Congratulation, Bitcoin has reached 500 GB size hard disk data

[larry_vw_1955]

but my main goal.. i want to ensure bitcoin functions as a financial payment network to protect my value..  and is not turned into a meme-stock storage network

these major nft players are just spamming bitcoin with their 10,000 and 5,000 garbage nft collections non-stop i would imagine at some point. some of them seem to already be doing it. i say let the garbage stay on ethereum and ipfs/aws we don't need it on bitcoin.

from a technical side of data storage growth of 210gb a year is not disastrous growth. but how that data is used, is a disaster if majority of it is just memes. memes is very inefficient use of the available data growth and it limits/decreases of the financial utility of bitcoin

it's all the devs fault for letting this loophole exist in the firstplace and then it's their fault again for not doing something about it. would a fix require a hard fork? if it's just a soft fork then they really have no excuses. but it seems like they don't even care and aren't even looking into how to put a plug on this hole.

[1714504311]

1714504311

[1714504311]

1714504311

[franky1]

devs snuck in a rule that a certain opcode if used can use upto the weight limit of 4mb
sneaking in(soft) that the opcode after block 7xx,xxx only uses 1 signature length (~80bytes) is still acceptable to old nodes that allow upto4mb. because 80bytes is still within that upto 4mb limit. thus old nodes would not reject such new snuck in adjustment to the limit

however it requires miners to stop adding in upto 4mb and to instead use the new rule of defined 80byte use
so its [lame buzzword] a MASF (miner assisted soft fork) but without causing a FORK(altcoin)

i prefer to call it miner assisted consensus strengthening

yep it wont cause a block re-org of old blocks. nor cause a altcoin. if all miners agreed as long as they join consensus to unite under a consenus agreement to all follow the rule..

only if its contentious where only some pools do and some dont. then there could be a fork where some pools continue to build on bulky tx in bulky blocks. and some build on lean tx in lean block. causing 2 different chains of blocks
thus can (as precedence exists) require that economic nodes (merchants and CEX) can agree they they will reject the bulky blocks at the 7xxx,xxx to scare pools into complying with the lean block design of new rules for the opcode to only be 80 bytes instead of 4mb

which is then a economic node [lame buzzword]assisted hard fork resulting in a miner assisted softfork to ensure there is no contentious split. by forcing compliance

in short using the same methods of 2017 mandatory activation.

[Sarah Azhari]

my bitcoin folder seems about 5-10 GB left, or 10 GB left on block folders to 500 GB hits, maybe not a week or a couple of days we can reach that (500 GB) number, so if you here have an exact calculate it, when it happens?

You still get the benefit though even if you only intent to use Bitcoin Core as Bitcoin wallet.

what kind of benefit?

[LoyceV]

my bitcoin folder seems about 5-10 GB left, or 10 GB left on block folders to 500 GB hits, maybe not a week or a couple of days we can reach that (500 GB) number, so if you here have an exact calculate it, when it happens?

As far as I know, block data varies a bit (because of orphaned transactions). That's why your blk03436.dat is different than mine, you can't exchange them.

I checked my 2 Bitcoin Core installations (on different systems): The size of blocks is 510671104 and 509643300 kB (the difference is 1027804 kB). The oldest installation is the largest: it makes sense the more recent installation skipped all old orphaned blocks.

[Sarah Azhari]

I checked my 2 Bitcoin Core installations (on different systems): The size of blocks is 510671104 and 509643300 kB (the difference is 1027804 kB). The oldest installation is the largest: it makes sense the more recent installation skipped all old orphaned blocks.

if it's useless, can we delete it manually on the block file?.
is it dangerous if I edit manually (delete) blocks (that almost 7K file)?

what is different blk and rev? (.dat) inside block folder

[Artemis3]

Or you could try a file system with compression, such as btrfs using zstd or something. Hopefully that spam bloat is compressible? Should help mitigate a bit the urge for replacing the hard drive.

