1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Return-Path: <david@gigawatt.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B370BB5A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1BA014E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id r190so17481723wme.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gigawatt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=UKDJsq1sxytUF4EfZtOtAyWRvCtkWdx93/7Vy2SYjbo=;
b=ZPZ9emoo2OzFiKQVCS0qozQkCqAjW0GtW5+IAK6Cpy5+SgPBB6AXtpTIMQm0GDg1KT
g0Ngd962TPz6h03b7dlJceOg74lJQH1sH1nqY/668CIS+InvfXUHqFtZVaKa4FuNN1kM
2KARirOsGChTGM936IjQ7H9vtDlc0WnY9ULKiDHisr8xC2u42TDHGJ8tdgGWz9gTUuIw
n9x+O/+E/3JBZENP3hIKq6xVRH6DfINWgP7KUzQ9P7OpjGnouPMgaAP+KuwiA7X3M8py
KVX4YFyf4OVQzhTSkrYHTxVzaUhdWHH19vq9ADHX+YaXhNPIm7HqslaM3ohE5OtMqvCp
cIyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=UKDJsq1sxytUF4EfZtOtAyWRvCtkWdx93/7Vy2SYjbo=;
b=pkYKldQ2CzjDdPURy9Eayb/jzzY65ZaFDrYpfqisVBtWDhLI4g4NE2aUId5p9tYhD1
sWSlGi8bUSNW2PvWBN0wf9n9wl/4rdOM4B5GR9eDtqtDIU5tGnwKvBjhuAI8SGQD3Xzp
VCYO8Pzh7og1MflyYzIV1DGPi7ruvThOCDSdpFv9dWOpaTjG1LdlucN4IqsWj1v4xXSf
oyYOYf6ekWXRvn1DIbQW8EP5KCvp0VpLEPFLC0rDw/uBSK84T9yOr4Hnh5vv9YJ8qkct
KzGKtZg0qFPen5jeF8mTq8ylBic0e8slRAct5Id22WIK4Q7BofGEOqas5Rr3FWv2xFwY
t3XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/70oDO6XSASDk0qJjdYOOnPK2UPlMXvPMsiqQjhf0ov/HTh4ICi
uDTNzQrYw9ptEOoc11lusUCkKw/OuQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.195.7 with SMTP id t7mr8457496wmf.62.1492781792355; Fri,
21 Apr 2017 06:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.10.143 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [162.213.132.3]
In-Reply-To: <CAJN5wHW=p+q+DT9R=uheLxOjKBX=xcB+fOZR2KACgJO9SdXypw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFVRnypbQQ-vsSLqv48cYaqTCty4R1DmFRqfAvxe4mAqyQNXxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJN5wHW=p+q+DT9R=uheLxOjKBX=xcB+fOZR2KACgJO9SdXypw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Kaufman <david@gigawatt.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:35:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+voGJT7tfHS-6bEqjhnOTz=jVidg7AAEXSis_GvqVvBZdRy0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:30:03 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Small Nodes: A Better Alternative to Pruned Nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:36:34 -0000
Hi Danny,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Danny Thorpe wrote:
>
> 1TB HDD is now available for under $40 USD. How is the 100GB storage
> requirement preventing anyone from setting up full nodes?
Yeah, but that's because most people (well, using myself as the
"target market" anyway) are upgrading to SSD's for the faster boot and
response times. Modern consumer OS's run incredibly slow on
non-ssd drives! And since the vast majority of consumer laptops sold
today fall into the $400 to $700 range, a 200 - 500gb SSD is about the
most storage upgrade people can afford.
And so I think David's premise, that having to devote only 30GB to
running a full node instead of 100, would remove a major obstacle that
prevents many more people running full bitcoin nodes.
My only suggestion is, does it scale? I mean, if the bitcoin network
volume grows exponentially and in 2 years the blockchain is 500GB, can
the "small node" be adjusted down from one fifth of the blockchain to
just one-tenth, or one twentieth? Can different smalInesses
interoperate? Can I choose to store a small node with 20 - 30% of the
blockchain, while others chose to share just 5% or 10% of it? Can I run
"less small" node today that's 50GB?
Can the default install be a "small node" that requires about 30GB of
storage (if that is indeed the sweet spot for enticing many more users to
bringing nodes online), but allow the user at install time, to choose *how*
small? To, say, drag a slider anywhere up and down the range from
10GB to 100GB?
If not, then it will have to be revisited constantly as the blockchain
grows, and disk storage prices drop. I suspect the blockchain will
grow in size, at some point in the not too distant future, much faster
than storage prices drop, so making small, smaller and smallest nodes
that can be configured to store more or less of it will be necessary
to motivate most users to run nodes at all. But when that happens,
there is likely to be exponentially *more* people using bitcoin, too!
So an exponentially growing number of users running (smaller and
smaller) nodes would take up the slack.
Then, the blockchain would begin to look a lot more like a bittorrent,
right? ;-) but -- happily -- one that you never need to download fully.
-dave
|
