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

[Lauda]

Ah, the ratio between the tx block and the signature block has to reflect the average signature size, hence all the "block weight" language used to describe the signature block structure.

Correct. The expected 1.7 MB is based on the current real world usage (primarily P2SH). r/btc recently tried to spread FUD that for 1.7MB worth of transactions, Segwit requires 4 MB of data (which is wrong on so many levels).

So the ratio gets a little tighter if we drop ECDSA for Schnorr sigs.

Not just a 'little tighter'. Multisignature size after Schnorr will be trivial in comparison to the current one, we are talking about much smaller size or the same size as a 1-of-1 (this depends on whether you want to know who signed messages).

Is the Schnorr scheme not relatively new though?

Kind-of, but it's the *gold standard* of digital signing algorithms.

So, a little over my monthly growth prediction, but it grew by 5% between end of Sept and end of Oct.

You should definitely keep historical data, so that we can compare with 2017 (with 'after-Segwit data').

[1714025809]

1714025809

[1714025809]

1714025809

[1714025809]

1714025809

[1714025809]

1714025809

[1714025809]

1714025809

[coins101]

My 4% to 5% guestimate was based off some data.

If segwit gets accepted by miners, no reason why it shouldn't, we'll have to wait for 1-3 months to see evidence of the impact on blockchain growth.

Any predictions?  For example, will the growth rate remain at 4-5% or move up to 5-8%, or something else?

[spazzdla]

It won't grow exponentially people..

[franky1]

Surely it means that Segwit will free the blocks enough that it would allow, in paper,  4mb worth of transactions? Please explain more if I got it wrong. Because if it really increases the blocks to 4mb each then that would also need a hard fork, right?

Forgive me for the stupid question. My first impression of Segwit was that they would remove data from the blocks to fit in more transactions allowed in each block with no increase in the block size necessary.

nope. generally the switch of the signatures allow 1.6x-2x capacity depending on number of sigs of a multisig address or multi-input vs single input.
this is done by splitting the tx data from the signatures
1mb base (tx data) 3mb witness(signatures)=4mb total potential weight

the "witness" part (3mb) which brings cores total weight to 4m wont be utilised fully straight away, but will be used later to allow new features such as confidential payment codes where the weight area can store this payment code as extra data outside the base block and inside the witness area.

thus, lets say we have ~2500 tx a block today for 1mb. (traditional transactions)
the average scaling proposed is 4500tx if everyone was to move funds and use only segwit style transactions..
4500tx:~1.8mb weight (tx data=1mb base... signatures=~0.8mb witness = ~1.8mb weight used)

but that leave the witness area capacity with (2.2mb) spare for other later uses like scrambling sensitive data for privacy.(confidential payment codes)
making about 4500tx+CFP:4mb if fully utilising the weight (base and witness area) for other such features.

however if we were to accept 4mb of data was no longer "bandwidth heavy" now that core have stopped the bandwidth heavy doomsday debate we could have had 5000tx:2mb(traditional).. or 10,000tx:4mb(traditional)

but instead the best average we can hope for is
4500tx:2mb in 2017 and 4500tx+CPF:4mb in 2018

unless we go for 2mb base 2mb witness=4mb weight - yes this means segwit still gets to be used for all the segwit fanboys
meaning we can have 9000tx using segwit but not having confidential payment codes

[gatra]

It won't grow exponentially people..

THIS
It's linear, not exponential

My 4% to 5% guestimate was based off some data.

If segwit gets accepted by miners, no reason why it shouldn't, we'll have to wait for 1-3 months to see evidence of the impact on blockchain growth.

Any predictions?  For example, will the growth rate remain at 4-5% or move up to 5-8%, or something else?

you can also fit a quadratic function to your graph
but it's capped by a linear function
segwit may change the slope, but still linear

my prediction: your 5% will start to decrease asymptotically towards 0%

[franky1]

ill just leave this here

[mki8]

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.

you must still be on dial up or something

700GB can be downloaded in less than a day on 4G Connection (80mb)

it would only take 9 hours to download 700GB today on a 200mb connection (fibre)
(which are available in certain developing countries already for $50/month)

you might want to look at:
http://www.download-time.com/

700GB in 4 years will be nothing in most countries

[Lauda]

Downloading 700GB P2P, I guess that would take weeks or even months.

No. Please do not post when you don't know what you're talking about. The bottleneck currently is not, and is likely not going to be the download speed.

it would only take 9 hours to download 700GB today on a 200mb connection (fibre)

You're assuming that the 8 nodes that you're connected to can provide you with a full speed download at all times for that speed. As mentioned above, the bottleneck is going to be the validation time.

[David Walters]

Do you still need to validate blocks when you use a bootstrap?

[qiwoman2]

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.

