Once again, what about the scalability issue?

[Come-from-Beyond]

It seems to me Bitcoin core devs prefer ostrich policy. The blockchain keeps growing, pruning is not implemented yet (is it possible btw?), Gavin spoke about everything except the scalability issue on Bitcoin 2013 conference...
Is there any progress? Or is the game over?

[1714259409]

1714259409

[TippingPoint]

A reasonable question.

The wiki says " In Satoshi's paper he describes "pruning", a way to delete unnecessary data about transactions that are fully spent... As of October 2012 (block 203258) there have been 7,979,231 transactions, however the size of the unspent output set is less than 100MiB, which is small enough to easily fit in RAM for even quite old computers."

I would like to read the Satoshi pruning description, and here it is:

7. Reclaiming Disk Space
Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before
it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash,
transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree, with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do
not need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are
generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems
typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of
1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in
memory.

[asically]

What about Simplfied Payment Verification implementation?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Blockchain size - 8.09 GB

[porcupine87]

Blockchain size - 8.09 GB

Question. How can it be, that everyone has another size for the block chain. I read here sometimes about 11Gig, now you have 8,09. I have 9,79? From which factors the size it dependend?

[readonlyaccess]

Blockchain size - 8.09 GB

Question. How can it be, that everyone has another size for the block chain. I read here sometimes about 11Gig, now you have 8,09. I have 9,79? From which factors the size it dependend?

http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size

[wolverine.ks]

maybe im wrong, but i have yet to hear of someone having a practical problem with the blockchain size. i hear a lot of gloom and doom, but never examples of something that someone tried to do but was unable to do because of the size.

additionally, it seems that there are already people making work arounds for what they believe to be limitations in the protocol, and they are making money off of it.

so its always a good idea to keep your eye on the future, but this seems like a fear regarding the free market's ability to cope with obstacles more than a fear that bitcoin will someday break.

[d'aniel]

It seems to me Bitcoin core devs prefer ostrich policy. The blockchain keeps growing, pruning is not implemented yet (is it possible btw?), Gavin spoke about everything except the scalability issue on Bitcoin 2013 conference...
Is there any progress? Or is the game over?

That's nice, you've completely ignored all the recent work Peter Wuille has done with ultraprune, which sets the stage for pruning the currently 8GB blockchain that takes up a whopping 1.6% of my laptop's hard disk (at this rate it doesn't matter if it takes him another year or two to fully implement pruning).  Not to mention his fast signature checking implementation.

Gavin's recent payment protocol work is equally important, and maybe he isn't personally working on these things simply because Peter already is.

Welcome to my ignore list you lousy ingrate.

[d'aniel]

bitcoin has never synced up on my computer and now i know why it's too big and buggy




NYC;)




this Peter Wuille ? lol :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSNn4HEDYWs

I've synced from scratch almost a dozen times over the past few years without any trouble.

You get to be on my ignore list too.

[Cyberdyne]

I just bought a 3 TB hard drive for cheap.

Next year I might buy a 4 TB for cheap.

Ostrich policy suits me fine.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Question. How can it be, that everyone has another size for the block chain. I read here sometimes about 11Gig, now you have 8,09. I have 9,79? From which factors the size it dependend?

Blockchain.Info says 8280 MB, it's 8.09 GB.

maybe im wrong, but i have yet to hear of someone having a practical problem with the blockchain size.

Try to download the blockchain on a new computer.

That's nice, you've completely ignored all the recent work Peter Wuille has done with ultraprune, which sets the stage for pruning the currently 8GB blockchain...

Is there any result?

Welcome to my ignore list you lousy ingrate.

Noone cares about ur ignore list.

I just bought a 3 TB hard drive for cheap.

Next year I might buy a 4 TB for cheap.

Ostrich policy suits me fine.

Ok, but forget about world-wide adoption and 1 BTC for 1000$ then.

[wopwop]

bitcoin is made for criminals, it wasn't intended to grow big for mainstream transacting

satoshi said this in the early days

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Offchain transactions allows Bitcoin to scale. Sure, it has it's own drawbacks too, like how it requires trust, but it is still a solution.

[porcupine87]

Question. How can it be, that everyone has another size for the block chain. I read here sometimes about 11Gig, now you have 8,09. I have 9,79? From which factors the size it dependend?

Blockchain.Info says 8280 MB, it's 8.09 GB.

Hm cool, but on my harddrive the chain requires 9,81 Gigabyte. This is the size of my folder "blocks". So how can that be?

[xavier]

Yes this is the number 1 issue with bitcoin

No it hasn't been solved

All posts about SPV can be ignored; the idea of SPV is fundamentally flawed

Right now bitcoin remains unscalable, this issue still hasn't been solved

As a side note, just because a developer is well known and established in the community, it doesnt mean everything he says is correct. The only proven genius behind bitcoin is Satoshi, who created it, and he left the project long ago.

Yes what Im saying is controversial. I've been saying the same thing for months now. Anyway, deal with it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Blockchain.Info says 8280 MB, it's 8.09 GB.

Hm cool, but on my harddrive the chain requires 9,81 Gigabyte. This is the size of my folder "blocks". So how can that be?

Internal structures of ur wallet software add some overhead.

[Mike Hearn]

It's expected that local disk usage measurements will vary, due to whether you include the leveldb sizes in your amount or not, and how many orphaned blocks you have.

[Suushi]

http://screencast.com/t/SzZrgmWed1ZO

Here's my folder size.. weird

[warpio]

It will be a great milestone once we are able to run full nodes without having to worry about the growing size of the full blockchain.

There's still plenty of time for this to be implemented. I'm not worried. Until then, people who don't want to download the full blockchain can rely on the 3rd party nodes/exchange services that we have now.

[justusranvier]

Once again, people are working on scalability. Donate if you really care about the problem and want to help:

http://utxo.tumblr.com/