📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10
📝 Original message: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 at 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 :)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/0927179b/attachment.html>;
Brian Hoffman [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nq…lnwve
2023-06-07 15:18:30
in reply to nevent1q…29eh
Author Public Key
npub1nqeart5fmxjzj4tejkp7fckp0qa4hw3gpha6espxudum2qlvvrhqvlnwvePublished at
2023-06-07 15:18:30Event JSON
{
"id": "49eee6d6fb1a7dbb1e19f96686fd6608a312dbed6745ce86bf47dd4bdcbe045b",
"pubkey": "9833d1ae89d9a42955799583e4e2c1783b5bba280dfbacc026e379b503ec60ee",
"created_at": 1686151110,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aae8a2dedee78eef571f285fef23331d89c84b104c87b098618414541001d13e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"79ff5f1392ee7388b24c8dc7e953c78b792f0ce209d42f5cdb36e35cb868364e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10\n📝 Original message:Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is there\na critical reason why blocks couldn't be formed into \"superblocks\" that are\nchained together and nodes could serve a specific superblock, which could\nbe pieced together from different nodes to get the full blockchain? This\nwould allow participants with limited resources to serve full portions of\nthe blockchain rather than limited pieces of the entire blockchain.\n\n\nOn Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Suggestions always welcome!\n\u003e\n\u003e The main problem with this is that the block chain is mostly random bytes\n\u003e (hashes, keys) so it doesn't compress that well. It compresses a bit, but\n\u003e not enough to change the fundamental physics.\n\u003e\n\u003e However, that does not mean the entire chain has to be stored on expensive\n\u003e rotating platters. I've suggested that in some star trek future where the\n\u003e chain really is gigantic, it could be stored on tape and spooled off at\n\u003e high speed. Literally a direct DMA from tape drive to NIC. But we're not\n\u003e there yet :)\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/0927179b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "119c9610b89717bf8c3bf990973a306b7b0167e6a030a450ab25972acd0a42aea30f81b6ed3fdfd67f918896d0697f234b6167041b2f0c8c2ec5b7170017889c"
}