Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users

[irrational]

Here is an example of the point I'm making -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=537748.0

Until either Bitcoin Core doesn't take forever and a day to sync, or it stops being the "official" client, then we'll see posts like this with an ever increasing frequency.

Perhaps the bitcoin.org site could only reference the "Bitcoin Core" app under the "developers" section, and for the "getting started" only reference wallets that don't need the full block chain. Just a thought.

[1715548302]

1715548302

[1715548302]

1715548302

[sweetgirl01]

Here is an example of the point I'm making -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=537748.0

Until either Bitcoin Core doesn't take forever and a day to sync, or it stops being the "official" client, then we'll see posts like this with an ever increasing frequency.

Perhaps the bitcoin.org site could only reference the "Bitcoin Core" app under the "developers" section, and for the "getting started" only reference wallets that don't need the full block chain. Just a thought.

The idea you also realize the need for a very long time

[roslinpl]

Hmm ... IMO if you are begginier in bitcoin world you should 1st of all try bitcoin core. And then you may think about  smaller weight clients.

Core is probably the best desktop wallet out there.

[Velkro]

"Use up to 10 GB of disk space" and it will never use more than that

That would be amazing.

Current client development is so early beta or even alpha. We will laught about it in couple years.

[Meuh6879]

  i don't laugh about my P2P file sharing system ... since 15 years in less than v1.00 (emule 0.50a).

[bball233420]

I have been trying to figure out how to get some active connections to a bitcoin network and it won't work. I've tried changing the IP and also the port and nothing is working. I'm 266 weeks behind and i need this done asap. Anyone who could help it would be greatly appreciated thank you.

[chandan123]

I have been trying to figure out how to get some active connections to a bitcoin network and it won't work. I've tried changing the IP and also the port and nothing is working. I'm 266 weeks behind and i need this done asap. Anyone who could help it would be greatly appreciated thank you.

tried with bootstrap.dat file ?

[x_seed]

really good info thanks for the update

[sosulon]

Thanks for sharing.

really helped a lot .

[roslinpl]

I thingk it is a good idea!

and what is good idea in your opinion? Can you expand your though to let us understand more??

That would be nice.

And back to the topic:
"Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users"

... new users do not need to download a blockcian. They can use clients without them....

I must say I do not remember when I transfer any BTC via qt..

I am using Android Wallet day by day and it works too fine to change.

[kusrmdik]

if old blocks are deleted, what would happen to the BTCs in wallets that were lost in the initial years?

[CoinExpert]

I was thinking to cut the chain down in size would be to:

1. Delete any BTC addresses that has less than .001 BTC. Add a merge function button in the wallet that moves any BTC too small together. Let everyone know the chain will restart and only keep btc addresses over .001 in the new chain.

2. The blockchain is filled with the same BTC bouncing around everywhere, do we really need to keep that information, just delete it and keep the current address amounts.

That should cut down the size dramatically and it could be done once a year. Just implementing #2 would be most helpful, #1 would also be helpful but not necessary.



   

[sj2199]

Thanks for providing information....

[cypherdoc]

I was thinking to cut the chain down in size would be to:

1. Delete any BTC addresses that has less than .001 BTC. Add a merge function button in the wallet that moves any BTC too small together. Let everyone know the chain will restart and only keep btc addresses over .001 in the new chain.

2. The blockchain is filled with the same BTC bouncing around everywhere, do we really need to keep that information, just delete it and keep the current address amounts.

That should cut down the size dramatically and it could be done once a year. Just implementing #2 would be most helpful, #1 would also be helpful but not necessary.



    

The problem is you can't  reliably notify everyone so you'd end up deleting many addresses with less than. 001. Plus you're thinking like an American. You know that $0.50 is a helluva lot of money in other countries?

Plus in 10 years even you might think 0.001 is a lot.

[7Priest7]

1. Delete any BTC addresses that has less than .001 BTC. Add a merge function button in the wallet that moves any BTC too small together. Let everyone know the chain will restart and only keep btc addresses over .001 in the new chain.

Removing addresses is a bad idea, see previous post.

Developing a really good bitcoin blockchain compression would be the way to go.
Possibly making a core client that could selectively download only relevant blocks from the swarm.
Allow nodes to be nodes and end users to be just end users.
Having every end user download the whole blockchain is more of a burden on the nodes than letting them download only blocks they need.

[nakoo]

Look not to understand completely

[CADguy]

i wish you could just cut out early blocks of the chain

[validium]

Always wanted to ask this; Is it true that the more bitcoin nodes there are, the faster transactions get confirmed?

[7Priest7]

Always wanted to ask this; Is it true that the more bitcoin nodes there are, the faster transactions get confirmed?

No.
The inclusion of new blocks is handled by miners.
Blocks occur once every 10 minutes, this doesn't change with more miners.
The nodes only distribute the blocks once the miners created them.

[tvbcof]

i wish you could just cut out early blocks of the chain

I can catch up to early 2012 quite quickly, and the whole wad can easily be stored on a thumb drive.  In short, the early blocks are not a problem from a size or complexity perspective.  Unfortunately this gave people a false sense of hope for the trajectory and fundamental operational principles of Bitcoin back in those early times.  Even without expanding the 1MB block size, when the system became more highly used some annoyances and potential problems started to appear.

The solution under discussion here is basically a change to how Bitcoin worked back in the early days.  Effectively one no longer autonomously verifies their ownership but relies on a combination of other categorically different actors and probabilistic estimates of strength (and global system function.)  Works fine (currently) and solves the scaling issues nicely for most people.  But it is NOT equivalent to running a transfer node and participating in strengthening the system, and arguably not even close.