[franky1]

the silliest advice i seen by core devs is that instead of trying to stop this dead weight meme bloat stuff.. they suggest if you dont want to receive it. downgrade to an old node of pre v0.12 which strips out the "witness" thus what you personally store is then not including the memes

however doing so makes you no longer a full node  because
a. you are not archiving full blockdata
b. your not validating latest ruleset
c. unable to offer initial blockdownload to other peers even if you are archiving all 7x0,000 blocks of stripped out witness/meme data

[larry_vw_1955]

the silliest advice i seen by core devs is that instead of trying to stop this dead weight meme bloat stuff.. they suggest if you dont want to receive it. downgrade to an old node of pre v0.12 which strips out the "witness" thus what you personally store is then not including the memes

yeah that is really dumb advice franky. they're not really showing much concern about the situation if that's the best they have to offer.

however doing so makes you no longer a full node  because
a. you are not archiving full blockdata
b. your not validating latest ruleset
c. unable to offer initial blockdownload to other peers even if you are archiving all 7x0,000 blocks of stripped out witness/meme data

even someone that doesn't even run a full node and just uses "apps" could understand all those issues.  

[LoyceV]

I checked my 2 Bitcoin Core installations (on different systems): The size of blocks is 510671104 and 509643300 kB (the difference is 1027804 kB). The oldest installation is the largest: it makes sense the more recent installation skipped all old orphaned blocks.

if it's useless, can we delete it manually on the block file?

It's not just one file, it's part of other files. So you can't delete it. And it wouldn't make much difference: you'll save 0.2% disk space, which will be filled again 3 days later.

is it dangerous if I edit manually (delete) blocks (that almost 7K file)?

Bitcoin Core assumes the files on your disk are correct. If you delete some of it, you can expect unpredictable behaviour (such as crashes). It's not worth it.

[franky1]

the silliest advice i seen by core devs is that instead of trying to stop this dead weight meme bloat stuff.. they suggest if you dont want to receive it. downgrade to an old node of pre v0.12 which strips out the "witness" thus what you personally store is then not including the memes

yeah that is really dumb advice franky. they're not really showing much concern about the situation if that's the best they have to offer.

however doing so makes you no longer a full node  because
a. you are not archiving full blockdata
b. your not validating latest ruleset
c. unable to offer initial blockdownload to other peers even if you are archiving all 7x0,000 blocks of stripped out witness/meme data

even someone that doesn't even run a full node and just uses "apps" could understand all those issues.  

dont get me wrong people that dont want to be full nodes can run their apps, software and wallets all they like
but when people who want to be full nodes are told core is a full node.
but then other idiots then tell people they can switch off x,y,z and then fool said victims into thinking they are then still a full node. is shameful advice

again if the idiots promoting these fool tactics actually just explained
"if you dont want to be a full node anylonger and want to switch some features off, you can do it within core, but understand you are no longer a full node by doing so"
or
"not upgrading downrates you to no longer be a full node"

then there would be no problems

..
its the maliciousness of making people think they are protecting the network by lulling people into no longer protecting the network, thus weakening the network protection via deceit

[Artemis3]

Well lzo is faster which is what i normally use. zstd can compress more but takes a little more writing, reading is very fast (intended for their datacenters, you know facebook etc). You can also change the compression level in the mount options.

[franky1]

Or you could try a file system with compression, such as btrfs using zstd or something. Hopefully that spam bloat is compressible? Should help mitigate a bit the urge for replacing the hard drive.

It's definitely compressible. But don't expect much since,
1. I expect Ordinal user would use compressed file format to reduce TX fees.
2. File system with compression choose fast algorithm.

Well lzo is faster which is what i normally use. zstd can compress more but takes a little more writing, reading is very fast (intended for their datacenters, you know facebook etc). You can also change the compression level in the mount options.

ETF is explaining:
if an image was say 6mb and was compressed to get it down to 3mb to then put into a bitcoin block
its already using compression

meaning you then trying to compress something wont result in a 50% drop because its already in compressed format.. thus no gain

inshort
you cant compress a compression and keep compressing it
that 3mb will still be 3mb

EG
the 3mb was 6mb before being in a block. meaning it stops you from then compressing it after its in a block, becasue its already compressed

[Artemis3]

I already know this. And you should know, the likes of Facebook know this. Those algorithms are smart enough to not try compressing what can't be compressed anymore, and in addition to that btrfs will on its own by default test if something can be compressed, if not, it won't do it on a file by file basis.

I never said 50% did i? It depends on the data.

[Sarah Azhari]

I just checked and now, my bitcoin folder has reached 500 GB of data, as you know, I never use it for any transaction yet (just open and download the blockchain), so the pure data is still the same since I created this thread.

the block folder almost hits also, just a bit of GB (less than 4 GB) data to reach 500. I can't wait for it.

this is of particular concern for beginners If want to buy a laptop, take your hand to choose at least 1 terabyte hard drive.

