Blockchain will be >1.8 TB , but with 2mb Blocks >5 TB in 10 years!

[RealBitcoin]

This is a response thread to:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1612543.0

The blockchain according to my calculations should be around 1.8 Terrabytes in 10 years. Currently it is 85 Gigabytes, and in exactly 10 years, with current growth pace it will be a little bit more than 1.8 TB.



 
 


And projected this to 10 years in the future:




 
 


And if the block size gets raised to 2 mb, it will be huge, more than 5 Terrabytes!






 
 

A huge blockchain awaits us, and maybe a 1.8 terrabyte blockchain is not that big in 10 years if Moore's Law stays constant. But a 5 terrabyte one would be catastrophic.

So these hardforkers have really lost the debate, they want to raise the block size to 8mb and then there wont be any nodes to host bitcoin because their bandwidth download speed wont work.

Imagine downloading a 5 terrabyte blockchain.... No ISP will give you that much bandwidth to host a node on!


But I guess franky1 will appear any minute now to tell us otherwise.

[yayayo]

RealBitcoin, you are right. The shills of Andresen, Hearn and Ver here are truly an annoyance, albeit a hilarious one. Their previous doomsday scenarios of "blocks-are-full-bitcoin-will-die" have already been proven dead wrong by reality.

Many bigblockers do not realize that blockchain size growth is not linear, it is currently exponential as your chart clearly shows.

Even though a 5 TB blockchain is huge, I think it might still be ok to be stored on regular HDD's in 10 years. The real problem is bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. While there are improvements in Internet infrastructure as well, bandwidth growth is far slower than needed to absorb Bitcoin growth in future when all transactions are stored in blocks via the original method.

So the propaganda of bigblockers shows a severe lack of technological understanding. Bitcoin just can't scale to be a global payment system without solutions such as Segwit and LightningNetworks that reduce the data load of transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

LOL

1mb=52gb MAX per year (1*144(day)*365(year))
2mb=104gb MAX per year

as displayed


so traditional 1mb block consensus= 0.52tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)
so traditional 2mb block consensus= 1.04tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)
so segwit softfork 1mbbase 4mb weight = 4.08tb MAX after 10 years. (actual bloat will be lower then this)

doomsday debunked

have a nice day

[pedrog]

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

You're as visionary as IBM in 1981: "640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone"  

And don't forget, Satoshi was a "big blocker":

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Also a "hard-forker":

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

[lottery248]

LOL

1mb=52gb MAX per year (1*144(day)*365(year))
2mb=104gb MAX per year

so 2mb = 1.04tb MAX after 10 years.

doomsday debunked

have a nice day

lmao even if not that much database needed, you would still take you hours if not days to load all of your bitcoin wallet, and may lag your old PC.

[franky1]

lmao even if not that much database needed, you would still take you hours if not days to load all of your bitcoin wallet, and may lag your old PC.

do you think you will be using the exact same computer in 10 years.
if anyone right now is using a windows XP computer with just a 20gb hard drive and 512mb ram (standard 10 years ago) they only have themselves to blame for not bing able to run a node today.
similar thing wil be said in 10 years.

on average a person upgrades their computer every 4 years. so in 10 years their pc should be 2 generations ahead of now.

[Carlton Banks]

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

Yep. But it's not 10 years from now. It's now. And 1MB is still where we are on the curve for "gradually phasing in" bigger blocks, as Satoshi says in your quote.

New internet infrastructure, cheaper data, bigger/faster storage and progress in processors will all play their part to make sure increased blocksizes won't hurt the network. But that's not the world we're living in, yet. Meanwhile, smart optimisations and compromises are being sought. Fail to see the problem with that, until improvements in internet infrastructure make running a Bitcoin node look more attractive, that is.

