Congratulation, Bitcoin has reached 500 GB size hard disk data

[LoyceV]

NVMe is more expensive than SSD,

that statement makes no sense. unless by SSD you mean "SATA SSD" but even then you're completely wrong.

You're right, the price difference is much less than I expected. Comparing SATA-600 and M2, there's only a 10% price difference in the low-end range.
I've updated my post.

Yes, I research and found can be replace with SSD SATA 3, 2.5". I just don't know how to clone it, can I clone it outside? (use that SSD as external first than clone it)?

Assuming you're using Windows, I'm not the right guy to answer this question.

My laptop don't have DVD so I can't replace with Caddy HDD, about ram, how much memori bitcoin core need when running downloading blockchain?.

Maybe hard when have only 4gb ram, I have 2 tb HDD, then, I will upgrade RAM only when better than replace the HDD, because that many cost for that.

Are these your current specs (4 GB RAM and 2 TB HDD)? If so, upgrading RAM will help a lot. On a Xeon server with 16 GB and HDD, I've downloaded the full blockchain in much less than a day. With enough RAM, the HDD isn't a problem, but with the chainstate directory on HDD, starting up Bitcoin Core takes significantly longer.
In your case, both more RAM and replacing HDD for SSD will give you a significant performance improvement.

[1714516973]

1714516973

[1714516973]

1714516973

[1714516973]

1714516973

[ABCbits]

I'm prepared to buy NVME M.2 SATA (can be 1-10 GB/s write and read) and prepared that SSD as an external hard disk to run the bitcoin core outside my laptop

I think that's a waste of money. The NVMe is very fast, but won't be able to use that performance if it's connected through USB.

theoretically, i read you can transfer up to 2GB/sec through usb via nvme. so it's not exactly slow. but yeah you have to have usb 3.2.

OP mention old laptop, so it's unlikely his laptop has USB 3.2. Additionally, both parts (laptop and ssd external case) need to support USB 3.2.

SSDs have a finite lifespan, the bits can only flip a certain number of times before they stop working.

yeah but if you go by TBW rating, your computer will be obselete before any of that becomes an issue.

Additionally, Bitcoin Core have very low write amount compared with other full node software[1].

I have had both SSDs and spinning drives die. A lot also depends on the environment, a spinning drive in a sever in a data center with proper cooling and power with very few on - off cycles is probably going to last far longer then an SSD in your kids laptop.

far longer? any data to back that up?

I don't know about the SSD lifespan. But at very least, proper cooling increase data retention on SSD[2].

--snip--
but with the chainstate directory on HDD, starting up Bitcoin Core takes significantly longer.

On my experience, the startup only took 1-2 minutes until Bitcoin Core window (which show tab "Overview", "Send", etc.) appear.


[1] https://blog.lopp.net/2021-bitcoin-node-performance-tests-2/, section "Disk Resource Usage".
[2] https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/Alvin_Cox%20%5bCompatibility%20Mode%5d_0.pdf, page 27.

[LoyceV]

Additionally, Bitcoin Core have very low write amount compared with other full node software[1].

Interesting comparison: Some (shitty) node writes 150 times more to disk than Bitcoin Core. I was surprised by Bitcoin Core's results though: 393 GB disk writes and especially 140 MB disk reads was much less than I expected. I would have expected Bitcoin Core to be all over the disk all the time, to verify each new transaction with existing blocks.
I also assume this would be much, much worse if Bitcoin doesn't have 10GB RAM to consume. Without that, the performance would be much less and the disk would read and write a lot more.

proper cooling increase data retention on SSD[2].

This isn't really relevant for consumer use. Consumer SSDs are much better at data retention than enterprise SSDs, and most consumers don't keep their drives powered off at high temperature for prolonged periods of time.

[larry_vw_1955]

OP mention old laptop, so it's unlikely his laptop has USB 3.2. Additionally, both parts (laptop and ssd external case) need to support USB 3.2.

yeah i guess i overlook that. probably he has usb 2.0 which is 480 mbps or about 60 MB/s but the thing is that is theoretical. In real life, he might see half that. whether 30 MBps is good enough for someone I don't know. but with alot of older computers that's what you're going to get.

