FACT CHECK: Bitcoin Blockchain will be 700GB in 4 Years

[CoinBreader]

Except for one thing. As the video showed, quantum computers act in such an entirely different way that there is no way to compare them with regular PCs. Certainly, if they can touch other universes, they might be able to find all the pieces of the blockchain elsewhere, other than the blockchain right here. then, all that they need do is bring that info home to Mommy.

Look up post quantum cryptography.
You can start here:

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2016/NIST.IR.8105.pdf


About transmission speed look up quantum teleportation and data transmission.

Hey! Thanks for the link. I think I have seen it before. So have all the developers of quantum computers. That's why government authorizes stuff like this, and why developers go way beyond it.

Since you like links so much, here is mine:

https://micahflee.com/2013/01/no-really-the-nsa-cant-break-your-crypto/

The NSA may not be able to break Bitcoin quite yet, but this video courtesy of SulmaINO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1578776.msg16209756#msg16209756) shows that they will be able soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHMJCUmq28

I bet at some point they will fork btc to another algo ? or even better SHAKE256-1024 would be a 1024-bit digest with the effective security of a 512-bit hash.
But anyhow back to topic i dont think the extra 700GB would be a problem in 4 years from now, already my cold storage is an external 2TB hdd , so if i dont mind im a home user, why should a node worry about ?

[1714985014]

1714985014

[1714985014]

1714985014

[1714985014]

1714985014

[1714985014]

1714985014

[franky1]

to all those talking about quantum computing, thinking it involves the mysticism of quantum realms and parellel dimentions.. nots not
is actually alot more simple.

but the creators of d-wave dont want competitors beating them to it so they are distracting the world with their "secret" by pretending its mystical.

here is a previous post i made explaining quantum computing logically rather than mystically

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1606167.msg16150882#msg16150882

in short the "cubit can be both a 1 and a 0 at the same time due to third dimensions" translates to a cubit can be a 0volt or 1volt AND.. 0.5volt that can represent both
its just simple measuring of electricity, no longer just no electric vs some measure of electric for 0 or 1.. but multiple measures of electric to allow more then 2 choices per 'bit'

[NorrisK]

As long as the blocksizes are capped and this cap is not removed, I guess we will just see a linear increase from now on (as most blocks are full) instead of a exponential increase.

The 3-4% increase is compounded and the amount of data increases exponentially instead of a non compounded "fixed" increase. My guess is that it will be much lower because of not having an exponential increase anymore.

[coins101]

As long as the blocksizes are capped and this cap is not removed, I guess we will just see a linear increase from now on (as most blocks are full) instead of a exponential increase.

The 3-4% increase is compounded and the amount of data increases exponentially instead of a non compounded "fixed" increase. My guess is that it will be much lower because of not having an exponential increase anymore.

Are you saying that blocks will not be increased? So from now on, its just a straight line increase?

[marleybobthedog]

It's not so big deal for blockchain as all over the world people are using blockchain and the size should have been much larger. Because in my experience a simple medium traffic ecommerce site generates about 1gb data monthly and for such a huge organization it should have been much more.

[criptix]

As long as the blocksizes are capped and this cap is not removed, I guess we will just see a linear increase from now on (as most blocks are full) instead of a exponential increase.

The 3-4% increase is compounded and the amount of data increases exponentially instead of a non compounded "fixed" increase. My guess is that it will be much lower because of not having an exponential increase anymore.

Are you saying that blocks will not be increased? So from now on, its just a straight line increase?

If the blocksize increases linearly so will the blockchain size - and right now it seems exactly like that.

[coins101]

As long as the blocksizes are capped and this cap is not removed, I guess we will just see a linear increase from now on (as most blocks are full) instead of a exponential increase.

The 3-4% increase is compounded and the amount of data increases exponentially instead of a non compounded "fixed" increase. My guess is that it will be much lower because of not having an exponential increase anymore.

Are you saying that blocks will not be increased? So from now on, its just a straight line increase?

If the blocksize increases linearly so will the blockchain size - and right now it seems exactly like that.

The evidence is against your view, at this point:

A chart from Blockchain.info from launch

[awesome31312]

As long as the blocksizes are capped and this cap is not removed, I guess we will just see a linear increase from now on (as most blocks are full) instead of a exponential increase.

The 3-4% increase is compounded and the amount of data increases exponentially instead of a non compounded "fixed" increase. My guess is that it will be much lower because of not having an exponential increase anymore.

When an exponential curve tends to become linear, it usually means it is stagnating. Which is not what's happening in this case, 82 Gigs is a long way from 2 Terabytes.

[zimmah]

My guess is that the Bitcoin Blockchain is growing at around 4% per month.



Is that assessment about right?

And what about the bandwidth each node will require each month if it's sharing data - 100 TB / month; 1,000TB / month?

What does this mean for the next halving?  All miners will be running SPV's?

Note that this chart s on LOG scale.



Also, there's a ridiculous artificial 1MB cap on the blockchain size right now, so it increases slower, but at the same time it's limiting the growth and adaptation of bitcoin, so the limit has to go.

We shouldn't worry about the scaling too much, we just need to make sure the blockchain is allowed to grow, and we don't impose stupid artificial limits on it.

[zimmah]

Quantum Computers are advancing much faster in calc and storage capacity. In 4 years from now, QCs will have cracked the blockchain, and Bitcoin will be gone, or at least, residing on a QC.

Wrong.

You could have been right though, if you were aware of some mathematical facts:



What we do know is that internet speed is advancing at a rate nowhere close to the rate the Blockchain is growing, I hope people have prepared for themselves some real life hobbies, especially since downloading the Blockchain will become a long process (taking a couple of weeks), andBitcointalk.org will experience more DDoS attacks.

