Blockchain size - problem ?

[steve23]

Hi all, glad to be aboard  

Sorry if this has come up already, i tried a search but no joy.....oh and i should add, i know about BC but im not a tech or anything, just a 'lay person':

If the blockchain keeps growing - and indeed speeds up growth as others adopt BC - it seems the memory needed to run it will be beyond the normal user, and ive read that we may end up with so called 'super nodes'  the size of current data centres etc - but that may lead to them being easier to regulate and what have you, and will take away from the very nature of BC - so im told anyway.

Is there a solution for this?

I wondered myself if its not possible to archive the the blockchain at some point - say with a new fork where everyone agrees on such a such a day and time that here is where all the BC are and now going forwards we shall start a new blockchain with that data etc but it will be smaller again.

Please note, as said, im not a tech so the entire passage above may be total rubbish, but i think its close enough to get my point over (fingers crossed)

All the best

Steve

[Lauda]

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.
So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

To be honest I doubt the second layer will be successful at doing that.

I suspect altcoins will effectively be that second layer if the cost of bitcoin transactions gets too high.

[Lauda]

I suspect altcoins will effectively be that second layer if the cost of bitcoin transactions gets too high.

This would create a very complex ecosystem. It is not easy to make people use 1 coin. Imagine telling them that they have to use e.g. 10. This problem is also present in those altcoins, thus multiple ones would be needed.

To be honest I doubt the second layer will be successful at doing that.

Why?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I suspect altcoins will effectively be that second layer if the cost of bitcoin transactions gets too high.

This would create a very complex ecosystem. It is not easy to make people use 1 coin. Imagine telling them that they have to use e.g. 10. This problem is also present in those altcoins, thus multiple ones would be needed.

To be honest I doubt the second layer will be successful at doing that.

Why?

There's no logical reason to tie the value of what is in my wallet to bitcoin if I am not spending it on the bitcoin blockchain itself.

[ATguy]

This would create a very complex ecosystem. It is not easy to make people use 1 coin. Imagine telling them that they have to use e.g. 10. This problem is also present in those altcoins, thus multiple ones would be needed.

This incentive to use just one coin is clear, also converting to other altcoins just eat up unnecessary exchange fees. So the likelihood of some altcoin to be as popular in usage as Bitcoin is very small, there is simply no demand for second coin for merchants/services (Im not talking about the silly speculation pump&dump altcoin games where is enought demand though)

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

This would create a very complex ecosystem. It is not easy to make people use 1 coin. Imagine telling them that they have to use e.g. 10. This problem is also present in those altcoins, thus multiple ones would be needed.

This incentive to use just one coin is clear, also converting to other altcoins just eat up unnecessary exchange fees. So the likelihood of some altcoin to be as popular in usage as Bitcoin is very small, there is simply no demand for second coin for merchants/services (Im not talking about the silly speculation pump&dump altcoin games where is enought demand though)

Wouldn't need to use 10. Most people would only need one, some might need two. People have wallets full of different credit cards now, tied to different accounts, etc.

I don't see the problem. Alt coins would only be needed when the cost of a transaction is high compared to their cost of living. And for those people, they wouldn't need to use bitcoin at all.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Right now the cost of a transaction is cheap enough that altcoins aren't needed. If the adoption of crypto-currencies increases, we don't necessarily need to make the blocks bigger - let the fees increase and altcoins then will start to be viable.

EDIT -

several viable crypto-currencies may actually be good, because then power grabs over control of bitcoin like what is happening now won't be an issue.

Want something implemented that bitcoin-core doesn't? Get one of the alt-coins to implement it. Then if it really is better, the free market will demonstrate it is better in real world usage. But as long as bitcoin transactions are dirt cheap because of excessive block size, we don't really have that, so instead we have power grabs via hard-fork alternative clients, and that reduces confidence.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

If bitcoin core or other bitcoin developers can make max. block size increased when it needed without hard fork, it would be great so there won't be any problem.
Or block size should follow with technology development using Moore Law or other standards.

There's a thread in the dev forum that discusses how as soon as you increase the resources they are used. So automatically increasing the size in response to use may result in a bigger problem than it solves.

Need to make sure miners in places without good bandwidth can validate the previous block quickly or else the number of empty blocks will increase. So we can't just assume that growth in block size is good for the network.

[sgbett]

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.
So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

To run a Lightning Node requires those three things... you can see where I am going with this...

[Pkzone]

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.
So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

Exactly, but essentially Bitcoin XT and Classic should be considered a 'altcoin' because it's not really using what Bitcoin Core is using at this moment.
BTC was meant to be a decentralized platform yet if these continue, the decentralization is dead.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

[European Central Bank]

Nah. I think it's reached a point now where clearly good ideas are gonna be rejected if they're not coming from the right parties.

[7788bitcoin]

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.
So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

Exactly, but essentially Bitcoin XT and Classic should be considered a 'altcoin' because it's not really using what Bitcoin Core is using at this moment.
BTC was meant to be a decentralized platform yet if these continue, the decentralization is dead.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

At the moment XT, Classic and Core are all using the same blockchain so you can't actually say which are "Altcoins".

