Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WYIF7-0007Px-Lo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:54:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.173; envelope-from=ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WYIF6-0007CB-M4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:54:25 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z2so11062252wiv.0 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.66 with SMTP id fy2mr16126303wic.45.1397148858469; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.128.207 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:54:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ricardo Filipe To: Brian Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ricardojdfilipe[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WYIF6-0007CB-M4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain pruning X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:54:25 -0000 that's what blockchain pruning is all about :) 2014-04-10 17:47 GMT+01:00 Brian Hoffman : > 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 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 :) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Put Bad Developers to Shame > Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration > Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment > Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >