COD Infinite Warfare's size is 130GB, and people cry about 85GB of blockchain?

[YIz]

Call of Duty's new title will require 130GB of disk space. It does include the remastered COD4 version which is included in the box.

Games are getting heavier, I think 80GB is going to be around the average size of AAA games in 2017.

Bitcoin blockchain's size is nothing to worry about folks.

https://www.vg247.com/2016/10/05/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-legacy-edition-box-reveals-a-whopping-130gb-hdd-requirement/

[gentlemand]

Obtaining it might be. I've known people with supposedly unlimited broadband who got throttled after downloading 30gb in a month. Maybe they had shit providers.

[OROBTC]

Obtaining it might be. I've known people with supposedly unlimited broadband who got throttled after downloading 30gb in a month. Maybe they had shit providers.

Yeah, that could be.  On the other hand, anyone wanting or needing the WHOLE blockchain might consider downloading from a special service that has faster service.

I just saw a SanDisk flash drive (256 GB) on sale at Best Buy for $55 (!!).  Memory is getting cheap as we get closer to a denouement in our economy (but that's for another thread).

[MingLee]

People are still complaining (and a lot more so) about the 130GB install than they have complained in the past, at least per person. Titanfall, back when it was 60GB was complained about a lot. GTAV was a bit more justified considering the size of the game. 85 Gigs isn't anything to scoff at for a lot of people, and where I am that is nearly a 1/5th of my total monthly data cap. Caps will go up with time, but the thing is a lot of people right now might not be able to deal with the required cap and their available data.

[YIz]

Obtaining it might be. I've known people with supposedly unlimited broadband who got throttled after downloading 30gb in a month. Maybe they had shit providers.

Haven't ever experienced a throttle personally, and I use pretty large amounts of bandwidth monthly.

[gentlemand]

Haven't ever experienced a throttle personally, and I use pretty large amounts of bandwidth monthly.

I did a couple of years ago. They didn't even tell me how much I'd used, and it can't have been very much as I don't really download very much at all. They kindly reduced me to 100 kbps for several weeks. I'm rather rural so don't have much choice in terms of providers.

[YIz]

Haven't ever experienced a throttle personally, and I use pretty large amounts of bandwidth monthly.

I did a couple of years ago. They didn't even tell me how much I'd used, and it can't have been very much as I don't really download very much at all. They kindly reduced me to 100 kbps for several weeks. I'm rather rural so don't have much choice in terms of providers.

At 100kbps you can't even load an HTML page quickly. must have been annoying. Here they state "unlimited bandwidth" but I have heard stories about people who torrent a lot get throttled. but they don't tell you anything, you just load Google for 5 seconds one morning.

[gentlemand]

At 100kbps you can't even load an HTML page quickly. must have been annoying. Here they state "unlimited bandwidth" but I have heard stories about people who torrent a lot get throttled. but they don't tell you anything, you just load Google for 5 seconds one morning.

It was a tad agonising. I've never been much of a torrenter but i could've been related to that as I've done it a handful of times. Where I'm at in the UK unlimited bandwidth usually has 'fair usage' written below in small letters which covers every possible base.

[Meuh6879]

Obtaining it might be. I've known people with supposedly unlimited broadband who got throttled after downloading 30gb in a month. Maybe they had shit providers.

cable policy (or satellite).
classic.

[Meuh6879]

People are still complaining (and a lot more so) about the 130GB install than they have complained in the past, at least per person.

true.

because, i only have a 64GB SSD for the dedicated storage of games in my tower.

[Wind_FURY]

Bandwidth is a much bigger problem in the future as the size of the blockchain grows bigger and bigger. I seem to notice that most of the people visiting this forum do not include that in the discussion. They seem fixated that since storage is getting cheaper than it will be ok. I will not be ok. The blockchain bloat is now seen as some sort of flaw in Bitcoin's design while others some see it as a trade off if you want to use a peer to peer payment network.

[Kakmakr]

There are many ways to kill a cat. One guy can download it, and distribute it, and just sync up when a friend needs it. In some countries they have different rules for local and international bandwidth. So you could use your local bandwidth to download the Blockchain, if you need to do that.

People will always complain, just because they can. It's in their nature. ^smile^

[Herbert2020]

One guy can download it, and distribute it, and just sync up when a friend needs it.

this part does not make any sense and this actually is defeating the purpose of bitcoin and blockchain being decentralized. you HAVE TO get it from peers yourself not just one guy who has it.

and that one guy can even manipulate the data he is giving you intentionally or even unintentionally give you bad data showing a transaction as confirmed when it was not. and many other risks.

however you can still get it from a friend if you trust him as in transferring it through external hard drive or even downloading blockchain through the torrent which is provided from time to time (i don't know how behind the torrent file currently is)

[coinzat]

the problem with blockchain is not only the size but also the huge bandwidth it is using. many countries now has no unlimited internet bundles and when they finish their packages the speed gets very slow. so why would I spend my internet on something I do not have to ! which is running a node

[NorrisK]

the problem with blockchain is not only the size but also the huge bandwidth it is using. many countries now has no unlimited internet bundles and when they finish their packages the speed gets very slow. so why would I spend my internet on something I do not have to ! which is running a node

I read that currently it takes about 200 GB a month to run the node for bitcoin only. Imagine some downloads or streaming movies through netflix etc, you could start hitting the limits of your connection quite fast.

