Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.182; envelope-from=brianchoffman@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pd0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1rPZYkTLmx5GOdj67oQAgFjeaF-LCKAXpg5XsEhXYFuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP04O7EqB=TqyTiC7O1K2A9R0nKJ_ssANHKg=Byum8-LtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJDbYjwhpsV15a+7kCO_vTstEewVrwvqbnB=a5zOSwFC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgStmEpiUV4Yh-qqu6sZ+VZ5SiQPwp+QA=3X5zR52ia3OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJBxEC2MifJQY5-vn2zSOHo-UOm8B1vYHHOfuxq26=VscQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAADm4BDDJkS_xdjUn=2Yzs4B0RXTvpzpd5Z_kDRorzrn1HWSng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1rPZYkTLmx5GOdj67oQAgFjeaF-LCKAXpg5XsEhXYFuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:47:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAADm4BB8y=k_f7CG3tyX6ruWF0w3+hU2Szv7ajLp1x7KhS56GA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e43e645208104f6b2fa08
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain pruning
Precedence: list

--047d7b2e43e645208104f6b2fa08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is there
a critical reason why blocks couldn't be formed into "superblocks" that are
chained together and nodes could serve a specific superblock, which could
be pieced together from different nodes to get the full blockchain? This
would allow participants with limited resources to serve full portions of
the blockchain rather than limited pieces of the entire blockchain.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> Suggestions always welcome!
>
> The main problem with this is that the block chain is mostly random bytes
> (hashes, keys) so it doesn't compress that well. It compresses a bit, but
> not enough to change the fundamental physics.
>
> However, that does not mean the entire chain has to be stored on expensive
> rotating platters. I've suggested that in some star trek future where the
> chain really is gigantic, it could be stored on tape and spooled off at
> high speed. Literally a direct DMA from tape drive to NIC. But we're not
> there yet :)
>

--047d7b2e43e645208104f6b2fa08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see you=
r point. Is there a critical reason why blocks couldn&#39;t be formed into =
&quot;superblocks&quot; that are chained together and nodes could serve a s=
pecific superblock, which could be pieced together from different nodes to =
get the full blockchain? This would allow participants with limited resourc=
es to serve full portions of the blockchain rather than limited pieces of t=
he entire blockchain.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 1=
0, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mik=
e@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">Suggestions always welcome!<div><br></div><div>The main pr=
oblem with this is that the block chain is mostly random bytes (hashes, key=
s) so it doesn&#39;t compress that well. It compresses a bit, but not enoug=
h to change the fundamental physics.</div>

<div><br></div><div>However, that does not mean the entire chain has to be =
stored on expensive rotating platters. I&#39;ve suggested that in some star=
 trek future where the chain really is gigantic, it could be stored on tape=
 and spooled off at high speed. Literally a direct DMA from tape drive to N=
IC. But we&#39;re not there yet :)</div>

</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b2e43e645208104f6b2fa08--