Suggestion for totalization blocks.

[cloudswrest]

  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"!     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

[1714060807]

1714060807

[1714060807]

1714060807

[Gabi]

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

[mc_lovin]

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!

[Jutarul]

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

[kokjo]

@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

[Meni Rosenfeld]

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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]

ok

[donking]

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.

[Foxpup]

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.

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

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