MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fd403450-cf7f-ce56-79ca-93c77c042289@frankentrikes.com>
References: <fd403450-cf7f-ce56-79ca-93c77c042289@frankentrikes.com>
From: Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 23:50:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CADZtCSiU8oG1Zpr0tfadiUdQhMY00X5C99bphC86-kFPMaYb3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Segue <012mistery@frankentrikes.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d7846056bd47096"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not archive the backend of Bitcoin blockchain?
Precedence: list

--0000000000003d7846056bd47096
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

That is a good observation that most of the historical data does not need
to be kept around. I believe what you are suggested is already implemented,
however. Bitcoin Core can operate in a pruned mode, where the bulk of the
historical block data is discarded and only the current UTXO set (and a few
recent blocks) are kept. As you note, some nodes on the network need to run
in archive mode to help new nodes get in sync. BIP 159 helps identify these
archive nodes at the gossip layer.

In the case of lightning, some implementations made use of the additional
txindex, which is not compatible with pruned mode.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Segue via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On 3/17/18, someone posted on the Lightning-dev list, "Can I try Lightning
> without running a fully-fledged bitcoin block chain? (Yubin Ruan)."  The
> inquirer was asking because he didn't have much space to store the entire
> blockchain on his laptop.
>
> I replied:
>
> "Developers,
>
> On THIS note and slightly off-topic but relevant, why can't chunks of
> blockchain peel off the backend periodically and be archived, say on
> minimum of 150 computers across 7 continents?
>
> It seems crazy to continue adding on to an increasingly long chain to
> infinity if the old chapters (i.e. more than, say, 2 years old) could be
> stored in an evenly distributed manner across the planet. The same 150
> computers would not need to store every chapter either, just the index
> would need to be widely distributed in order to reconnect with a chapter if
> needed. Then maybe it is no longer a limitation in the future for people
> like Yubin. "
>
> It was suggested by a couple of lightning developers that I post this idea
> on the bitcoin-dev list.  So, here I post :).
>
> Segue
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--0000000000003d7846056bd47096
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">That is a good observation that most of the historical dat=
a does not need to be kept around. I believe what you are suggested is alre=
ady implemented, however. Bitcoin Core can operate in a pruned mode, where =
the bulk of the historical block data is discarded and only the current UTX=
O set (and a few recent blocks) are kept. As you note, some nodes on the ne=
twork need to run in archive mode to help new nodes get in sync. BIP 159 he=
lps identify these archive nodes at the gossip layer.<div><br></div><div>In=
 the case of lightning, some implementations made use of the additional txi=
ndex, which is not compatible with pruned mode.</div></div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:56 PM, S=
egue via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 3/17/18, s=
omeone posted on the Lightning-dev list, &quot;Can I try Lightning without =
running a fully-fledged bitcoin block chain? (Yubin Ruan).&quot;=C2=A0 The =
inquirer was asking because he didn&#39;t have much space to store the enti=
re blockchain on his laptop.<br>
<br>
I replied:<br>
<br>
&quot;Developers,<br>
<br>
On THIS note and slightly off-topic but relevant, why can&#39;t chunks of b=
lockchain peel off the backend periodically and be archived, say on minimum=
 of 150 computers across 7 continents?<br>
<br>
It seems crazy to continue adding on to an increasingly long chain to infin=
ity if the old chapters (i.e. more than, say, 2 years old) could be stored =
in an evenly distributed manner across the planet. The same 150 computers w=
ould not need to store every chapter either, just the index would need to b=
e widely distributed in order to reconnect with a chapter if needed. Then m=
aybe it is no longer a limitation in the future for people like Yubin. &quo=
t;<br>
<br>
It was suggested by a couple of lightning developers that I post this idea =
on the bitcoin-dev list.=C2=A0 So, here I post :).<br>
<br>
Segue<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--0000000000003d7846056bd47096--