Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:14:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: infinite increasing of the chain size  (Read 3633 times)
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 02:43:00 AM
 #21

So how much data does the chain contain right now ?

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481040889
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481040889

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481040889
Reply with quote  #2

1481040889
Report to moderator
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 03:04:14 AM
 #22

So how much data does the chain contain right now ?

- 97,289 blocks
- 56,806,614 bytes
- 206,775 transactions
- 248,937 outputs
- 278,362 inputs
- 162,871 addresses

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 03:50:33 AM
 #23

So how much data does the chain contain right now ?

- 97,289 blocks
- 56,806,614 bytes
- 206,775 transactions
- 248,937 outputs
- 278,362 inputs
- 162,871 addresses

The "bytes" were what i had in mind, thank you.

ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 11:55:43 AM
 #24

The average of 275 bytes per transaction is interesting, I think.
lfm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
December 13, 2010, 12:24:53 PM
 #25

So how much data does the chain contain right now ?

- 97,289 blocks
- 56,806,614 bytes
- 206,775 transactions
- 248,937 outputs
- 278,362 inputs
- 162,871 addresses

When I can buy a million megabytes (1tb) for $50 (on sale), I fail to see why I should worry about 56 megabytes or twice that much or 10 times that much. It is a non issue.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 01:13:47 PM
 #26

There are a lot of examples of "infinitely increasing" databases where nothing ever gets erased.

One is the US constitution, where new amendments are appended to the body of the text without removing what already exists.  Yet, the US constitution hasn't "run out of paper" in over 200 years.

Another is Wikipedia, where every edit is recorded for all eternity.

"Infitinitely increasing" is clearly not an issue. It's the rate of increase that matters.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2010, 01:36:46 PM
 #27

There are a lot of examples of "infinitely increasing" databases where nothing ever gets erased.

One is the US constitution, where new amendments are appended to the body of the text without removing what already exists.  Yet, the US constitution hasn't "run out of paper" in over 200 years.

Another is Wikipedia, where every edit is recorded for all eternity.

"Infitinitely increasing" is clearly not an issue. It's the rate of increase that matters.

Haha, I like this.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Anonymous
Guest

December 13, 2010, 10:51:21 PM
 #28

Its not the size that matters?

 Lips sealed
Anonymous
Guest

December 13, 2010, 10:52:13 PM
 #29

That's what she said.  Lips sealed
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 11:00:31 AM
 #30

Its not the size that matters?

Yeah. It's the rate of increase that counts. That's what she said anyway.
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2010, 04:17:14 PM
 #31

Is there any reason why every certain number of blocks, that everyone's balance could not just be calculated and written as a huge new "genesis block" heap that simply equates Bitcoin addresses with their balances, and then all the detail from all prior blocks could be truncated?  Just because we can compare Bitcoin growth to the US Constitution doesn't mean all of its adopters will have the resources or the desire to store an ever-exploding block chain.  The way I understand it, you need the whole block chain not just to be a generator, but to independently verify the validity of your bitcoins cryptographically, and that can be tedious if a cell phone in 2030 must trace each cent through countless micropayments back to the originating block.

Example, after a million blocks, block 1000001 could be a block that replaces all blocks 2 thru 1000000, so one may only need a block chain of 1 -> 1000001 -> 1000002 etc... until two million:  1 -> 1000001 -> 2000001 -> 2000002 etc...

Not only would this save space for people not wanting to dedicate an ever-increasing amount of resources at a difficult-to-sustain rate, but it would also reduce the computational resources needed to validate balances, which would probably grow in an O(n^2) manner relative to the block chain itself.

If this is not sensible or beneficial due to my misunderstanding of the way it works, I'd welcome being corrected.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 14, 2010, 07:33:41 PM
 #32

Is there any reason why every certain number of blocks, that everyone's balance could not just be calculated and written as a huge new "genesis block" heap that simply equates Bitcoin addresses with their balances, and then all the detail from all prior blocks could be truncated?


Yes, there is a reason that is not done in the standard clients, and running balance sheets have been proposed, but it's not neccessary in order to keep the local blockchain footprint down.  The blockchain can be 'pruned' of old transaction records that have been already referenced (spent) in "lightweight" clients such as cell phones, or even full clients once set up.  There will likely always be a complete copy of the blockchain available somewhere on the Internet, but only 'paranoid' clients need the entire thing and then only upon initial startup.  Once they have verified the entire blockchain, even the most paranoid client can prune years of records off the chain and need only keep the 80 byte long headers.

Quote

The way I understand it, you need the whole block chain not just to be a generator, but to independently verify the validity of your bitcoins cryptographically, and that can be tedious if a cell phone in 2030 must trace each cent through countless micropayments back to the originating block.


You understand it incorrectly.  Don't take this personally, as it's a very complicated system, and takes a while for even the geekiest among us to wrap their heads around.  I was here for weeks before I really understood it.

And a 'lightweight' client can verify transactions independently without the full chain, but it's more than possible to verify transactions without a local copy of the chain at all if your client is connected to the Internet at the time.  There is a number of ways that this can be done, but the current Android client functions as  a frontend to a remote bitcoind running on a server.  This bitcoind server is functioning as a "trusted node", in this case because both the server and client are owned by the same user; but it is reasonable that "trusted nodes" will be a common thing in a Bitcoin future, functioning as a type of bank and/or credit card company as a service.  The trusted nodes keep the blockchain, and verify all user transactions.

Quote

Example, after a million blocks, block 1000001 could be a block that replaces all blocks 2 thru 1000000, so one may only need a block chain of 1 -> 1000001 -> 1000002 etc... until two million:  1 -> 1000001 -> 2000001 -> 2000002 etc...


Feel free to write such a client.  If there are technical issues with such a shortcut, I'm sure that you will figure it out.

Quote
Not only would this save space for people not wanting to dedicate an ever-increasing amount of resources at a difficult-to-sustain rate, but it would also reduce the computational resources needed to validate balances, which would probably grow in an O(n^2) manner relative to the block chain itself.


The resources of verification do not grow exponentially, or even linerily, with the size of the blockchain.

Quote

If this is not sensible or beneficial due to my misunderstanding of the way it works, I'd welcome being corrected.

It might be both, but it's not immediately neccessary to be able to compact the blockchain for any reason; and provisions exist in the protocol to be able to prune the blockchain to significant degrees.  This system is still young, and alternative clients will start to pop up with other ways of doing things when the time is right.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
December 15, 2010, 07:23:02 PM
 #33


Quote
Quote
Example, after a million blocks, block 1000001 could be a block that replaces all blocks 2 thru 1000000, so one may only need a block chain of 1 -> 1000001 -> 1000002 etc... until two million:  1 -> 1000001 -> 2000001 -> 2000002 etc...


Feel free to write such a client.  If there are technical issues with such a shortcut, I'm sure that you will figure it out.

By looking at what's left, I suppose that leads me to figure that keeping the headers (the proof of work for the size of the blockchain, including the hashes) is pretty vital to establishing which is the correct (longest in terms of PoW) blockchain.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 15, 2010, 07:28:04 PM
 #34


Quote
Quote
Example, after a million blocks, block 1000001 could be a block that replaces all blocks 2 thru 1000000, so one may only need a block chain of 1 -> 1000001 -> 1000002 etc... until two million:  1 -> 1000001 -> 2000001 -> 2000002 etc...


Feel free to write such a client.  If there are technical issues with such a shortcut, I'm sure that you will figure it out.

By looking at what's left, I suppose that leads me to figure that keeping the headers (the proof of work for the size of the blockchain, including the hashes) is pretty vital to establishing which is the correct (longest in terms of PoW) blockchain.

Yes.  The current system cannot function without the blockchain headers, at a minimum.  That shouldn't discourage you from seeking another solution.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!