on average, how much HD space does bitcoin-qt consume per day

[BTCisthefuture]

About how much HD space does bitcoin-qt eat up every day in order to download blockchain info.  I keep seeing my HD get less and less space and I'm worried at some point in the future I simply wont be able to run bitcoin-qt without buying another HD.

[Mike Christ]

It will forever increase in size.

With that said, you might want to try Electrum instead.  It doesn't have to download the blockchain; perfect for lappies.

[BTCisthefuture]

It will forever increase in size.

With that said, you might want to try Electrum instead.  It doesn't have to download the blockchain; perfect for lappies.

Right I know it forever increases in size...I'm just trying to get a rough idea of how much.  I suppose I could not be lazy and just monitor my HD space everyday and take a guess.  Figured it was quicker on here though.

Thanks for the advice on Electrum, I'm going to read up on that now since I'm also using a laptop.

[caveden]

Since 0.8 it became perfectly possible to run Bitcoin with its data dir in an USB disk, so I'm currently doing that to save space in my main disk (which is quite small).

Concerning your question, It's currently growing at no more than 250Kb per block, with ~144 blocks per day that should be at most ~36Mb of daily growth (it's actually less than that, not every block's hitting 250Kb). After May 15th, that growth rate might rise. It will take a hard-fork change for it to rise above 144Mb per day though, due to the 1Mb cap.

You can follow the total size here: http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size

[farlack]

Since 0.8 it became perfectly possible to run Bitcoin with its data dir in an USB disk, so I'm currently doing that to save space in my main disk (which is quite small).

Concerning your question, It's currently growing at no more than 250Kb per block, with ~144 blocks per day that should be at most ~36Mb of daily growth (it's actually less than that, not every block's hitting 250Kb). After May 15th, that growth rate might rise. It will take a hard-fork change for it to rise above 144Mb per day though, due to the 1Mb cap.

You can follow the total size here: http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size

144mb is way to much it already takes like 20 hours to download it. Soon we will all need 10TB hard drives for btc only <.<
And it take 4 months to download..

[caveden]

Blockchain growth is only exponential as long as Bitcoin usage growth is exponential. Whenever usage stabilizes, blockchain growth will be linear, and bandwidth consumption will stabilize, while storage resources and connection speeds will remain growing exponentially. So, at most, there will be a medium term future in which running a full node requires a professional amount of resources, but as resources keep growing exponentially and Bitcoin consumption of said resources keeps growing linearly, eventually everybody will be able to run full nodes on their phones.

And remember, for sending and receiving money safely, you can use a SVP client. Those require much less resources. You can run a full p2p SVP client on your phone right now.

(Btw, if I'm not mistaken in the fast calculations I've just made, it would take almost 200 years to reach 10Tb by growing 144Mb per day... I know this growth rate will increase beyond these 144Mb, but from where do you take this "soon we'll need 10Tb" figure? What's "soon"?)

[matt608]

Since 0.8 it became perfectly possible to run Bitcoin with its data dir in an USB disk, so I'm currently doing that to save space in my main disk (which is quite small).

Concerning your question, It's currently growing at no more than 250Kb per block, with ~144 blocks per day that should be at most ~36Mb of daily growth (it's actually less than that, not every block's hitting 250Kb). After May 15th, that growth rate might rise. It will take a hard-fork change for it to rise above 144Mb per day though, due to the 1Mb cap.

You can follow the total size here: http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size

I have an external HD and have a back up on there. So are you saying I could delete ( ) the copy on my laptop and just have the HD version to save disk space?  I suppose that would make sense I just never thought of it.  Don't think I will as it's less risky to just delete more other stuff from my laptop and make a backup of that rather than just have 1 copy of my wallet.

[caveden]

You just need to point Bitcoin-QT to your data dir. I think it's -datadir=... or something.

Keep backups of your wallet, of course.
No need to back up the blockchain, there are already plenty of copies around the world.

[Gabi]

Do not delete your wallet! caveden is speaking about deleting the blockchain/having it on a usb key instead of the hard disk. But do not delete your wallet, make backups of it!