And even with unlimited bandwidth, most providers have fair use policies which indeed may throttle your connection or even get you warnings to lower your data usage and ultimately getting cut of completely.

I still think a lot of bandwidth can be saved by using smaller chunks of the blockchain by many users instead of the whole thing by few users.

[Dassi]

We still have to worry about the growing size of the bitcoin blockchain because it will become 1000GB with time... and then what are we going to do about that?

[franky1]

the problem with blockchain is not only the size but also the huge bandwidth it is using. many countries now has no unlimited internet bundles and when they finish their packages the speed gets very slow. so why would I spend my internet on something I do not have to ! which is running a node

I read that currently it takes about 200 GB a month to run the node for bitcoin only. Imagine some downloads or streaming movies through netflix etc, you could start hitting the limits of your connection quite fast.

And even with unlimited bandwidth, most providers have fair use policies which indeed may throttle your connection or even get you warnings to lower your data usage and ultimately getting cut of completely.

I still think a lot of bandwidth can be saved by using smaller chunks of the blockchain by many users instead of the whole thing by few users.

the blockchain historic data, is an initial large "chunk" of under 100gb (needed just once) and then thats it for a large "chunk".

after its downloaded the historic data "chunk", you are then only getting live data in small "chunks".. these are called blocks, which average 1mb every 10 minutes. and then transaction data which you get aswell

but remember your not constantly downloading the <100gb large chunk of historic data each month.. only the live data

this live data can be controlled to an extent
the more 'connections' to other nodes you have the more bandwidth you need to use to send the same data out again to those other nodes.
the less 'connections' to other nodes you have the less bandwidth you need to use to send the same data out again to those other nodes.
by connecting to stable nodes that are already synced reduces sending out historic data.
by connecting to unstable nodes that are not already synced increasing sending out historic data.

so if you have a internet contract with limited bandwidth, but your node has 25+ connections. then yes expect to be using 200gb a month bandwidth.

try 10 connections, limit forming a connection to anyone that is well well behind in syncing.. you will thank yourself for seeing less bandwidth per month being used for live data.

think of it like torrents. many merchants/miners and dedicated users have good internet and have real desire to be nodes, so they can be considered as the seeders. then there are the average guy with slow internet that dont critically need to be node(they dont have a bitcoin business or spend much bitcoin) so they can limit themselves while still being part of the network but with only a few connections. these can be considered leachers.

i would rather have leachers only having a couple connections so that they are not interrupting many people. and leachers would rather have
less connections so they are not using as much data. so its win win

[franky1]

We still have to worry about the growing size of the bitcoin blockchain because it will become 1000GB with time... and then what are we going to do about that?

with 1mb blocks that 1000gb will hit in 20 years (1mbX144(day)x365(days)=52gb)
with 2mb blocks that 1000gb will hit in 10 years (2mbX144(day)x365(days)=52gb)
with 4mb blocks that 1000gb will hit in 5 years (4mbX144(day)x365(days)=52gb)

$100 hard drive(2tb) gives 10-40 years space. and in 10-40 years larger harddrives will be cheaper
so lets say
2017 the buffer went to 4mb(but data fill of blocks were only just creeping over 1mb), (150gb historic data)
2018 the buffer was still 4mb(but data fill of blocks were only just creeping upto 2mb), (250gb historic data)
2019 the buffer was still 4mb(but data fill of blocks were only just creeping upto 3mb), (400gb historic data)
2020 the buffer was still 4mb(but data fill of blocks were only just creeping upto 4mb), (600gb historic data)
2021 the buffer went to 8mb(but data fill of blocks were only just creeping upto 5mb), (850gb historic data)

after 5 years thats only 850gb of space used. far far far below the 2tb hard drive it has, but the computer is old. and most people upgrade every 4-5 years anyway.. so in 5 years im pretty sure the standard hard drive installed in new PC's would be higher then 2tb to last another 5 years, and so on and so on
EG 16gb blocks = 5tb for 5years(850gb for 2017-2021 data, UNDER 4tb 2022-2027), no problem having a computer with a 5tb hard drive to last you from 2022-2027, and buying that computer in 2021 will be cheap

[Vhern]

We still have to worry about the growing size of the bitcoin blockchain because it will become 1000GB with time... and then what are we going to do about that?

Probably games will have a bigger size too, the HD too and the internet speed will increase too...

Everything will raise, not just the blockchain size.

[Script3d]

130GB is so big for a two games why they just dont split it on half so you dont need to use alot of your hdd space or ssd space. its also a remade thats why its heavier but cod is a good game but im on csgo