Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 05:38:53 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: what are they going to do when the bitcoin chain becomes prohibitively large?  (Read 2206 times)
dogechode
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 02:53:08 AM
 #1

The bitcoin app already takes up a hefty amount of hard drive space. What is going to happen in a few years when it gets even larger? As people have more and more cryptocoin wallets on their PCs, space could become an issue... Is there any way around this?
1508391533
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508391533

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508391533
Reply with quote  #2

1508391533
Report to moderator
1508391533
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508391533

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508391533
Reply with quote  #2

1508391533
Report to moderator
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508391533
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508391533

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508391533
Reply with quote  #2

1508391533
Report to moderator
roy7
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 02:54:24 AM
 #2

I don't know the right terminology to use, but I believe the next major version of bitcoin has something to reduce the amount of data needed to be stored.

RoyalMiningCo: Pools retired. Was fun!
seriouscoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 02:57:28 AM
 #3

The bitcoin app already takes up a hefty amount of hard drive space. What is going to happen in a few years when it gets even larger? As people have more and more cryptocoin wallets on their PCs, space could become an issue... Is there any way around this?

You assume technology stops evolving?

Because in 2005, 4 GIG of Ram was ALOT. 

MysteryMiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
February 08, 2014, 04:20:49 AM
 #4

Buy 8TB external HDD for Bitcoin data directory and be prepared for next 6 or 7 years of blockchain growth! Or buy the second-hand 8TB drive 5 years from now for couple of dollars.

1LEaxxAh1LKFUvDKYVhiMEVAHRM7K5o7cF
AltorXP
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 04:39:05 AM
 #5

Buy 8TB external HDD for Bitcoin data directory and be prepared for next 6 or 7 years of blockchain growth! Or buy the second-hand 8TB drive 5 years from now for couple of dollars.

Or use SPV wallets
Once the blockchain is too big to be hosted on a single node, it might be split, and spread so each node only hosts a fraction.
gollum
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


In Hashrate We Trust!


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 04:49:48 AM
 #6

Buy 8TB external HDD for Bitcoin data directory and be prepared for next 6 or 7 years of blockchain growth! Or buy the second-hand 8TB drive 5 years from now for couple of dollars.

Or use SPV wallets
Once the blockchain is too big to be hosted on a single node, it might be split, and spread so each node only hosts a fraction.
Exactly, that's the only realistic long term solution.
Each node holds random parts of the blockchain, but all nodes together will have redundancy
roy7
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 05:08:01 AM
 #7

Exactly, that's the only realistic long term solution.
Each node holds random parts of the blockchain, but all nodes together will have redundancy

Interesting, I should read up on that. Kinda sounds like torrent, except you don't end up downloading the whole thing.

RoyalMiningCo: Pools retired. Was fun!
go4nature
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 05:16:06 AM
 #8

I am using multibit , it is not downloading every thing.

dogechode
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
 #9

I am using multibit , it is not downloading every thing.

Multibit is less secure though. It seems that most methods of reducing the storage requirement involve accepting a higher level of risk.
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
 #10

The bitcoin app already takes up a hefty amount of hard drive space. What is going to happen in a few years when it gets even larger? As people have more and more cryptocoin wallets on their PCs, space could become an issue... Is there any way around this?

You assume technology stops evolving?

Because in 2005, 4 GIG of Ram was ALOT.  



This is becoming a serious problem now, rather than adapting their code programmers everywhere just shrug and expect their customers to buy high end PCs that easily cost over £800, for a lot of people it isn't realistic to do that for most things because they're on a budget. Games are a perfect example that I'm worried about because rather than just deciding on a certain number of polygons etc. to use programmers now are just vomiting effects all over the screen and expecting people to buy high end systems to cope with it, this is just sloppy coding practice and bad forethought it will also drive a lot of customers away that don't want to spend the money on these systems just to play usually one or two games on it a bit like the whole console exclusives problem.

Nevermind games, if you're going to do this to someone with a business with software they use and force them to get several hundred pounds of equipment just so they can cope with it until the next software comes out which will require another machine you're just going to get the middle finger. I think that the Bitcoin dev team are more intelligent than this but this is precisely why I support altcoins and wouldn't have taken an interest in Bitcoin if it wasn't open source, somebody will find a more efficient solution to the blockchain taking up so much space if they won't.

You might make companies like Intel and AMD happy with that kind of attitude but everybody else is going to hate it.
12648430
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 144


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 09:36:10 AM
 #11

I agree this is a major problem we're going to have to solve (and that software bloat sucks!), but I'm not sure what you mean about the altcoins. There isn't any that has solved Bitcoin's scalability issues, except by having many fewer transactions to deal with, is there?
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 09:51:46 AM
 #12

Nah there isn't, but if the Bitcoin dev team don't solve it someone else might that's my point, I mean look at Litecoin, while it's not hugely revolutionary or anything somebody came out with a coin that only GPU's ( at least so far ) could mine and then there's stuff like Primecoin and Peercoin, I'm definitely grateful that the code for Bitcoin was released open source.
CryptoPanda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
 #13

1. HDDs are getting bigger faster than the blockchain I believe
2. You can use thin client

bitfreak!
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1535


electronic [r]evolution


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
 #14

I have lost count of the number of threads asking this same question. I usually don't bother answering but this time I will. The simple answer is blockchain pruning. Old spent transactions buried under enough blocks can be trimmed from the blockchain. Satoshi mentioned this as a method for reclaiming disk space in the original white paper. However, it's easier said than done now that the network is already several years old, and all the unspent "dust" transactions limit the effectiveness of blockchain pruning. I personally believe the real solution to scalability in decentralized cryptocurrency can be achieved with a system like my mini-blockchain scheme. But I wont bother explaining how it works in this thread, if you're interested in the details then read the wiki: http://bitfreak.info/mbc-wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

