future-proofing the storage of 140+ years of blocks has been solved by Sony

[franky1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27282732

"Sony has developed a new storage tape that is able to hold up to 185 terabytes (TB) of data per cartridge."

so that just leaves a few years to get phone companies to make gb/s internet speeds, and we are sorted for a millennia

[MrWDunne]

The read/write (and seek times, even more so) for tape storage systems are abysmal. They are useful for backup only.

[franky1]

The read/write (and seek times, even more so) for tape storage systems are abysmal. They are useful for backup only.

well there have been many discussions where people have been complaining that blockchain storage is an issue. but i personally see that at this very moment all we need is this:


but give it a few years for sony to speed up the read/write speed of their tech,,blah blah blah...

in short i am just showing that bitcoin's future and all these "what will happen if" hypothetical doomsday scenario's are not needed, in regards to average joe storing the blockchain and working as a node

[steeev]

nice nailz franky...

[seriouscoin]

nice nailz franky...

yeah where did ya get it?

[crazy_rabbit]

The read/write (and seek times, even more so) for tape storage systems are abysmal. They are useful for backup only.

True. But it's pretty nice anyway. I would love 185 Terabytes that could sit in a vault forever.

[ncsupanda]

How could any of us legally fill 185 TB in the nearby future? 

[Elwar]

That's a lot of porn storage.

[Lethn]

That's a lot of porn storage.

LOL! Not sure even I could get that much porn onto a drive that big.

[sumantso]

I can finally store all my torrents instead of deleting them.

[Malin Keshar]

There are physical constraints about the ammount of data that can flow by internet traffic. Also these high capacity storages might be expensive for people outside 1th world countries  acquire, so the problem still is a problem

[franky1]

There are physical constraints about the ammount of data that can flow by internet traffic. Also these high capacity storages might be expensive for people outside 1th world countries  acquire, so the problem still is a problem

my point is by the time 185tb is a 'needed' thing in regards to bitcoin blocks, (many decades) i think the price would be soo cheap 3rd world countries could afford it. as the price would resemble the 64gb memory cards now. so again no concern as we are talking about decades after all.

and as for the internet limits. a cure for that is to purchase a memory storage device or hardware wallet with such memory storage that is preloaded with 98% of the blockchain which is only missing a few days or weeks of data due to package and delivery timescales.

so basically in decades time average joe can still be a node

[ljudotina]

Blockchain size is software problem and it should not be fixed by hardware. It should be fixed by software (auto trimming, distributed storage like torrent etc.)

[luv2drnkbr]

You can trim all you want, but I want a full node with every transaction and every block verifiable from the genesis block.  I'll cover the disk space.

[franky1]

You can trim all you want, but I want a full node with every transaction and every block verifiable from the genesis block.  I'll cover the disk space.

i 100% agree.

the same goes for many business accounts i dont want to have my bank statements deleted after a year simply because funds have been spent. i like keeping all records

[Carlton Banks]

I think that what OP meant to say was: "Seagate breaks 4TB barrier in mechanical disks/Samsung proposes 3D stacking NAND flash technology"

[Bitcoinpro]

is their anywhere in the world that has affordable high mobile data transfer speeds and data limits ?

[Malin Keshar]

There are physical constraints about the ammount of data that can flow by internet traffic. Also these high capacity storages might be expensive for people outside 1th world countries  acquire, so the problem still is a problem

my point is by the time 185tb is a 'needed' thing in regards to bitcoin blocks, (many decades) i think the price would be soo cheap 3rd world countries could afford it. as the price would resemble the 64gb memory cards now. so again no concern as we are talking about decades after all.

and as for the internet limits. a cure for that is to purchase a memory storage device or hardware wallet with such memory storage that is preloaded with 98% of the blockchain which is only missing a few days or weeks of data due to package and delivery timescales.

so basically in decades time average joe can still be a node

The preloaded blockchain would be a blessing. Here 5 hours of blockchain download and still more than 70 weeks missing


about super disks: maybe in the future decades paralelization and cloud computing will be the new paradigm, so it is possible that the 185tb will be a luxury item used only for servers. I think that is more promissing work in the bitcoin protocol, to develop something more scalable with time and more paralel-friendly, to rely on hardware development. In last decades algorithm development has been more responsable for gains in performance than hardware developments

[franky1]

The preloaded blockchain would be a blessing. Here 5 hours of blockchain download and still more than 70 weeks missing


about super disks: maybe in the future decades paralelization and cloud computing will be the new paradigm, so it is possible that the 185tb will be a luxury item used only for servers. I think that is more promissing work in the bitcoin protocol, to develop something more scalable with time and more paralel-friendly, to rely on hardware development. In last decades algorithm development has been more responsable for gains in performance than hardware developments

the idea of nodes is to ensure history cannot be re-written. imagining a fture where the blockchain is accessed via a cloud service is not good.
basically your talking about everyone relying on blockchain.info as the ledger. where only blockchain.info has the ledger and we just use apps to read that ledger.

if blockchain.info was the only source, they could change a unspent block from like 6 months ago, altering all of the chained inputs before it and because no one else has a copy to compare it, we would all believe it to be true. and because miners were making new blocks based on a blockchain that is only stored by blockchain.info, they would accept the new blocks as the chain is complete.

this is why not only do miners needs to stay decentralized below 51% control of hashing to minimize a notorious attempt to alter new blocks. but the ledger needs to be decentralized via multiple nodes to ensure tweaking of bitcoin historic blocks does not occur either. thus nodes do still need to exist.

(which originally sparked off the debate about block storage in the future, which in this topic was quashed due to large storage availability)