Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 09:38:59 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 8956 times)
GreenLighter
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
December 20, 2016, 04:52:14 AM
 #221

Depends who gets their way. Could be much larger than that
1513028339
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513028339

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513028339
Reply with quote  #2

1513028339
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513028339
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513028339

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513028339
Reply with quote  #2

1513028339
Report to moderator
1513028339
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513028339

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513028339
Reply with quote  #2

1513028339
Report to moderator
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


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


View Profile WWW
December 20, 2016, 07:56:37 AM
 #222

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.
Wasn't your prediction already debunked, without Segwit or a block size increase?[1] The maximum that it can grow per year is around ~52 GBs right now (assuming all blocks are 1 MB and found every 10 minutes on average). Due to finite rules, you can't assume a % monthly growth (since the 'amount it grew' will be increasing as well).

[1] I don't remember where we left this thread at and I don't want to read all that franky1 stuff to verify either.

is not that a good thing  Huh
-snip-
Obviously it's a bad thing, and the rest of your post is useless.

-snip-
You should stop spamming since you're very obvious.


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






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
March 12, 2017, 05:04:20 PM
 #223

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.

@franky1

That guidance was put into the white paper, thanks.

It's all now part of a model that Satoshi predicted, but with some new stuff we've introduced to add encrypted security for those launching a Bitcoin full node using SPV's.

We're also going to be looking at adding 2FA and hardware key generation, but that needs more time to spec out.

http://heliumpay.com

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!