[LoyceV]

this is of particular concern for beginners If want to buy a laptop, take your hand to choose at least 1 terabyte hard drive.

Or just prune the blockchain. There's a reason why that's the default, and for most users that will work just fine.

[franky1]

this is of particular concern for beginners If want to buy a laptop, take your hand to choose at least 1 terabyte hard drive.

most beginners do not start as a full node. they have no great knowledge about the network at the beginning. most start by hoarding sats in centralised exchanges and only learn about full nodes later on once they have had time to learn

so its not a case of needing to buy a high spec laptop right from the start. nor does it require a high spec laptop once established. multiple terrabyte devices are the norm now, we are not in 2010 anymore

this is of particular concern for beginners If want to buy a laptop, take your hand to choose at least 1 terabyte hard drive.

Or just prune the blockchain. There's a reason why that's the default, and for most users that will work just fine.

if you dont want to be a full node thats fine.. but understand it from the prospective of those that DO

people who want to be a full node.. actually want to be a full node
the reason they choose a full node instead of a light node is for reasons.. listen to those reasons

they actually want to archive the blockchain and provide it out to others to decentralise the blockchain.. the main point of being a full node is that. decentralised network, avoid central points of failure. etc etc

if you dont want to be a full node thats fine. but dont pretend that pruning keeps people at the same level as being a full node
if everyone pruned... no one would have full blockchain data from genesis to now anymore. = centralisation. and no more ability for new users to sync upto, if there are no full nodes left.. please understand that.. understand pruned nodes are a different level compared to full nodes


you have been around long enough now to atleast have heard about the useragent/services and how nodes treat each other differently depending on services they have enabled or chose to disable

learn the difference between full nodes that helps protect the network, other nodes, protocol, blockchain, decentralisation.. vs pruning which is just for personal validation and does not strengthen the wider network nor offer full service utility to peers

when those wanting to be full nodes (validate and archive data), want to discuss full node data. and you simply want to tell people to stop being a full node. but pretend they are still a full node at the same time.. you are missing alot of points about why bitcoin was invented, what functions blockchains provide why a distributed blockchain helps and why allowing the sharing of data helps

[BlackHatCoiner]

the reason they choose a full node instead of a light node is for reasons.. listen to those reasons

Calling a pruned node a "light" node is utterly confusing. A pruned node is a full node; the only difference is that it doesn't archive the entire chain. It verifies in the same manner non-pruned full nodes do.

if you dont want to be a full node thats fine. but dont pretend that pruning keeps people at the same level as being a full node

It keeps them at the same level of protection, with minor discomforts.

if everyone pruned...

This is a completely different point to make than "running a pruned node doesn't grant you the same benefits". Obviously, if everyone stopped archiving the blockchain, there would be no blockchain. But as I'm pointing out in the link above, there will always be individuals who will need to hold the entire chain. Regular consumers are not included.

[LoyceV]

if you dont want to be a full node thats fine.. but understand it from the prospective of those that DO

people who want to be a full node.. actually want to be a full node

And people who want to prune it, want a pruned node. You're missing the point: let them choose!

if everyone pruned... no one would have full blockchain data from genesis to now anymore.

Don't worry, I have a backup And I'm pretty sure you have one too, and so do thousands of other Bitcoin users.

= centralisation.

One of the beautiful things of decentarlisation is having the freedom to choose.

[DooMAD]

if you dont want to be a full node thats fine.. but understand it from the prospective of those that DO

people who want to be a full node.. actually want to be a full node

And people who want to prune it, want a pruned node. You're missing the point: let them choose!

if everyone pruned... no one would have full blockchain data from genesis to now anymore.

Don't worry, I have a backup And I'm pretty sure you have one too, and so do thousands of other Bitcoin users.

= centralisation.

One of the beautiful things of decentarlisation is having the freedom to choose.

Unacceptable.  People can only use Bitcoin in a manner that franky1 approves.   

(but we're still not allowed to call him a fascist)

[DeathAngel]

1TB is enough for many years to come.

I was worried about this a while ago. I really don’t want to do prune mode, I’m happy running a full node. My current laptop will do the job for a while yet.

I’m still running trusty 0.17.0

I really don’t like upgrading, verifying my download always concerns me.