Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 11:57:38 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: FACT CHECK: Bitcoin Blockchain will be 700GB in 4 Years  (Read 8998 times)
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


View Profile
November 04, 2016, 01:14:07 PM
 #201

devs should just build the clients with a built-in highly pruned blockchain, and let that be the starting point for syncing old blocks when running that client.

nodes dont need the history from day 1 to work, all they need is a starting point they know will agree with the rest of the network.
So exactly what is this supposed to do? Centralize Bitcoin in order to avoid downloading a part of the blockchain? That's a terrible idea. If you don't have enough storage space right now, you can run a pruned node.
all it would centralize is the src from which you get this "built-in highly pruned blockchain start point". but i guess you could go a step futher and get the network to validate that this "start point" is not a lie, and does in fact accurately represent the past history. hell the network itself could make this start point available for download, instated of having the network send the blockchain in its entirety .

it means placing some trust in the client you run, but that's already the case today, and it kinda always will be...
False.
if you subscribe to the idea that you dont need to trust the code behind the client you choose to run because its been peer reviewed by many people and is known to do exactly what you'd expect it to do.
then it isn't much of a stretch to say that you dont need to trust the "built-in highly pruned blockchain start point" for the same reason.

1513123058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513123058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513123058
Reply with quote  #2

1513123058
Report to moderator
1513123058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513123058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513123058
Reply with quote  #2

1513123058
Report to moderator
1513123058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513123058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513123058
Reply with quote  #2

1513123058
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
requester
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
November 04, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
 #202

does it mean that every miner wool have 700 GB of data ?
I don't have idea about that. does blockchain reside in all miners system or it is stored in a particular system? But well 700 GB is quit a large number. and database if only 3 columns of 700GB would be a huge database.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
November 04, 2016, 01:41:38 PM
 #203

does it mean that every miner wool have 700 GB of data ?
I don't have idea about that. does blockchain reside in all miners system or it is stored in a particular system? But well 700 GB is quit a large number. and database if only 3 columns of 700GB would be a huge database.

Miners find ways to avoid having to run full nodes with a full data set. Don't worry about the miners use of full nodes, worry about the miners being concentrated into small pockets of big industrial groups. All it takes is for two or three big miners to collude and they can fix the game to suit their ends. The only thing stopping them from colluding to rig the game is self-interest so as not to collapse the market price. If they get a government visit, however, governments don't care about corporate self-interests. Maybe we should have a mining Canary?

It is looking like users will just be users. So for the average person they can just use Bitcoin without worrying about such things as the backbone of the system.

We are likely to be in a transition state where home connections are going to reach max capacity. The transition then is going to be towards professionally hosted nodes.

This guy on r/btc posted some stats about his node consumption. He has 200mbit download and 20mbit upload, which is a very good connection in the western world:

Code:
month        rx      |     tx      |    total    |   avg. rate
------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
  Feb '16      8.87 GiB |   22.38 GiB |   31.25 GiB |  104.62 kbit/s
  Mar '16    109.58 GiB |  635.21 GiB |  744.79 GiB |    2.33 Mbit/s
  Apr '16    144.85 GiB |    1.05 TiB |    1.19 TiB |    3.95 Mbit/s
  May '16    112.24 GiB |    1.08 TiB |    1.19 TiB |    3.80 Mbit/s
  Jun '16     95.28 GiB |  880.11 GiB |  975.38 GiB |    3.16 Mbit/s
  Jul '16     90.72 GiB |  925.71 GiB |    0.99 TiB |    3.18 Mbit/s
  Aug '16    178.99 GiB |    1.02 TiB |    1.20 TiB |    3.84 Mbit/s
  Sep '16    133.12 GiB |    1.03 TiB |    1.16 TiB |    3.83 Mbit/s
  Oct '16    115.43 GiB |    1.18 TiB |    1.30 TiB |    4.16 Mbit/s
  Nov '16     15.69 GiB |  213.81 GiB |  229.50 GiB |    6.46 Mbit/s
------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
estimated    136.41 GiB |    1.82 TiB |    1.95 TiB |

He is reaching his connection limits, but that does depend on how he sets his in / out connections.

Code:
>$ bitcoin-cli getpeerinfo | grep subver | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
   21     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.13.0/",
   19     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.12.1/",
    9     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.13.4/Bitcoin Wallet:4.46/",
    9     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.13.2/MultiBitHD:0.1.4/",
    9     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.13.1/Bitsquare:0.3.3/",
    9     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.12.2/Bitcoin Wallet:2.9.3/",
    9     "subver": "/BitCoinJ:0.11.2/MultiBit:0.5.18/",
    7     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.12.0/",
    7     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.11.2/",
    6     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.11.0/",
    6     "subver": "/BitcoinUnlimited:0.12.1(EB16; AD4)/",
    4     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.9.99/",
    4     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
    3     "subver": "/iguana 0.00/",
    3     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.14-SNAPSHOT/",
    3     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.14.3/Bitcoin Wallet:5.03/",
    3     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.12.2/",
    2     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.13.1/",
    2     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.10.1/",
    2     "subver": "/Classic:0.12.0/",
    2     "subver": "/btcwire:0.4.1/btcd:0.12.0/",
    2     "subver": "/bitcore:1.1.0/",
    1     "subver": "/ViaBTC:bitpeer.0.2.0/",
    1     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.9.1/",
    1     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.12.1(bitcore)/",
    1     "subver": "/Satoshi:0.11.1/",
    1     "subver": "/Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/",
    1     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.14.3/Bitcoin Wallet:5.02/",
    1     "subver": "/bitcoinj:0.14.3/",
    1     "subver": "/BitCoinJ:0.11.3/",
    1     "subver": "",