[Red-Apple]

This is a response thread to:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1612543.0

did you even read that topic you are quoting here?!
in short there are two things wrong with what you are saying here.
1) you are extrapolating data which always will have a huge error factor which you are not considering here!
lets say today block size rises to 2 MB
every 10 minutes on average 1 block is mined
24 hours is in a day
24 hours * 6 blocks * 365 days *10 years = 525,600 blocks * 2 MB each = 1.05 terabyte (TB)

2) we are talking about 10 years so consider this. ten years ago in 2006 we didn't know what SSDs are, we didn't have this much storage on our PC, big storage was expensive now we all have 2 TB, 4 TB as a normal cheap storages. the same thing is true about the future.

[RealBitcoin]

RealBitcoin, you are right. The shills of Andresen, Hearn and Ver here are truly an annoyance, albeit a hilarious one. Their previous doomsday scenarios of "blocks-are-full-bitcoin-will-die" have already been proven dead wrong by reality.

Many bigblockers do not realize that blockchain size growth is not linear, it is currently exponential as your chart clearly shows.

Even though a 5 TB blockchain is huge, I think it might still be ok to be stored on regular HDD's in 10 years. The real problem is bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. While there are improvements in Internet infrastructure as well, bandwidth growth is far slower than needed to absorb Bitcoin growth in future when all transactions are stored in blocks via the original method.

So the propaganda of bigblockers shows a severe lack of technological understanding. Bitcoin just can't scale to be a global payment system without solutions such as Segwit and LightningNetworks that reduce the data load of transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

Just call them out what they are:

Socialists & Communists.

They want unlimited free bitcoin "Bitcoin Unlimited & Classic" wallets. (probably wealth redistribution in later  hardfork patches)

LOL

I thought you would get triggered , there is no way I make a post about hardfork and you wont reply to it immediately.

In any case calculations were based on blockchain.info charts, and it's not just the transactions but the signature too, which increases quadratically.

There is more in a block than just that.

Dude, you're retarded, 5TB is nothing, specially in 10 years from now, even 50 dollar/year hosting comes with 10TB/month bandwidth.

Yeah and you want bitcoin to stay decentralized, not on "hosting platforms".

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

How will your average joe run a blockchain and keep bitcoin decentralized?

[BTCLovingDude]

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

that is why light wallets (SPV wallets) were invented

i live in a shitty country with shittier internet connection, and i am using Electrum, i don't have to be running a full node in order to use bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

Tell that to your avg chinese villager who probably has <500kbs internet connection that disconnects at every stormy weather.

that is why light wallets (SPV wallets) were invented

i live in a shitty country with shittier internet connection, and i am using Electrum, i don't have to be running a full node in order to use bitcoin.

ok  but we are talking about full nodes here, and the more there are the better for bitcoin.

But a block increase would decrease the number of full nodes, guaranteed. And we need to avoid this.

[DannyHamilton]

In any case calculations were based on blockchain.info charts,

We've discussed this before.  For some reason you seem to feel the need to keep re-posting the same nonsense every few weeks.

I don't really have a problem with your charts.  I have a problem with the way you lie about what your charts are representing.

You claim in the subject line of this thread:
"with 2mb Blocks >5 TB in 10 years"

But you know very well (because we've discussed this before, and you admitted so) that your charts are assuming that the blocks are allowed to grow LARGER THAN 2 MB.

If you want to post:
"Blockchain will be 1.8TB if blocksize grows beyond 1MB at current rate"
or
"Blockchain will be >5TB if blocksize grows beyond 1MB at double the current rate"

Then everything would be fine, and I'd be on your side of this discussion.

But for some reason you seem to insist on creating new posts on a regular basis that make it look like you are incapable of simple maths (like addition).

and it's not just the transactions but the signature too, which increases quadratically.

There is more in a block than just that.

And now you are just making up complete nonsense.

The signature is part of the transaction.  It doesn't increase.  Not linearly, nor in a quadratic fashion.  The signature is always 64 or 65 bytes for each signature.

The block has an 80 byte header, and the (currently 1 MB maximum) transactions.  That's it.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Every time.