I don't know about the SSD lifespan. But at very least, proper cooling increase data retention on SSD[2].

Yeah I've heard that SSD is not as resistant to heat as normal HDD. But I've never heard of story of someone that said they had stored data on an SSD and then unplugged it and then in a year later they couldn't read it. Apparantly that's a thing though.

Consumer SSDs are much better at data retention than enterprise SSDs,

i thought enterprise meant "better" more durable etc. particularly TBW rating. like intel optane.

and most consumers don't keep their drives powered off at high temperature for prolonged periods of time.

well, then clearly you must think most people only have one computer. what about people with a handfull of them? 

[LoyceV]

I've never heard of story of someone that said they had stored data on an SSD and then unplugged it and then in a year later they couldn't read it.

Me neither.

Apparantly that's a thing though.

Like I said: data retention is a thing for enterprise SSDs. Here's some worst case clickbait reading.
So don't buy enterprise SSDs for your long-term backups

[DooMAD]

(either full node or prune node)

Just to avoid confusion: a pruned node is a full node.

Now I'm confused: my definition of a full node was Bitcoin Core including a fully downloaded, stored and verified blockchain. I checked the first 4 definitions on Google, and it's a 50-50 tie between whether or not pruned nodes are included.

I can't say for certain if it helps clarify things or just muddies the waters, but I've often seen reference made to "archive" full nodes.  Perhaps that helps to distinguish between full-pruned and full with complete initial block download?

Nomenclature has to move with the times.  The technology is bound to evolve, so the language needs to keep pace with it.

[franky1]

seems you know the word "fool" but not learned the word "full"

a full node does all network features. thats why its called full
this includes being a archive seed of the FULL blockchain for other peers wanting to initial block download

turning off feature or limiting how many blocks you are willing to seed to other peers is less then full.

it also reduces a diverse subset of nodes able to service new users and irregular users that dont sync up often.
causing a more centralisation effect of lesser nodes having to take on that service.

a full node is (simple logic common sense) a node that does all features

maybe we should call pruned nodes a "fool" node to meet your style

[DooMAD]

Speaking of fools...

if you are not decentralising the blockchain by archiving the blockchain your not supporting the network

Who says it's necessary for every node to support the network?  There are other factors to consider when deciding whether or not to run a node.  Factors which you consistently appear to be oblivious to.  Sometimes people do have to run a node for selfish reasons and that's perfectly okay.

if all you care about is relaying latest tx or latest height blocks.. you are not looking to be a full node. you can be happy with a light node

Said the ignorant, myopic, self-absorbed fascist.  No one declared you arbiter of who should or shouldn't settle for relying on SPV and accepting the drawbacks of doing so.  Not your call.  None of your business.  People can decide that for themselves.  Kindly shut up, Blockchain-Hitler.  You don't dictate the needs of others.

[franky1]

only a few days ago you quoted me saying before that , that not everyone NEEDS to be a full node just to use bitcoin..
so you know my stance
but those that WANT to be a full node should ensure they are being a full node. and not following fools idea's that a less than full node is a full node

YOU are the one telling people to use bitcoin less and use other networks instead
YOU are the one telling people to stop being a full node because thy can be a fool node . without even highlighting what users are not able to do or offer by being a fool node instead of a full node

[DooMAD]

only a few days ago you quoted me saying before that , that not everyone NEEDS to be a full node just to use bitcoin..
so you know my stance

I do.  And your stance is abhorrent.  It basically amounts to your belief that there's a "lower class" of network participant that only "deserve" SPV.  You believe privacy and security should only be privileges enjoyed by those who can afford to run a full node.  You also believe that cost should be higher than it is.

but those that WANT to be a full node should ensure they are being a full node.

You are once again holding people to standards that only exist in your head.  If someone can obtain the privacy and security they require by running a pruned node, then that's their choice.  You don't get to declare that they somehow aren't "worthy contributors" to the network and therefore don't deserve to exist.  Or, at least, you can declare it all you like, but all it's going to achieve is that we're going to judge you to be a vile extremist who spews poison.

YOU are the one telling people to use bitcoin less and use other networks instead
YOU are the one telling people to stop being a full node because thy can be a fool node . without even highlighting what users are not able to do or offer by being a fool node instead of a full node

I'm telling people they have the option.  You don't want people to have that option.  You are Blockchain-Hitler.