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5b0g4x/remember_that_time/

HCLivess
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


[[[],[]],[[],[]]]


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
 #204

what do you mean? there is a blocksize limit and blocks come in predefined frequency defined by difficulty

Bismuth - New Language, Interpretation Engines, Free Set of DAPPs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1896497
Bitrated user: HCLivess.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
November 04, 2016, 06:24:05 PM
 #205

We are likely to be in a transition state where home connections are going to reach max capacity. The transition then is going to be towards professionally hosted nodes.

This guy on r/btc posted some stats about his node consumption. He has 200mbit download and 20mbit upload, which is a very good connection in the western world:

He is reaching his connection limits, but that does depend on how he sets his in / out connections.

Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 04, 2016, 07:12:31 PM
 #206

Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic:
knowing theres under 6000 nodes
if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays)
146*146=21316 nodes get it
if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays)
6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it
and so on
9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it
18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it
75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it

i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools.
and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
November 05, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
 #207

Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic:
knowing theres under 6000 nodes
if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays)
146*146=21316 nodes get it
if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays)
6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it
and so on
9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it
18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it
75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it

i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools.
and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily.

Can I use your 6 degrees of separation in a white paper? How can I attribute you or how do you want to be attributed? Pm if preferred.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 05, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
 #208

Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic:
knowing theres under 6000 nodes
if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays)
146*146=21316 nodes get it
if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays)
6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it
and so on
9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it
18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it
75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it

i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools.
and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily.

Can I use your 6 degrees of separation in a white paper? How can I attribute you or how do you want to be attributed? Pm if preferred.

6 degree's of separation is a theory that has existed for decades they have made movies about it, drinking games about it. google it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
Quote
It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929

its not my theory.. so use the source(Frigyes Karinthy in 1929) and then make your own calculations Cheesy

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
November 05, 2016, 05:57:19 PM
 #209

devs should just build the clients with a built-in highly pruned blockchain, and let that be the starting point for syncing old blocks when running that client.

nodes dont need the history from day 1 to work, all they need is a starting point they know will agree with the rest of the network.
So exactly what is this supposed to do? Centralize Bitcoin in order to avoid downloading a part of the blockchain? That's a terrible idea. If you don't have enough storage space right now, you can run a pruned node.

it means placing some trust in the client you run, but that's already the case today, and it kinda always will be...
False.

The problem with pruned mode is... you need to download the entire blockchain the first time in order to enable it, so the problem persists... will we be able to enable pruned mode without having to download all of the blockchain?

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 05, 2016, 06:06:47 PM
 #210

The problem with pruned mode is... you need to download the entire blockchain the first time in order to enable it, so the problem persists... will we be able to enable pruned mode without having to download all of the blockchain?

the only problem with pruned mode is once you have pruned it.. you are then not part of the 5500 full nodes able to help the network.
in laymens terms no newbies to the network can leach the entire network data of the last 7 years from you. so you become second class and people drop their connection from you because you cant hand them what they desire.

this affects the 6 degree of separation and also the distribution of the blockchain.

if people dont want to hold all the data.. then just download electrum. stop messing with full nodes! edit: if you dont want to be a full node

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2016, 07:11:30 AM
 #211

The problem with pruned mode is... you need to download the entire blockchain the first time in order to enable it, so the problem persists... will we be able to enable pruned mode without having to download all of the blockchain?
That's related to bandwidth then, not storage. I don't see how this is a problem though, as you're usually presented with two choices:
1) Run a full client and do full validation.
2) Run a SPV wallet without full validation.

The total blockchain size will keep getting higher which will keep making 1 harder.

the only problem with pruned mode is once you have pruned it.. you are then not part of the 5500 full nodes able to help the network.
Nobody claimed that they were, ergo strawman.

if people dont want to hold all the data.. then just download electrum. stop messing with full nodes!
There's nothing wrong with a pruned node.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 06, 2016, 07:57:38 AM
 #212

the only problem with pruned mode is once you have pruned it.. you are then not part of the 5500 full nodes able to help the network.
Nobody claimed that they were, ergo strawman.

if people dont want to hold all the data.. then just download electrum. stop messing with full nodes!
There's nothing wrong with a pruned node.

if ""core" want to pretend its the "core" program for bitcoin. then core should stick to full node status.
if core want to offer light node. then core should be VERY CLEAR that pruning reduces status a node has in the network.

seriously stop shoe shining the devs..

you say core have not said X. but they are clearly not saying Y either. X needs to be clarified to make people aware of Y
EG
if they have not said pruned does not help the network. but also not clearly saying pruned enabling pruned reduces network support. then saying atleast something should be said.

but hey, brush it under the carpet like a good old fanboy right? and stick to the core is utopia rhetoric, right?


