Dash size on harddisk

Daniel Hendriks

New Member
Apr 18, 2017
13
0
1
45
the Netherlands
I understand the essence, but Nakamoto f***ed the thing up with his 4.2MB per year.
This is the essence of the problem, and it's not going to take off with this.

We now get a lot of different coins in stead of a large one
 

ilia_2s

Active Member
Oct 3, 2015
479
158
113
Average salary in USA was 40k $ per Y in 2014. When employee see that he have a small hdd amount, he walks to supermarket and buy additional 1000G for 50usd (4 working hours) and forget about it for next 20-50 years.

Average inflation of US Dollar is 2.5%, 40k*0,025 = 1000 usd per year. Here is a problem!

IMHO, When blockchain growing size will be a real problem we found a solution. For example we can create redundancy distributed network database on masternode network. You can google for it. This solutions was described since '80.
 

MangledBlue

Well-known Member
Jun 28, 2014
1,246
678
183
USA
Hi, How does dash handle the database size on the harddisk.
Is it always growing like bitcoin blockchain?

Is it going to get to large?
Have you looked at the size of our Blockchain and compared it to BTC Blockchain?
... a little research just might answer your question......
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
1GB per day would be game over for end users, but end users aren't the ones who will have to deal with it. Masternodes get paid directly from the blockchain to keep up with the hardware and bandwidth requirements, which puts DASH leagues ahead of BTC already in terms of scaling into territory where those things start becoming prohibitively expensive for non-incentivized nodes.

Currently, masternodes generate enough income to be able to afford up to $530 per month to operate their nodes (currently WAY more than enough to service the network). That is enough for some serious storage, bandwidth and processing power. If the Dash network grows to the point where there are 50 txns per second then the masternode compensation would be many times that amount.
 
Last edited:

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
You don't control the money in your bank account, the bank does. In crypto, the only way someone can transfer your funds is if they have your private keys. Also, the issuance of money follows a predictable pattern. It is enough that anyone can verify the information on the blockchain at any time, you don't need every user to constantly do so all the time.
 

jimbursch

Well-known Member
Mar 5, 2017
837
502
163
58
Then why would a user not use a normal bank account?
Depends on the user. For the vast majority of people in Western democracies, there is no reason to use a cryptocurrency when a normal bank account will suffice. In fact, there are a lot more reasons NOT to use cryptocurrency when you can use a bank account.

That being said, there are lots of circumstances where a cryptocurrency is preferable to a bank account. Many people desire the privacy that can be had with crypto.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
If you are only a user you do not have the private keys (most of the time), but some server has it. Is that your understanding of control?
That's not what we mean. You can have sole access to your private keys AND you do not need to run a full node in order to do that.

You don't need to host the entire blockchain yourself in order to use crypto. All you need is the key to your funds, and someone else to do business with.
 

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
If you are only a user you do not have the private keys (most of the time), but some server has it. Is that your understanding of control?
Look at mobile wallets. They are not full nodes and you are still the only one that has your private keys. They are never given to any server.
 

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,898
6,745
1,283
Depends on the user. For the vast majority of people in Western democracies, there is no reason to use a cryptocurrency when a normal bank account will suffice. In fact, there are a lot more reasons NOT to use cryptocurrency when you can use a bank account.

That being said, there are lots of circumstances where a cryptocurrency is preferable to a bank account. Many people desire the privacy that can be had with crypto.
really ?
i do not think so
i believe there are more other reasons than privacy to get out of the FIAT banking industry
- speed
- cheap transfers
- inflation
.
.
.
Be your own bank (see how good that feels) and not rely on a 3rd party which needs a bailout or shuts down it's ATM's when the time comes
(when you have your security in place )
:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilia_2s

Dandy

Member
Mar 1, 2017
276
99
88
46
Belgrade, Serbia
People in western countries are unaware of how potentially dangerous holding the money in banks is. I live in a country in which in the last few decades a lot of banks just ceased to exist at some point, taking the people's money with it.
So when you hold the money in the bank, it's not actually your money anymore.
Also, fiat currencies are inherently unstable in the long run, because central banks can just issue more of them at a whim, devaluing your money even if you don't hold it in a bank.