The blockchain today is about 7.8GB big, and of course it is increasing. Once the blocksize cap will be changed, it will grow even more. But of course pruning is possible, so don't worry about 10TB hard disks 

[Rassah]

It only costs a bit over BTC3 to get 10TB nowadays 

[whiskers75]

blockchain.info/wallet

[tvbcof]

...
And remember, for sending and receiving money safely, you can use a SVP client. Those require much less resources. You can run a full p2p SVP client on your phone right now.
...

Why would you classify and SPV client as a 'peer'?  It certainly does not seem to me to be a peer to a node holding a block chain, and as best I can tell does nothing whatsoever in terms of helping support the integrity of the network.

[farlack]

It only costs a bit over BTC3 to get 10TB nowadays 

My 3rd to last bank paid me $150 to open, my 2nd to last paid me $125, and my last bank paid me $25

Spending $400 to open a bank account (wallet) is counter productive I think.

[caveden]

Why would you classify and SPV client as a 'peer'?  It certainly does not seem to me to be a peer to a node holding a block chain, and as best I can tell does nothing whatsoever in terms of helping support the integrity of the network.

I meant it works in a p2p fashion, not in a client-server fashion, as it connects to multiple nodes. It's "decentralized" if you prefer.

[tvbcof]

Why would you classify and SPV client as a 'peer'?  It certainly does not seem to me to be a peer to a node holding a block chain, and as best I can tell does nothing whatsoever in terms of helping support the integrity of the network.

I meant it works in a p2p fashion, not in a client-server fashion, as it connects to multiple nodes. It's "decentralized" if you prefer.

The first sentence makes basically no sense at all in logical or technical terms.

As to the second sentence, I have a checkbook in my pocket and I can write checks to anyone no matter what bank they use.  I can also use any ATM I see (for an annoying but tolerable fee.)  A Bitcoin solution with a limited number of full nodes and a majority of users using SPV or thin client hacks such as electrum seems to me not much different than what we have today.  And likely pretty easy for corp/gov to clamp down on when they see fit, particularly if it threatens most geo-political unions which I imagine it could.

[Rassah]

It only costs a bit over BTC3 to get 10TB nowadays 

My 3rd to last bank paid me $150 to open, my 2nd to last paid me $125, and my last bank paid me $25

Spending $400 to open a bank account (wallet) is counter productive I think.

Wrong comparison. Blockchain.info costs $0 to open an account on. How much does it cost to buy a vault and start your own bank?

[Mike Hearn]

Eventually most users will be on SPV wallets, that was always the plan (see Satoshi's paper).

This isn't the same as banking, not even remotely close. For one, malicious peers are very limited in what they can do to SPV clients. They don't validate the chain contents, so a miner can make an SPV client temporarily see a bogus view of the world for as long as they can outrun the network. But once they fall behind, the SPV client will switch back to the best valid chain and get back in sync with reality.

And obviously, remote nodes cannot control what you do with your money.

[tvbcof]

Eventually most users will be on SPV wallets, that was always the plan (see Satoshi's paper).

It was one of the less good ideas in my opinion.

This isn't the same as banking, not even remotely close. For one, malicious peers are very limited in what they can do to SPV clients. They don't validate the chain contents, so a miner can make an SPV client temporarily see a bogus view of the world for as long as they can outrun the network. But once they fall behind, the SPV client will switch back to the best valid chain and get back in sync with reality.

Architecturally the system you describe is very similar to the modern banking system with high powered 'peers' upon whom the users are utterly dependent.  All that remains to be seen are what the ratio will be.  It is simply disingenuous to refer to it as a 'peer2peer' solution and retain any real meaning to the term.

And obviously, remote nodes cannot control what you do with your money.

Oh?  I am pretty sure that it was you yourself that came up with one of my favorite lines.  Something like when there is sufficient centralization, there would be "no real difference between taking someones money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years."

[marcus_of_augustus]

No need to back up the blockchain, there are already plenty of copies around the world.

You should really make the note that only the blockchain copy on your machine has been validated by your own machine ....

... why are guys going to such lengths to obfuscate the dangers of not running your own full node I wonder?

[Mike Christ]

No need to back up the blockchain, there are already plenty of copies around the world.

You should really make the note that only the blockchain copy on your machine has been validated by your own machine ....

... why are guys going to such lengths to obfuscate the dangers of not running your own full node I wonder?

Not everyone is quite as paranoid