that's what blockchain pruning is all about :)
2014-04-10 17:47 GMT+01:00 Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>:
> 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@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 :)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>