wallets. But in 50 years nobody will even want to look at block 2 anymore the old tx are basically all wasted space if we manage got keep proof without them.
And the UTXO set should grow slower than the history of tx which means at some point it is more efficient to keep the UTXO set instead of all the history. So assuming the problem with light wallets can be solved this would be a viable path into the future. right?
Its not a "problem with light wallets", really. It is that we have a solution inherent in the design of Bitcoin that ties transactions to the blockheader. There is no such concept for UTXOs. Check chapter 7 of the bitcoin whitepaper of what Satoshi suggested we can do to delete old transactions. The trick is to think about it as deleting old transactions instead of deleting old blocks. Notice also that 50 years from now nobody is going to care at all about an extra 200GB storage space. We're seeing 30TB drives being sold. People starting to already get 100MB/second Internet connections at home addresses.
Yes this is the other path, nobody cares about storage. I'll have to take a lock again at the whitepaper and try to get a level deeper.
Yeah, I recently bought six 10 TB enterprise quality drives for a raid Z2 array in my NAS. $130 per drive. There is no need for fast nodes to hold the entire chain, not even the merchant nodes, let alone the mining nodes, which are must run in hard real time. All that is needed is for some nodes, maybe only entirely off line, to be able to eventually prove that the working chain is valid. With check points, these proofs can be done separately, since a single block hash covers the entire chain up to a particular block. And note: existing node software does not fully validate the entire block chain. There are checkpoints built into each release. (But there are command line switches to do full verification on IBD.)
Обсуждают сегодня