[franky1]

you pretend to talk about choice. but then applaud that there is no choice or that someone else is threatening your idols.

so you call out that bitcoin is unfit for use for an underclass. and people should use other networks as their only choice or use a fool node pretending that its a full node by you trying to stroke their ego and say that its the same thing(facepalm)
or if they dont like your games. if they do not like the way a central dev team plan things.. you tell them to go fork off to another network

so YOU try to make it sound like bitcoin should only be used as a payment rail for reserve settlements. for the elite exchanges and subnetwork hub managers to settle on, where mere normal users should instead use other networks and be bunched into being managed by hub managers having discretion over if they will sign and agree with a payment you want to make. which they can refuse and hold hostage

and when that doesnt work to convince people to downgrade from wanting to be an actual full node.. YOU join the hymn sheet singers that technology is stuck in the 1990's-2005 era where being a full node is for only the rich and people should use the fool node setting pretending it means the same thing as full yet again

so YOU then try to sway those that want to be a full node not to be.. and instead be a fool node, even when they say in this topic they want to be a full node. by you pretending they are a full node when infact they become a fool node if they followed your advice. and you are not giving them an INFORMED choice of what the actual difference is

please grow up

[NotATether]

An interesting fact: monero uses more space than bitcoin. Its current requirements are smaller but it's much younger than bitcoin and holds less transactions but it requires more space per transaction, so if it keeps growing it's going to require much more drive space than bitcoin in 5-10 years.

Makes me wonder what's going to happen to altcoins with gigantic space requirements over the next several years. Maybe they will see less adoption, which would correspond to a price decline. The ones using the largest amounts of disk space are already centralized to the extreme and could fold if the node operators can't pay their storage bills.

[LegendaryK]

An interesting fact: monero uses more space than bitcoin. Its current requirements are smaller but it's much younger than bitcoin and holds less transactions but it requires more space per transaction, so if it keeps growing it's going to require much more drive space than bitcoin in 5-10 years.

Makes me wonder what's going to happen to altcoins with gigantic space requirements over the next several years. Maybe they will see less adoption, which would correspond to a price decline. The ones using the largest amounts of disk space are already centralized to the extreme and could fold if the node operators can't pay their storage bills.

Post when you see a Proof of Stake node operator go bankrupt.
Odds are that won't ever happen.
If cloud storage got too expensive, one could easily setup a RAID config at Home or Office and Node from there.
Or realize this is the 21st century ,
and there are 20 terabytes available in a single hard drive for less than $400 bucks.
ie:  Seagate Exos X20 20TB SATA HDD



PoW miners are already going Bankrupt, why don't you worry about them?
Because that is happening right now.

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/09/16/chandler-guo-predicts-90-of-pow-miners-will-go-bankrupt/

Ethereum Miner Chandler Guo Predicts 90% of PoW Miners Will Go Bankrupt

https://wolfstreet.com/2022/11/23/lose-1-7-billion-on-519-million-in-revenue-bitcoin-miner-spac-core-scientific-shows-how-bankruptcy-a-year-after-going-public/

US Bitcoin miner and crypto-hosting-platform Core Scientific – the largest publicly traded crypto miner by computing power – which on October 27 issued a bankruptcy warning, nine months after going public via merger with a SPAC, reported on November 22, that it lost $435 million in the third quarter, on $162 million in revenues; and that it lost $1.7 billion in the first nine months of the year, on $519 million in revenues.

“The Company anticipates that existing cash resources will be depleted by the end of 2022 or sooner,” it said. And that would be the end.

https://bitcoinist.com/crypto-mining-firm-goes-bankrupt/

Compute North filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas on Friday, citing mounting pressure on its operations from increased energy costs,

Funny how btc cult members are so worried about Proof of Stake causing bankruptcy from energy costs, (Which we have yet to see one)
but care nothing for the fact that Proof of Waste is bankrupting PoW miners like it is going out of style.  

[larry_vw_1955]

Like I said: data retention is a thing for enterprise SSDs. Here's some worst case clickbait reading.
So don't buy enterprise SSDs for your long-term backups

How did you know about slashdot? 

