Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.
At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth [required for running a network node] might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.
Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
The proof-of-work is a Hashcash style SHA-256 collision finding. It's a memoryless process where you do millions of hashes a second, with a small chance of finding one each time. The 3 or 4 fastest nodes' dominance would only be proportional to their share of the total CPU power.Source
There will be transaction fees, so nodes will have an incentive to receive and include all the transactions they can.
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you’re interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.Source
By Moore’s Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.Source
The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall [on the global market]. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement the client-only mode [which uses the "Simplified Payment Verification" described in the design PDF] and the number of network nodes [more rapidly] consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.Source
It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.Source
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
It can be phased in, like:Source
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Mike, my first use of Bitcoin was in 2009. I wasn't vigorously active in the Bitcoin community until the beginning of 2011, indeed. But this is just a couple months after you (E.g. first code available for BitcoinJ was March 2011-- if you go by forums.bitcoin.org account times my account was created May 5th 2011 vs yours Dec 14th 2010; less than five months after yours). I was also working with related systems long before (E.g. RPOW in 2004). So give me a break, there is no rank to pull here.It was well .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later. "Small devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have been any such understanding.
The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words: [...] Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the system for "small devices".
I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a shared goal.
Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining ecosystem? [...] Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else.For example, you fought vigorously to get Bitcoin Core off Bitcoin.org, which would ensure that users were not previously equipped with a node suitable for operating mining (which then contributed substantially to the poor usability of solutions like P2Pool; with 98% of it's install time spent waiting for Bitcoin Core to sync).
And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!The fixation comment was a specific reply to your long list of the "only reasons" to run a full node, which seemed to be basically said that the only reason to run one was to act as a server for SPV clients; as it listed several points on that-- all three of the numbered points were "serving SPV wallets"-- and buried the rest. I'm sorry if I read too much into it, though it's also consistent with your prior responses that the non-scalability of Bitcoin as a whole is irrelevant due to SPV.
Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason".Now that I've established the "small device" text you're railing on here actually came from the system's creator prior to your involvement, can I expect an admission that your own "personal liking" doesn't have special authority over the system? But I hope you don't create an altcoin: I think it's possible to find ways to accommodate people with very different preferences under one tent, and if we are to build and support a worldwide system we must find those ways rather than fragmenting the marketplace.
Best Bitcoin Sites and Free Bitcoin PTC earning sites in 2020. Claim Free BTC right now. Listing Highest paying bitcoin faucet 2018, 2019, and 2020 Bitcoin Mining and Moore's Law So I was browsing NewEgg for parts of a potential mining rig, and then I thought, "maybe I should wait a year or two for prices to go down before dropping a massive sum on a mining computer". and then that made me wonder how Moore's Law could factor into Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin days destroyed (BDD) was first introduced as a concept in 2011, two years after the creation of the bitcoin cryptocurrency. People were already beginning to develop blockchain metrics to ... Q&A for information security professionals. Stack Exchange network consists of 177 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.. Visit Stack Exchange Bitcoin Core is extensively tested on multiple operating systems using the Linux kernel, macOS 10.8+, and Windows Vista and later. Microsoft ended support for Windows XP on April 8th, 2014, No attempt is made to prevent installing or running the software on Windows XP, you can still do so at your own risk but be aware that there are known instabilities and issues. Please do not report issues ...
[index]