it doesnt matter if every other node you connect to is malicious. As long as there is 1 honest node then we are fine.

Nobody is concerned about storage space but they are concerned about bandwidth, I believe this must only be a North American problem as Europe has much better internet speeds and bandwidth then us.

No we don't! we want Google Fiber!

[Nikinger]

I hope the full Bitcoin client implements a more faulty tolerant database engine before bigger blocks are released otherwise it becomes tedious to maintain.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Nobody is concerned about storage space but they are concerned about bandwidth, I believe this must only be a North American problem as Europe has much better internet speeds and bandwidth then us.

bandwidth no problem:

Extracting the figures gives:

#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit

#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit


http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551


Asia has some good spots too. hundreds of millions of people could run nodes.