Until one day when they mine their own chains, then they will be "different" coins... Not sure by then which will be the "altcoins"?

[Pkzone]

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.
So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

Exactly, but essentially Bitcoin XT and Classic should be considered a 'altcoin' because it's not really using what Bitcoin Core is using at this moment.
BTC was meant to be a decentralized platform yet if these continue, the decentralization is dead.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

At the moment XT, Classic and Core are all using the same blockchain so you can't actually say which are "Altcoins".

Until one day when they mine their own chains, then they will be "different" coins... Not sure by then which will be the "altcoins"?

Well, yes until now, they are not exactly 'Altcoins' but will be if the different blocksizes crash.
And they have already pushed some patches which are not (yet?) pushed by the Core dev/community so it's not the exact as the real 'bitcoin'.

[Amph]

again with this, the pacing of the technology is moving way faster than bitcoin can even dream to compete to, so it's already self-fixed

and anyway without running a full node there is pruning...

[Lauda]

To run a Lightning Node requires those three things... you can see where I am going with this...

Apples and oranges.

Wouldn't need to use 10. Most people would only need one, some might need two. People have wallets full of different credit cards now, tied to different accounts, etc.

There isn't enough TPS with two coins + Bitcoin because the problem is inherent.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

The only reason for which somebody would want to rush mainstream adoption (faster than technologically and safely feasible) is greed. That's about it. Whoever is willing to sacrifice decentralization (which can be considered the most important aspect of Bitcoin) for adoption, should not be here in the first place. Oh, and without those "fools" Bitcoin would have most likely died. That's the thanks that you get for working for everyone.

[Pkzone]

To run a Lightning Node requires those three things... you can see where I am going with this...

Apples and oranges.

Wouldn't need to use 10. Most people would only need one, some might need two. People have wallets full of different credit cards now, tied to different accounts, etc.

There isn't enough TPS with two coins + Bitcoin because the problem is inherent.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

The only reason for which somebody would want to rush mainstream adoption (faster than technologically and safely feasible) is greed. That's about it. Whoever is willing to sacrifice decentralization (which can be considered the most important aspect of Bitcoin) for adoption, should not be here in the first place. Oh, and without those "fools" Bitcoin would have most likely died. That's the thanks that you get for working for everyone.

Agreed.
Decentralization is required and that's why I am personally using bitcoin, otherwise, I'dve long forgot Bitcoin and ripped bitcoin off my head and started using Monero and Neptunium (promising new altcoin) and other superior currencies than Bitcoin (IMO because I want anonymity and decentralization)

[sgbett]

To run a Lightning Node requires those three things... you can see where I am going with this...

Apples and oranges.

You'll have to clarify in what way things are different.

This was my thinking:

A lightning transaction is a bitcoin transaction.

More on chain transactions => greater resource usage for bitcoin nodes
More LN transactions => greater resource usage for LN nodes

If greater resource usage is a centralising force for bitcoin nodes, then i would say the same could be said for LN nodes.

[Lauda]

This was my thinking:
A lightning transaction is a bitcoin transaction.

More on chain transactions => greater resource usage for bitcoin nodes
More LN transactions => greater resource usage for LN nodes

If greater resource usage is a centralising force for bitcoin nodes, then i would say the same could be said for LN nodes.

Your thinking is LN transaction size == Bitcoin on chain transaction size. Additionally, your thinking includes: LN transaction resource usage == on-chain transaction usage.

Decentralization is required and that's why I am personally using bitcoin, otherwise, I'dve long forgot Bitcoin and ripped bitcoin off my head and started using Monero and Neptunium (promising new altcoin) and other superior currencies than Bitcoin (IMO because I want anonymity and decentralization)

It is crucial for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin loses this aspect then it might as well die as it is not needed. There are better systems that can be used for transacting. Unfortunately, there are people who do not value this decentralization as much as others.

[franky1]

firstly. bitcoin can currently run on a very lowtech raspberry Pi board. which has at most
1.2ghz duel coreprocessor
1gb ram
256gb use memory storage(can be more)

this can handle processing transactions and storing blocks(imagining every block was full) for 5 years

now then
a standard desktop computer (budget price)
3.6ghz quadcore(6x more then a Pi)
8gb ram (8x more then a Pi)
2TB hard drive (8x more than a Pi)

trying not to baffle you with science. but bitcoin does not process 8gb of data in any one second, so ram is not really a problem. this means that a desktop computer, based on actual usage requirements is atleast 6x more then 1mb blocks need.

so the debate about increasing the blocksize limit causing people to use datacentres is false when talking about the proposals for the next 2 years.

so relax. many people dont want bitcoin transaction capabilities to expand. instead they want people to lock funds away and hand control over to central hubs on a lightning network or sidechain.

do not fool for the doomsday scenarios especially when people shout out doom but never quote the science behind their cries