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

[coins101]

Chances of hard fork to increase block size is going up, making segwit 95% threshold means it has some problems going live.

700GB, here we come.

[1713564860]

1713564860

[Greenenergy]

That's not a problem, because look, now, the average computer has at least 1 Tb of data, so I guess in 4 years, it will be something like 3 Tb.

[matt4054]

That's not a problem, because look, now, the average computer has at least 1 Tb of data, so I guess in 4 years, it will be something like 3 Tb.

If you look at the numbers, 700GB is not much in today's world, as it has been stated repeatedly.

The problem would rather be about the threshold to keep the network propagation reliability reasonable wrt to the total number of transactions in a given amount of time.

Right now, there is a transaction jam on the Bitcoin queue, but that is mostly caused by the steady increase in Bitcoin price. There is no question that a higher tx/sec throughput is needed in the long run though.

[Meuh6879]

5Go per month ... not a big deal (1 BDRip ...  ).

for an entery financial network ? Priceless.

[Wind_FURY]

Here is another thought. Did it not occur to anyone that Bitcoin might not really be able to scale to the Visa standard? How big does a block have to be to fit in 2000 - 3000/s worth of transactions in there?

I have noticed that only some of the centralized Bitcoin based services, miners and exchanges are in a hurry to fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. If the nodes follow the whims of the said entities which are really what can be considered part of the "Bitcoin Elite" then Bitcoin has debased itself as a project controlled by an oligarchy.

[Lauda]

How big does a block have to be to fit in 2000 - 3000/s worth of transactions in there?

The math is rather simple for providing a estimate. In theory, Bitcoin can do 7 TPS at 1 MB. However, in real world usage we are talking about 3 TPS. In order to reach 3000 TPS (Visa can do a lot more) you would need 1000MB blocks (over 50 TB of storage per year). Bitcoin, as a decentralized network, will likely never be able to scale up to Visa without additional layers. Segwit can do 14 TPS in theory (testnet block with ~8+k transactions).

I have noticed that only some of the centralized Bitcoin based services, miners and exchanges are in a hurry to fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. If the nodes follow the whims of the said entities which are really what can be considered part of the "Bitcoin Elite" then Bitcoin has debased itself as a project controlled by an oligarchy.

As I always say, the primary reason to rush adoption, while hurting decentralization, is greed.

[Wind_FURY]

How big does a block have to be to fit in 2000 - 3000/s worth of transactions in there?

The math is rather simple for providing a estimate. In theory, Bitcoin can do 7 TPS at 1 MB. However, in real world usage we are talking about 3 TPS. In order to reach 3000 TPS (Visa can do a lot more) you would need 1000MB blocks (over 50 TB of storage per year). Bitcoin, as a decentralized network, will likely never be able to scale up to Visa without additional layers. Segwit can do 14 TPS in theory (testnet block with ~8+k transactions).

I have noticed that only some of the centralized Bitcoin based services, miners and exchanges are in a hurry to fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. If the nodes follow the whims of the said entities which are really what can be considered part of the "Bitcoin Elite" then Bitcoin has debased itself as a project controlled by an oligarchy.

As I always say, the primary reason to rush adoption, while hurting decentralization, is greed.

I do not think it is greed but more like desperation. Almost all the individuals and the venture capitalists who have invested millions of dollars in different Bitcoin businesses do not look like they will make any money in their investments. They could be blaming it on the scalability problem so now they are rushing a hard fork to bigger blocks at the expense of the network.

The only Bitcoin businesses that are really making money are the popular darknet market sites.

[Carlton Banks]

I do not think it is greed but more like desperation. Almost all the individuals and the venture capitalists who have invested millions of dollars in different Bitcoin businesses do not look like they will make any money in their investments. They could be blaming it on the scalability problem so now they are rushing a hard fork to bigger blocks at the expense of the network.

There's zero evidence for that, the overwhelming majority of mining pools understand that on-chain throughput can't compete with VISA. All hard-forks have to offer is on-chain increases, and all in the crudest way possible. You're spreading FUD saying things like that.

[Wind_FURY]

I am sorry if it sounds like FUD. It is only an opinion and it may come out strong for some. If I am mistaken about the individuals and the venture capitalists not making back their investments then please list the Bitcoin companies that are making money today. Let us start with the Bitcoin businesses that Roger Ver has invested since he is the most vocal supporter of Bitcoin Unlimited.

I would guess that only some major exchanges and darknet market sites are the only ones really making money.

[Carlton Banks]

Why are you talking about businesses when I'm talking about mining pools? Who's Roger Ver?

[Wind_FURY]

Why are you talking about businesses when I'm talking about mining pools? Who's Roger Ver?

There must be some kind of misunderstanding. Why were you talking about mining pools? I was talking about venture capitalists not making back their investments in Bitcoin companies in the post of mine that you quoted.

Are you serious about the 2nd question?

[Hugroll]

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.

How exactly does a quantum computer attack the blockchain. I thought the only risk was QC's brute forcing certain private keys with a ton of bitcoins.

But i don't really that as an attack on the blockchain

[Carlton Banks]

Why are you talking about businesses when I'm talking about mining pools? Who's Roger Ver?

There must be some kind of misunderstanding. Why were you talking about mining pools? I was talking about venture capitalists not making back their investments in Bitcoin companies in the post of mine that you quoted.

Are you serious about the 2nd question?

You still haven't answered adequately. Why are you saying that any Bitcoin business, mining or not, is rushing to fork the blockchain, when none are?

[skierchewing]

If I remember, there was a quote of Satoshi that said that some day the nodes will be placed in specialised data centers.

[gatra]

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

Is that assessment about right?

NO

The size of the blockchain may look exponential if you look from the beginning but it's actually limited by a linear function. It is currently growing as fast as it can so the rate will continue and the size will not grow exponentially.
Current speed is the max speed, and it is about 1MB each 10 minutes. It will not go much faster than this without a change in the protocol (ie a fork)

[Carlton Banks]

Current speed is the max speed, and it is about 1MB each 10 minutes. It will not go much faster than this without a change in the protocol (ie a fork)

And the Segwit fork was released today. Let's hope it becomes activated sooner rather than later.

[coins101]

Current speed is the max speed, and it is about 1MB each 10 minutes. It will not go much faster than this without a change in the protocol (ie a fork)

And the Segwit fork was released today. Let's hope it becomes activated sooner rather than later.

If there is never a fork to add extra transaction capacity, then the blockchain will be limited to current max blocksize x ~10minutes

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

[Lauda]

and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

November 15th is the signaling start day. So 2 weeks worth of blocks (if everyone is already signaling by then) + 2 weeks worth of blocks (fallout period) after the starting day. This come down to mid December (earliest).

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

It would be really hypocritical to claim that one wants on chain scaling and then stall Segwit.

[spazzdla]

That is not good...

[Carlton Banks]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.