We have underestimated quantum computers in a big way.

I agree with that, but we're not there yet.

It means absolutely nothing.

I disagree, internet speeds will never be able to cope with maintaining a 1 TB download to a duration of less than a week. This is not even counting the daily synchronizations necessary for spending/receiving coins. It could be a couple of Gigabytes for all we know.

Except for one thing. As the video showed, quantum computers act in such an entirely different way that there is no way to compare them with regular PCs. Certainly, if they can touch other universes, they might be able to find all the pieces of the blockchain elsewhere, other than the blockchain right here. then, all that they need do is bring that info home to Mommy.

We would have to be able to understand their language.

There is already quantum-proof encryption, and we can easily change bitcoins proof-of-work to a quantum proof system when that becomes necessary.

[geopolisch]

You make me really scared OP.. if it happens and bitcoin block size reach to 700GB in that time.. no one can download and use bitcoin core client.. or maybe people who have  super computers can afford to download and install it.

Is that the end of Bitcoin?

[thejaytiesto]

That is why core devs don't want to raise the block size, it is a very risky thing to do. I know a block size increase will come but not for now. Also we will eventually have a way to prune the blockchain and not need to download the whole blockchain the first time, or I hope so.

[BADecker]

You make me really scared OP.. if it happens and bitcoin block size reach to 700GB in that time.. no one can download and use bitcoin core client.. or maybe people who have  super computers can afford to download and install it.

Is that the end of Bitcoin?

The complete blockchain could be held in repositories.

Other than that, all anybody needs is the first transaction of any address/every address, and, say, the two last transactions of every address.

Few people do many transactions in Bitcoin... such as the exchanges, etc. Even these people often do not do many transactions with any single address. We don't need all the transactions of all the addresses. We can reduce the size of our personal copy of the blockchain on our computers by eliminating all but the first transaction done with an address, and the last two transactions done with it... maybe only the last transaction.

As long as there are a bunch of searchable blockchain repositories that contain the whole blockchain, we don't need all the info, personally.

Some of the wallet programs -  such as Armory or Electrum or Multibit - are already doing this, at least to some extent.

[jtipt]

To be honest it's not a big deal. An average user doesn't keep the whole blockchain downloaded, only miners and too serious bitcoin users do that. Even now 1tb hdd/ssd doesn't cost too much every new pc now comes with 1tb hdd atleast and in four years I think 1tb would be like today's 100 gb(ok maybe little exaggerating) but you get it, not a big deal.

[mexicotaco]

There will no folk use bitcoin qt wallet, it is too big and wastes our hard disk, it also costs 1-2 weeks to download 700 GB blockchain.

[BADecker]

^^ Right! Think of the bandwidth to move all this info around.   

[coins101]

You make me really scared OP.. if it happens and bitcoin block size reach to 700GB in that time.. no one can download and use bitcoin core client.. or maybe people who have  super computers can afford to download and install it.

Is that the end of Bitcoin?

No.

This is about understanding the issue and dealing with it.

I want to see some views on the facts first, then there are ways we can deal with the issues.

[Kprawn]

Would it not be possible to buy a harddrive with the blockchain already on it?
Downloading 700GB P2P, I guess that would take weeks or even months.
Every package sent around the globe usually is faster.
In 4 years, a 700 GB USB stick will be a normal thing.

1TB usb is currently around $600. Plus, loading fees, plus delivery, plus taxes, lets say its around $400 $300 delivered to your door in 4 years. Would you buy one?

Don't forget that monthly bandwidth cost.

Why do you want to store the Blockchain on the most expensive media? Just drop it on a inexpensive 3.5" harddrive and you set to go. The cost

of harddrives are cheap in relation to memory sticks and the size & price ratio of older drives {second hand drives} are also very affordable. I can

get second hand drives for next to nothing. You can put loads of smaller second hand drives in a RAID configuration.  

[BADecker]

Would it not be possible to buy a harddrive with the blockchain already on it?
Downloading 700GB P2P, I guess that would take weeks or even months.
Every package sent around the globe usually is faster.
In 4 years, a 700 GB USB stick will be a normal thing.

1TB usb is currently around $600. Plus, loading fees, plus delivery, plus taxes, lets say its around $400 $300 delivered to your door in 4 years. Would you buy one?

Don't forget that monthly bandwidth cost.

Why do you want to store the Blockchain on the most expensive media? Just drop it on a inexpensive 3.5" harddrive and you set to go. The cost

of harddrives are cheap in relation to memory sticks and the size & price ratio of older drives {second hand drives} are also very affordable. I can

get second hand drives for next to nothing. You can put loads of smaller second hand drives in a RAID configuration.  

Well, I suppose we could snail mail hard drives around to cover the bandwidth costs.

[coins101]

Would it not be possible to buy a harddrive with the blockchain already on it?
Downloading 700GB P2P, I guess that would take weeks or even months.
Every package sent around the globe usually is faster.
In 4 years, a 700 GB USB stick will be a normal thing.

1TB usb is currently around $600. Plus, loading fees, plus delivery, plus taxes, lets say its around $400 $300 delivered to your door in 4 years. Would you buy one?

Don't forget that monthly bandwidth cost.

Why do you want to store the Blockchain on the most expensive media? Just drop it on a inexpensive 3.5" harddrive and you set to go. The cost

of harddrives are cheap in relation to memory sticks and the size & price ratio of older drives {second hand drives} are also very affordable. I can

get second hand drives for next to nothing. You can put loads of smaller second hand drives in a RAID configuration.  

I was responding to the question. If you look, he or she talks about a USB.