Can we reduce the blockchain?

[Laosai]

Hey,

I see lots of people talking about size issues in btc. Most of them are about block size, but some of them talk about the blockchain size.
Now, it's rather obvious that if number of users keep growing, number of transactions will do the same and hence the blockchain will increase.

Right now it's still not a big problem, but in a year or two you won't be able to run a node simply with and old PC because it will lack the storage for btc...

What about cutting through the blockchain?
I mean, when a transactions is 1 year old, that the totality of the coins have been moved at least twice, maybe there is no real need to keep them right?

I mean, imagine the size of the blockchain in 15 or 20 years!
Ok maybe computers will follow but... What if they don't? Moore's law is coming to an end because of the impossibility of reducing the size of components so that might be an actual possibility :/

[NorrisK]

Maybe those older transactions can be stored on highly specialized version of the core wallet that only a few people need to run. The risk is ofcourse centralization and potentially people taking over the old ledger by inserting a new one and running only those ones.

I do think that semi light wallets have a place in the future. Where you only run the chain of the last weeks or months so you need a small amount of storage, bit still help in verifying recent transactions.

[Amph]

use prune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

[Laosai]

Maybe those older transactions can be stored on highly specialized version of the core wallet that only a few people need to run. The risk is ofcourse centralization and potentially people taking over the old ledger by inserting a new one and running only those ones.

I do think that semi light wallets have a place in the future. Where you only run the chain of the last weeks or months so you need a small amount of storage, bit still help in verifying recent transactions.

Not if the transactions can only be moved from the actual blockchain to storing chain, those chains refusing any transaction not coming from the blockchain

[Laosai]

use pune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

Sure but the goal is to make it still possible for anyone willing to participate to run a full node so nodes aren't centralized too

[Amph]

use pune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

Sure but the goal is to make it still possible for anyone willing to participate to run a full node so nodes aren't centralized too

then incentivate it, so they can buy more crazy storage and maybe a better connection, if you want them to do something for free it will not come without other negativity

[Jet Cash]

use pune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

Sure but the goal is to make it still possible for anyone willing to participate to run a full node so nodes aren't centralized too

I believe that a pruned node is still a full node.

I've got a not very expensive notebook computer. It's got a 2Tb hard disk, so I suspect I'm still covered for a decade or so of growth in Bitcoin.

[Laosai]

use pune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

Sure but the goal is to make it still possible for anyone willing to participate to run a full node so nodes aren't centralized too

I believe that a pruned node is still a full node.

I've got a not very expensive notebook computer. It's got a 2Tb hard disk, so I suspect I'm still covered for a decade or so of growth in Bitcoin.

Seriously?
Well I might overestimate the price of storage disk then...

[Soros Shorts]

use pune mode if you don't plan to run a full node or don't swap to many new wallet, it will cut it to 2-3 giga

Sure but the goal is to make it still possible for anyone willing to participate to run a full node so nodes aren't centralized too

I believe that a pruned node is still a full node.

I've got a not very expensive notebook computer. It's got a 2Tb hard disk, so I suspect I'm still covered for a decade or so of growth in Bitcoin.

Seriously?
Well I might overestimate the price of storage disk then...

Storage size isn't big problem in running full nodes whether it's pruned node or not since harddisk price is around $0.03-$0.06/GB.
The biggest problem are good internet connection to run full nodes, and internet connection is expensive in some country.

But, i think pruned node isn't real full node. Bitcoin network can't store past transaction if every nodes use pruned node.

A fast CPU is also necessary to allow for fast block propagation each time a new block is solved. You can't have Raspberry Pi's taking 60 seconds to validate a XMB block (where X > 1) before sending it off to its peers.

[NUFCrichard]

Yeah a notebook with 2TB HD would be pretty expensive and if it were SSD, it would be crazy!
I think fewer people will run nodes in the future, it won't make too much difference, as long as enough people with great internet and massive hard drives do it.

There will always be some people willing and able to do it.

[Laosai]

Yeah a notebook with 2TB HD would be pretty expensive and if it were SSD, it would be crazy!
I think fewer people will run nodes in the future, it won't make too much difference, as long as enough people with great internet and massive hard drives do it.

There will always be some people willing and able to do it.

Well, that's not a reason to make the job easier if it can be done without harming the network

[Kprawn]

Disk space size will never be a issue if you combine several smaller disks into a RAID configuration. Only problem, not many people have the knowledge to setup a RAID. If you do not want a single

hard drive, then RAID will be the only way to go. I doubt that we will ever run into a problem with the size of the Blockchain being a major issue, the technology will keep up with the demand, but the

price will exclude many people from owning these hard drives and from running it on their home bandwidth. 

[nickenburg]

Right now it's still not a big problem, but in a year or two you won't be able to run a node simply with and old PC because it will lack the storage for btc...
What about cutting through the blockchain?
I mean, when a transactions is 1 year old, that the totality of the coins have been moved at least twice, maybe there is no real need to keep them right?

I mean, imagine the size of the blockchain in 15 or 20 years!
Ok maybe computers will follow but... What if they don't? Moore's law is coming to an end because of the impossibility of reducing the size of components so that might be an actual possibility :/

I am already using Lite Versions of the wallet because the blockchain is so big, but I do think of course our technology of storing things get better.
Now we have terabytes hdd's And I am sure we will see petabytes to.
And with your own cloud servers you could store a lot to, so in 10-20 years, I think the blockchain and Ssd Technology both improve drastically.
Maybe no one would be using hard drives anymore, and we would have a new technology already to store certain things.

[richardsNY]

Nowadays the price of HDD's is getting lower and lower. At the moment I have a 1TB drive in my computer, but I plan to upgrade it to a minimum of 3TB or maybe 2 of these drives in raid0 mode. That will make sure I can continue to store the full blockchain for plenty of years.

[shorena]

-snip-
But, i think pruned node isn't real full node. Bitcoin network can't store past transaction if every nodes use pruned node.

A pruned node still fully verifies all data (blocks and transactions) and is thus a full(y verifying) node. We might need a new word for "non-pruned" nodes. Some users from the german section suggested "archive node". Which would be a full node that keeps a full archive of the blockchain as well. The core devs have some nice plans for the pruned mode though. One of the goals is that you only keep a part of the blockchain (as you do now), but that the sum of the parts of several users result in a single full copy. This would remove the requirement for archive nodes, as long as enough nodes are running.

[countryfree]

No, blockchain size isn't an issue at all. The real problem is in the bandwidth needed to run a full node. HDD prices regularly come down, but DSL prices do not. Nor do we get more bandwidth. In some big cities, there is 100MB Internet, but in most of Europe, you can't get more than 20MB, and in Africa, you're more likely to get 2 or 5MB. Not much, if you want to run a full node and watch youtube.