Why will bitcoin be gone? Won't there be a new way we can revive or keep it going? That worries me what you said now lol. So what will happen then? We just kind of got started.

[Lauda]

Do you still need to validate blocks when you use a bootstrap?

This has been obsolete with the introduction of faster-synchronization. in 0.10.0. It will be slowed than using the client.

Why will bitcoin be gone? Won't there be a new way we can revive or keep it going? That worries me what you said now lol. So what will happen then? We just kind of got started.

Ignore that guy and his FUD, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Once Bitcoin moves away from ECDSA it should be quantum proof for the foreseeable future.

[marleybobthedog]

According to you current rate is 4% monthly so this 4% would definitely increase to 6 to 9% monthly because adoption of bitcoin is taking very fast now a days. All these 7 years from 2009 to 2016 Hutton was in dark but now only people are recognising its value so it's adoption will definitely affect in its monthly growth rate.

[David Walters]

Do you still need to validate blocks when you use a bootstrap?

This has been obsolete with the introduction of faster-synchronization. in 0.10.0. It will be slowed than using the client.

I see, i'm used to bootstrapping old altcoins, didn't know this. thanks.

[Lauda]

According to you current rate is 4% monthly so this 4% would definitely increase to 6 to 9% monthly because adoption of bitcoin is taking very fast now a days.

False. Blocks are already primarily full on average, thus there is no additional space to jump by 50-100% in terms of blockchain growth regardless of adoption. If you were talking about Segwit, which I'm sure that you're not, then it would be an entirely different story.

All these 7 years from 2009 to 2016 Hutton was in dark but now only people are recognising its value so it's adoption will definitely affect in its monthly growth rate.

This has nothing to do with the subject. Go (signature) spam somewhere else.

I see, i'm used to bootstrapping old altcoins, didn't know this. thanks.

They are usually based on outdated Bitcoin Core versions (most newer coins are as well). You can read about the change here.

[jbreher]

Do you still need to validate blocks when you use a bootstrap?

According to Gregory Maxwell, even Core does not validate all transactions.

I would point out that this is totally counter to the concept of Bitcoin being a trustless currency, but The Devs^tm have spoken.

[gatra]

According to Gregory Maxwell, even Core does not validate all transactions.

[citation needed]

please, can you elaborate on this? do you have a link or something? I'd like to know what escapes validation.

I understand that things that it reads from disk are not validated, and only a few last blocks are verified at startup, but they were validated before they were written, so everything gets validated. Doesn't it?

[coins101]

ill just leave this here

Bump, just because its better than my chart.

What will the next halving bring?

edits

(fucking hate mobile auto-correct sometimes)

[jbreher]

According to Gregory Maxwell, even Core does not validate all transactions.

[citation needed]

please, can you elaborate on this? do you have a link or something? I'd like to know what escapes validation.

I understand that things that it reads from disk are not validated, and only a few last blocks are verified at startup, but they were validated before they were written, so everything gets validated. Doesn't it?

I understand your request for a citation. Seems implausible, right? I agree that the burden of proof - as far as 'according to GM' is concerned - is on me. A cursory check does not turn up a quote. I will continue to look. However, you point out the issue yourself:

"only a few last blocks are verified at startup, but they were validated before they were written, so everything gets validated. Doesn't it?"

If one is starting up a new node, and only the newest blocks are verified, you are not verifying the older blocks. You are trusting others to have done the verification of the earlier blocks. Ergo, Core does not validate all transactions.

To some this may be an acceptable risk. However, it is most certainly not operating in a trustless mode.

IOW to answer your question - to wit: "Doesn't it?", the answer is: 'no, it doesn't'.

[Carlton Banks]

"only a few last blocks are verified at startup, but they were validated before they were written, so everything gets validated. Doesn't it?"

If one is starting up a new node, and only the newest blocks are verified, you are not verifying the older blocks. You are trusting others to have done the verification of the earlier blocks. Ergo, Core does not validate all transactions.

To some this may be an acceptable risk. However, it is most certainly not operating in a trustless mode.

The usual trolling nonsense from you, j breher


If we were to remedy this issue, here's how: re-validate every transaction in evvery block in the entire block chain, EVERY time someone loads up their Bitcoin network. Great proposal jbreher, it'll only take people a few days every time they want to send a transaction, lol. Tell the BU devs to add that "upgrade" to the latest version, then someone might at least think that you believe what you're saying

[pepethefrog]

ill just leave this here

Bump, just because its better than my chart.

What will the next halving bring?

edits

(fucking hate mobile auto-correct sometimes)

Pepe thinks this graph is absolutely misleading.
Why make assumptions based on something back in 2012?
Also, in 2016 the blockchain is 100 GB big, and not 350 GB as graph wants to make Pepe believe.

Pepe is not stupid, you know?
So why fudge the numbers like that?
What is the point?