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2016, 08:00:33 AM
 #213

if ""core" want to pretend its the "core" program for bitcoin. then core should stick to full node status.
if core want to offer light node. then core should be VERY CLEAR that pruning reduces status a node has in the network.

seriously stop shoe shining the devs..

you say core have not said X. but they are clearly not saying Y either. so X needs to be clarified to make people aware of Y
This post is useless and is not relevant at all to anything that has been said here. Just let the franky1 from the other shift do the talking, you're only ruining your own image.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with a pruned node and it has been clearly stated that it is different from a full node.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 06, 2016, 08:34:04 AM
 #214

This post is useless and is not relevant at all to anything that has been said here. Just let the franky1 from the other shift do the talking, you're only ruining your own image.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with a pruned node and it has been clearly stated that it is different from a full node.
EG there is nothing wrong with electrum. but electrums network status is not the same as a full node.
no point trying to say that cores pruned mode is the same as full node by saying "theres nothing wrong"

its what you dont say and what is not clarified makes just a bad case as what could have been said

after all people believe they are downloading core because its a full node.
so they need to be informed that using cores pruned mode is not a full node status.

also trying to sell the fiction that everyone can be a full node without worry of bloat is misleading and hiding the truth simply by "never saying" it doesnt make the a full node. because people think just running core makes them a full node no matter what features they run or dont run
EG saying that running an old node is perfectly fine. when it should be highlighted that updates reduce old nodes fullnode status.

seems you are sounding more like carlton again. im guessing he has retrained you as a fanboy sheep.

please think more about USERS, than you do about protecting core. your getting obviously too involved in the fanboy rhetoric more so in what USERS need to know to make educated decisions.

being a fullnode means you have to keep the full data to be a full part of the network.
meaning bloat (this topic) is relevant for full nodes

again before lauda derailed the topic
if you dont want to be a full node by storing the blockchain.. you might aswell just use electrum

end of

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
November 06, 2016, 12:56:40 PM
 #215

Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic:
knowing theres under 6000 nodes
if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays)
146*146=21316 nodes get it
if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays)
6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it
and so on
9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it
18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it
75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it

i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools.
and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily.

Can I use your 6 degrees of separation in a white paper? How can I attribute you or how do you want to be attributed? Pm if preferred.

6 degree's of separation is a theory that has existed for decades they have made movies about it, drinking games about it. google it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
Quote
It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929

its not my theory.. so use the source(Frigyes Karinthy in 1929) and then make your own calculations Cheesy

No, I mean in relation to optimal bitcoin node numbers / distribution.

You can come up with a variation of the 6 degrees of separation concept for bitcoin. Then I can give you attribution

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
November 06, 2016, 04:44:51 PM
 #216

No, I mean in relation to optimal bitcoin node numbers / distribution.

You can come up with a variation of the 6 degrees of separation concept for bitcoin. Then I can give you attribution
we are digressing off the topic of bloat.
but to answer your questions

many different devs say 9 is a nice round number as a minimum healthy node.

im not interested in attribution.
just use the theory from back in 1929 and make your own calculations.

but keep this in mind
the other thing about the degrees of separation theory is that, the separations are not always organised.

EG 3 degrees of separation, where they can all claim they are they are connected to 3 other people without having to mix with any new faces.
meaning
the concept is that its all organised where each person is a stranger (top part)
the reality is that there are only 4 in the clusters where each person does know 3 other people (bottom part) so both states are true



even in bitcoin we can have connection loops(clusters) where a few hops away a node is connected back to a node thats also a few hops behind him too. which is something that cannot be controlled much in a true decentralized network.
bitcoin has got some good ways to mitigate potential loops. but not perfect

and messes up the count of how many hops it really needs to get to everyone on the network due to some hops looping back on themselves

but anyway just use the theory from back in 1929 and make your own calculations.



I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
November 06, 2016, 04:53:35 PM
 #217

OK, thanks.

It is on topic because of the optimal use of bandwidth, especially as the chain grows.

coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
December 19, 2016, 11:08:28 PM
 #218

Going into Jan 2017, the 100GB prediction is accurate, so still on track for 700GB blockchain by the time of the next halving.

SegWit acceptance and or an increase in the block size will cement the prediction.

anggi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
December 20, 2016, 03:25:40 AM
 #219

is not that a good thing  Huh
Well, it means that every year, bitcoin users is increasing, and I think blockchain need to upgrade the storage they have. I think it would be better in 2017, because I think, in 2017, people began making their wallet, whether it's in blockchain or anywhere else.

clickerz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
December 20, 2016, 04:51:23 AM
 #220

Going into Jan 2017, the 100GB prediction is accurate, so still on track for 700GB blockchain by the time of the next halving.

SegWit acceptance and or an increase in the block size will cement the prediction.

That 700GB is very huge file to download. It will takes time if your connection is slow,like most us here (maybe). I think its much better to used online wallet but the disadvantage is, you don't  have control with your  it.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!