|
AssemblY (OP)
|
 |
August 31, 2011, 09:52:45 PM |
|
I have a big question, searched the forum about it and found nothing. Bitcoin today has surpassed the mark of 1GB of data. Imagine that it has become popular in large scale in a short time, the size of the database could be increased so incredible, and make it slower, no? As far this size can reach? It can compromise the network?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a
SourceForge forum.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Hawkix
|
|
August 31, 2011, 10:45:14 PM |
|
My up-to-date blk001.dat is "only" 528MB. The blkindex.dat is 216MB. Where did you get that 1GB+ ?
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
August 31, 2011, 10:50:34 PM |
|
Very simple: Future Clients might use a binary data format and / or compression, there are large amounts of redundant information.
|
|
|
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
August 31, 2011, 10:53:53 PM |
|
Use the excellent Android app as an example. It's a fully-functional wallet, but only about 30MB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AssemblY (OP)
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:02:57 PM |
|
My up-to-date blk001.dat is "only" 528MB. The blkindex.dat is 216MB. Where did you get that 1GB+ ?
I installed bitcoin on a new machine now, and I finished downloading all the blocks. The folder "database" was to 1.10GB, and blkindex and blk0001 together added 752mb. Very simple: Future Clients might use a binary data format and / or compression, there are large amounts of redundant information.
I dont understand, why I had to download almost 2GB of data then? I not understand it, but I think everyone who install bitcoin from today will download the same amount of data in an ever increasing volume, is not? Where are the compression? |
|
|
|
|
|
AssemblY (OP)
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:06:57 PM |
|
Right ... when? The article does not told this specifically.  |
|
|
|
|
Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3682
Merit: 3042
Licking my boob since 1970
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:07:00 PM |
|
I have a big question, searched the forum about it and found nothing. Bitcoin today has surpassed the mark of 1GB of data. Imagine that it has become popular in large scale in a short time, the size of the database could be increased so incredible, and make it slower, no? As far this size can reach? It can compromise the network? Mining pools and exchanges can help control the size of the blockchain by increasing the minimum amount they work with. If pools would transfer 1 bitcoin at a time instead of 0.1 or even 0.01, you'd reduce the size of the blockchain considerably. |
https://nastyscam.com - landing page up https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon! OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
|
|
|
|
AssemblY (OP)
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:10:42 PM |
|
I have a big question, searched the forum about it and found nothing. Bitcoin today has surpassed the mark of 1GB of data. Imagine that it has become popular in large scale in a short time, the size of the database could be increased so incredible, and make it slower, no? As far this size can reach? It can compromise the network? Mining pools and exchanges can help control the size of the blockchain by increasing the minimum amount they work with. If pools would transfer 1 bitcoin at a time instead of 0.1 or even 0.01, you'd reduce the size of the blockchain considerably. I know this, but if the number of users increase bitcoin in a very fast, worldwide, the demand would be incalculable. With existing pools and exchanges will not be enough to balance this. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:15:26 PM |
|
I have a big question, searched the forum about it and found nothing.
Bitcoin today has surpassed the mark of 1GB of data.
Imagine that it has become popular in large scale in a short time, the size of the database could be increased so incredible, and make it slower, no?
No. Not slower. Not the network, anyway. Perhaps your particular client, but only if your machine & internet connection suck. As far this size can reach? It can compromise the network? I can't compromise the network, and it can reach infinity until a client with the capacity to 'prune' spent transactions from the old blocks is developed. Pruning of the blockchain is part of the protocol, but isn't implimented yet, and likely won't be for some time. It probably isn't going to become a priority until the blockchain is around the 10-20 GB range. Any computer newer than two years old and with a decent broadband connection can handle this kind of database. |
"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'
|
|
|
|
AssemblY (OP)
|
|
August 31, 2011, 11:42:10 PM |
|
I can't compromise the network, and it can reach infinity until a client with the capacity to 'prune' spent transactions from the old blocks is developed. Pruning of the blockchain is part of the protocol, but isn't implimented yet, and likely won't be for some time. It probably isn't going to become a priority until the blockchain is around the 10-20 GB range.