XCN: CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz | BTC: 18MWPVJA9mFLPFT3zht5twuNQmZBDzHoWF
Cryptonite - 1st mini-blockchain altcoin | BitShop - digital shop script
Web Developer - PHP, SQL, JS, AJAX, JSON, XML, RSS, HTML, CSS
dogechode
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
 #15

This is becoming a serious problem now, rather than adapting their code programmers everywhere just shrug and expect their customers to buy high end PCs that easily cost over £800, for a lot of people it isn't realistic to do that for most things because they're on a budget. Games are a perfect example that I'm worried about because rather than just deciding on a certain number of polygons etc. to use programmers now are just vomiting effects all over the screen and expecting people to buy high end systems to cope with it, this is just sloppy coding practice and bad forethought it will also drive a lot of customers away that don't want to spend the money on these systems just to play usually one or two games on it a bit like the whole console exclusives problem.

Nevermind games, if you're going to do this to someone with a business with software they use and force them to get several hundred pounds of equipment just so they can cope with it until the next software comes out which will require another machine you're just going to get the middle finger. I think that the Bitcoin dev team are more intelligent than this but this is precisely why I support altcoins and wouldn't have taken an interest in Bitcoin if it wasn't open source, somebody will find a more efficient solution to the blockchain taking up so much space if they won't.

You might make companies like Intel and AMD happy with that kind of attitude but everybody else is going to hate it.

Yeah, there was a time when games were written in a relatively high-level language such as C++, but then they would go in and optimize specific sections of the code in a much lower level language (typically assembly language) to make it as efficient as possible. Nowadays the thinking is that since computers are so powerful, it's a waste of time and expertise to do that, so they just churn out sloppy code in a high level language and waste a ton of resources.  I do not like this trend either.

Also, the level of skill in the average programmer now vs 10 years ago is appalling... now just about any retard that managed to graduate college with even the most rudimentary understanding of programming can get a job.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
February 08, 2014, 08:35:58 PM
 #16

There is ONE blockchain. There might be forks. There might be disagreements over which is momentarily - right now - the correct info in the latest block. But in the end, there will only be one blockchain.

Since there is only one blockchain, the Bitcoin client could be adapted to gradually drop off all blockchain info from, say, before two years ago. Two years of proof should be enough. That is the standard in law for things like insurance and trusts, anyway.

At the same time, anyone could keep and maintain the whole thing if he wanted.

The Bitcoin client could be tweaked to have this as an option.

Smiley
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 09:05:43 PM
 #17

This is becoming a serious problem now, rather than adapting their code programmers everywhere just shrug and expect their customers to buy high end PCs that easily cost over £800, for a lot of people it isn't realistic to do that for most things because they're on a budget. Games are a perfect example that I'm worried about because rather than just deciding on a certain number of polygons etc. to use programmers now are just vomiting effects all over the screen and expecting people to buy high end systems to cope with it, this is just sloppy coding practice and bad forethought it will also drive a lot of customers away that don't want to spend the money on these systems just to play usually one or two games on it a bit like the whole console exclusives problem.

Nevermind games, if you're going to do this to someone with a business with software they use and force them to get several hundred pounds of equipment just so they can cope with it until the next software comes out which will require another machine you're just going to get the middle finger. I think that the Bitcoin dev team are more intelligent than this but this is precisely why I support altcoins and wouldn't have taken an interest in Bitcoin if it wasn't open source, somebody will find a more efficient solution to the blockchain taking up so much space if they won't.

You might make companies like Intel and AMD happy with that kind of attitude but everybody else is going to hate it.

Yeah, there was a time when games were written in a relatively high-level language such as C++, but then they would go in and optimize specific sections of the code in a much lower level language (typically assembly language) to make it as efficient as possible. Nowadays the thinking is that since computers are so powerful, it's a waste of time and expertise to do that, so they just churn out sloppy code in a high level language and waste a ton of resources.  I do not like this trend either.

Also, the level of skill in the average programmer now vs 10 years ago is appalling... now just about any retard that managed to graduate college with even the most rudimentary understanding of programming can get a job.

I'm really glad I'm not the only one noticing this Tongue the thing is though, I'm not even really a programmer, but it's so easy to tell the more you poke and prod at software these days.
medUSA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2014, 09:47:50 PM
 #18

I don't like the huge size of the blockchain,
not because of it taking too much space on my harddisk,
it's the time it takes to download it (or update it).

Storage is cheap, and it will continue to get cheaper, so it is not a problem
It's a real hassle to wait and wait to synchronise...

Time is much more valuable Cheesy
gollum
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


In Hashrate We Trust!


View Profile
February 09, 2014, 01:53:20 AM
 #19

The blockchain is a very primitive method of distributing data among many nodes.
Instead we need a distributed database.

Current numbers for the bitcoin network:
Nodes = 100,000
Blocks = 300,000

Blockchain: Each nodes keeps track of all blocks as a reference

Proposal: a distributed database, Each Node keeps track of random blocks of the blockchain
Each node should probably keep at least 0,1% of the blockchain to prevent data corruption, data loss and double spending.
jongameson
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
February 09, 2014, 02:15:34 AM
 #20

are u aware that they make bigger and bigger hard drives each year   Cool
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!