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 :)