If the pruning of block chain is part of the protocol, where is it written? I looked for several articles and found nothing about it. If this information is official, it makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
September 01, 2011, 12:02:28 AM |
|
I can't compromise the network, and it can reach infinity until a client with the capacity to 'prune' spent transactions from the old blocks is developed. Pruning of the blockchain is part of the protocol, but isn't implimented yet, and likely won't be for some time. It probably isn't going to become a priority until the blockchain is around the 10-20 GB range.
If the pruning of block chain is part of the protocol, where is it written? I looked for several articles and found nothing about it. If this information is official, it makes sense. It's in the white paper. |
"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'
|
|
|
|
iamzill
|
|
September 01, 2011, 01:09:39 AM |
|
It probably isn't going to become a priority until the blockchain is around the 10-20 GB range. Any computer newer than two years old and with a decent broadband connection can handle this kind of database.
The most common SSD drives are 64 to 80GB  |
|
|
|
|
phillipsjk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
Let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
September 01, 2011, 05:08:11 AM |
|
|
James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE 0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160 |
|
|
|
iamzill
|
|
September 01, 2011, 05:15:20 AM |
|
It probably isn't going to become a priority until the blockchain is around the 10-20 GB range. Any computer newer than two years old and with a decent broadband connection can handle this kind of database.
The most common SSD drives are 64 to 80GB you don't have to store it in %appdata% -datadir=[old 2TB spinning disk]:\ That's what I'm doing on my desktop, but unfortunately the technique is not applicable for my laptop. It's not a big concern for me though. I'm sure the standard the client will implement a "recent blockchain only" option or blockchain pruning soon. Any one of these new feature will solve the problem instantly, along with the slow client-up problem. |
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
September 01, 2011, 01:29:10 PM |
|
Very simple: Future Clients might use a binary data format and / or compression, there are large amounts of redundant information.
Mmmh. Data in blkchain isn't very compressible: here's a bzip2 run on it: blk0001.dat: 1.268:1, 6.310 bits/byte, 21.13% saved, 554632957 in, 437434096 out.
blkindex.dat: 1.598:1, 5.007 bits/byte, 37.41% saved, 236568576 in, 148074565 out.
oops was a shot in the dark then  |
|
|
|
|
Gabi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
|
September 01, 2011, 04:06:27 PM |
|
The Roaming/Bitcoin folder is 837MB big here with blk001.dat at 530MB and blkindex.dat at 217MB
|
|
|
|
|
NothinG
|
|
September 01, 2011, 04:11:46 PM |
|
Why not this:
If the client is ran for the first time, only grab the most recent block. And, from there on out...grab the latest blocks.
-There is no need for new clients to go back and sift through all the blocks to see if they have a transactions.
If the client has been ran before, only grab the blocks from when their client first started.
-Again, no need to go ALL the way back.
If the user so-happens to want all the blocks, they would easily just be able to do -rescan.
-Sometimes people want to have all the blocks.
^ How about that?
|
|
|
|
Piper67
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001
|
|
September 01, 2011, 04:13:15 PM |
|
Why not this:
If the client is ran for the first time, only grab the most recent block. And, from there on out...grab the latest blocks.
If the client has been ran before, only grab the blocks from when their client first started.
If the user so-happens to want all the blocks, they would easily just be able to do -rescan.
^ How about that?
Yes, can't the client "trust" the network with the majority of the block chain as a default, and only download the whole thing when specifically requested to do so? |
|
|
|
|
|
NothinG
|
|
September 01, 2011, 04:15:21 PM |
|
Yes, can't the client "trust" the network with the majority of the block chain as a default, and only download the whole thing when specifically requested to do so?
Personally, I could care less how big the client is. However, following this method would allow users with little space to start a new client and send all Bitcoins to it. |
|
|
|
|
