Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Press
Re: [2017-05-01]Maybe We Can All Get Along After All – Even in Bitcoin
by
Sierra82fit
on 03/05/2017, 17:55:33 UTC
Quote from: classicsucks on May 02, 2017, 12:16:50 PM
Quote from: Carlton Banks on May 02, 2017, 04:41:32 AM
Quote from: classicsucks on May 01, 2017, 10:08:51 PM
Pruning has been available for nodes for quite some time now. You may need to download the whole chain once, but you only need to store as little as 6GB, including daemon executables.

Yep, and if your disk gets corrupted or damaged or whatever, you still need to download the whole thing again to get back to as little as 6 GB (it's less than that actually, but whatever). You're backing the irresponsible idea that the 125 GB needed, even for a pruned node, should start growing at 8 or 16 times the current rate. We could have a 1 terabyte blockchain  by the end of the year, and that would seriously hurt the number of people willing to download such a huge database, despite the benefits it brings. But the miners can just run Bitcoin all on their own, right? Grin

You're looking for problems to solve with Segfart. And FUDing a few people with this disk size issue. If anything, the network is constrained by bandwidth and throughput (and did I mention ARTIFICIAL BLOCKSIZE CAPS), storage is the easiest problem to solve, if/when it happens.

Who said anything about increasing the blocksize 8 to 16 times? I guess you mean Unlimited. I support 2MB hard fork or nothing. I only run Unlimited to show my disdain for Segwit. It's such a hacked up bit of code.

And say you did have to download 1 TB every once in awhile, Even the cheapest VPS will give you 1-5TB of data transfer per month.


Already somewhere there was information that the Chinese are working on increasing the block more than 2 megabytes. You want, in the opinion of experts, this will not be a rational approach to solving the problem.