• VoR0220VoR0220 Member Posts: 11
    I'm not as technically proficient as some of the other guys on here, but on its face it seems like a good idea. Seems like a prescheduled hard fork. Interesting. But I'll wait to hear what everyone else says.
  • alexey_petrenkoalexey_petrenko RussiaMember Posts: 28
    I also always thought about it and wondered why such simple solution cannot solve the chain-size problem.
  • sillytunasillytuna Member Posts: 38 ✭✭
    edited August 2015
    There are important use cases where this could be a problem. Anyone using a chain to store persistent data, which is a considerable use case from where I'm sitting, wants that data there for a long time - definitely longer than four years.

    I suspect what will happen is that anyone wanting a node to return data past a certain point, or large amounts of data, will charge a fee. It's not like we don't have a suitable currency ;)

    This ensures that anyone electing to keep the entire blockchain and allow large or substantially historic searches can get paid at a market rate, but other groups can just handle core transaction verification et al (mining) and they could opt for a solution such as this (unsure if it would break how Ethereum handles things, and organising it may be 'fun').
Sign In or Register to comment.