Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:31:59 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Suggestion for totalization blocks.  (Read 746 times)
cloudswrest
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
December 31, 2011, 10:26:46 PM
 #1

  I just registered so I'm a "newbie" even though I've been following bitcoin for almost a year.

  A well known issue with the bitcoin protocol is the ever increasing length of the block chain, a copy of which every client maintains, and which contains every transaction since day zero.  A possible solution occured to me:

  Why not have, after every 10,000 blocks or so, a "totalization" block that sums or totalizes the balance of every bitcoin address that has a non-zero balance (discard addresses that total to  zero balance).  This block can then be timestamped and hash signed by miners.  New regular blocks then continue on after, and are linked to, the totalization block.  After some number, perhaps 100 or so, of new blocks the totalization block can be considered validated and all block chain info prior to the totalization block can be discarded.  I'll call it "regenesis"!   Smiley   A metaphor to think of is rocket staging on a trip to orbit.  The dead weight of older stages are discarded. For block chain length competiton you could accept the chain with the earliest totalization block with the longest chain of following blocks (but not more than 10,000). I'm sure there are issues to work out, but the idea seems sound to me.

-Cloudswrest


1481290319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290319
Reply with quote  #2

1481290319
Report to moderator
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
December 31, 2011, 11:06:12 PM
 #2

Don't worry, there are already some ways to fix the problem, your idea is more or less what will be done
mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2012, 12:42:12 AM
 #3

So glad to hear there is a solution!  I think the blockchain is like 2GB now?  I was thinking, when all the bitcoins are released it would be like 10GB and beyond, but I'm sure you guys are hard at work preventing wasted disk space! Smiley

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
April 24, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
 #4

@Gabi: Could you please provide a reference to "what will be done". In particular, is there a technical solution developed already?

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 24, 2012, 09:27:41 AM
 #5

@Gabi: Could you please provide a reference to "what will be done". In particular, is there a technical solution developed already?
go read the bitcoin paper written by satoshi, it explains.

EDIT: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile WWW
April 24, 2012, 09:29:41 AM
 #6

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74559.0 for a suggestion like the OP's and the problems with it.

What will be done is pruning.

But it should be very clear that even with pruning, the blockchain will be big. It won't fit on a smartphone, and possibly not on a desktop PC. End-users will use Simplified Payment Verification or other solutions.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
April 24, 2012, 09:58:54 AM
 #7

Creating a summary won't save any meaningful amount of space compared to pruning the blockchain and opens the chain up to some new attack vectors.

I hazard to make a prediction that no new "summary" blocks will ever be used.   

Pruning can cut down the size of the blockchain by ~75% but that this means the blockchain will be rather large.   As the number of users and active addresses grows it will only grow and a summary won't reduce the size more than pruning will.

A pruned blockchain contains all the unspent outs in blockchain format.  Summary simply consolidates them into the same block (a huge computational task both for creation and verification).  The same amount of information is still present.

light clients will be the solution for most end users going forward.   Bitcoin enthusiasts, miners, pools, exchanges, major mechants, and possibly even banks will form the backbone of full nodes.
vk2012
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5


View Profile
April 24, 2012, 10:22:33 PM
 #8

ok
donking
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38



View Profile
April 24, 2012, 10:58:45 PM
 #9

So basically bitcoin can be attacked by creating a billion different addresses and then transferring the smallest amount possible to that address?


(10 Bitcoin / 0.00000001)=1000000000
1000000000*(0.258kB per transaction?)

=246 GB addition to block chain?


Not bad for just 10 Bitcoin.
Huh
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
April 25, 2012, 12:55:23 AM
 #10

So basically bitcoin can be attacked by creating a billion different addresses and then transferring the smallest amount possible to that address?


(10 Bitcoin / 0.00000001)=1000000000
1000000000*(0.258kB per transaction?)

=246 GB addition to block chain?


Not bad for just 10 Bitcoin.
Huh

Don't forget the transaction fee (which in this case works out to around 2 million BTC or so), otherwise such transactions will never get included in the blockchain at all.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
April 25, 2012, 01:12:35 AM
 #11

So basically bitcoin can be attacked by creating a billion different addresses and then transferring the smallest amount possible to that address?

(10 Bitcoin / 0.00000001)=1000000000
1000000000*(0.258kB per transaction?)

=246 GB addition to block chain?


Not bad for just 10 Bitcoin.
Huh

You really thought nobody (good or bad) thought of that till now?

Satoshi paper should be require reading before anyone is able to propose
a) a fatal flaw or attack on the network
b) some defense against a fatal flaw (likely worse than the non-existent "fatal" flaw)
c) some desperately needed breaking protocol change

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Pages: [1]
  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!