Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
Question; Would that be 100 mb a minute be the same size on the blockchain? How would we store such a behemoth? I mean seriously, no matter how you shake it, blockchain size is going to have to be dealt with some day, and somewhere, I think most would agree, the whole thing must be stored in it's entirety, decentralized. This will be a problem for everyone. What do you think needs to be done?
I can see chopping it up and storing sections of it, redundantly, amongst groups of nodes, perhaps in a compressed format, digitally signed and archived (again redundantly) with the "working" chain being a trimmed version. What other options might there be? Thanks for your opinion!
That's the on-chain size, but by then we'll have pruning. So we'll just be storing unspent outputs. Even if the blockchain is a terabyte pruned, it's only being stored by the masternodes on this separate chain. We're talking about having billions of transactions per day, that means that Dash is worth tons of money. This network would be ran by the masternode operators and they would still be earning a share of the revenue for providing the services. At this point, the services are very costly, but the rewards will be even greater. This is going to be a business for the masternode operators, something like what's happening with Bitcoin pools but much more decentralized.
So a full blockchain for the masternoders and a 'pruned' one for general full client use, is it known how much space can be saved by this technique of streamlining the blockchain ?
I have no idea, I just know pruning is definitely possible. I think generally we would just have clients use an API for moving money around, the API would hit a random masternode in the network. Then we just build a nice lite client on top of it. If you need a full-client, you could use the Dash network itself.