But that link was a hoax. Look at the bottom of the page for the real explanation:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/05/25/1428246/no-your-ssd-wont-quickly-lose-data-while-powered-down?sdsrc=rel

enterprise ssds should be fine.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/427602/debunked-your-ssd-wont-lose-data-if-left-unplugged-after-all.html

give me the choice between an "enterprise ssd" and some consumer one and i'll take the former all day long. every day.

[LoyceV]

Makes me wonder what's going to happen to altcoins with gigantic space requirements over the next several years.

My guess: nothing. Many people keep their altcoins on an exchange to speculate, and the ones who use their own wallet, use something that supports many different shitcoins.

[franky1]

PoS coins are usually staked in pools/custodians. so no one cares to mine it or use the coin actively so no one cares to be a full node of blockchain security for them coins

when it comes to PoW (real asset coins)
people want to protect the network and support it.
(disclaimer to counter act a troll girls shinanigans. people are not forced or need to be a full node, but if they want to be, they should be a full node not a fool node)

bitcoins lack of scaling onchain is enon-politically hindered with silly excuses that bitcoiner full node users have a physics technical impossibility of being a full noder, with silly games of it being 1999-2005 right now

technology can and does grow over time. what seemed impossible in 1999 is seen as basic expectation now

things like the 4mb weight is for 5 yeasrs(along time in technology terms) been deemed safe. and yet cludgy code is impeding that 4mb utility with bad math to keep it hindered at a 1.4mb average block. reducing the utility while allowing congestion and fee premiums

since that 4mb safe announcement 5 years ago technology has moved on further still.

4mb block is a growth rate of 210gb a year. i have something the size of the nail of my thumb that can hold more than that.

a hard drive able to have a life cycle of average 5 years replacement(most upgrade their pc's in that timescale)
is 840Gb which is at a cost of not even $1 a month

yet while crying about $1 a month cost they also applaud that $1 a tx is reasonable

there are people that pay more money upfront on games consoles, where they then subscribe to services at $7 a month which use more bandwidth and hard drive space in that sale life cycle.

yet for some strange reason want to say bitcoin is broke/cant work at those same levels of activity for millions of users. and then they suggest people should stop using bitcoin and use another network

[Sarah Azhari]

I just bump this thread because I was synch all blockchains yesterday



The full size is 480 GB including blocks, chain state, and wallet folders. The Files such as debug, mempool.dat, and peers.dat is including also about 15 MB.

Blocks is mainly important, and have size 475 GB which contains 6,797 files
while Chainstate has size 4.73 GB

In my calculations, between Q2 and Q3 this year, the size of the block will reach 500 GB of data on my hard disk. what yours tought?.

[nullama]

~snip~
In my calculations, between Q2 and Q3 this year, the size of the block will reach 500 GB of data on my hard disk. what yours tought?.

Some people have more than that in just their Google Photos account.

It's really incredible to think that the entire history of all Bitcoin transactions from 2009 to today can fit in half a terabyte.

This is a really well done job by the Bitcoin devs. Really good job.

And the processing speed of the nodes has been constantly going up, it's way faster than what it used to be.

[DaveF]

~snip~
In my calculations, between Q2 and Q3 this year, the size of the block will reach 500 GB of data on my hard disk. what yours tought?.

Some people have more than that in just their Google Photos account.

It's really incredible to think that the entire history of all Bitcoin transactions from 2009 to today can fit in half a terabyte.

This is a really well done job by the Bitcoin devs. Really good job.

And the processing speed of the nodes has been constantly going up, it's way faster than what it used to be.

And new 1TB 1TB SSD NVMe PCIe are at $50 or less so there is not even an appreciable cost to putting your OS and your node on one.
Just bought a used 7th gen Dell laptop from Craigslist for $65, had a 4GB stick of RAM sitting around to bring it to 8GB and bought one of those drives.
So for under $125 another full node with lightning and a block explorer and a few other things is made.

-Dave

[larry_vw_1955]

i heard that western digital is thinking of coming out with a hard drive that really is a tape drive inside.
https://www.techradar.com/news/i-cant-believe-this-huge-storage-company-wants-to-mix-tape-and-hard-drive-technology

would you guys use one instead of normal hard drive for running bitcoin core?