• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    The choice of a uint32_t for time saves 4 bytes per transaction. That doesn’t sound like much, but with 1.2 billion transactions recorded, it adds up to almost 10 GB of space saved.

    They could, ultimately, just replace it with a uint64_t some time in the 22nd century without much fuss. In the late 2000s when Bitcoin was created, storage space was at a significant cost, but now it is quite cheap and in the 2100s it will undoubtedly be even cheaper.

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      10gb, on a 670gb big Blockchain. Those 10gb are super important.

      And again, size would an ok argument if they didn’t go for uint32 instead of int32. Because they broke compatible with Unix time for no reason at that moment. Unless they wanted to min/Max every bit and then why did they start with 1970? And not 2008/2009?

      It makes no sense.

      Also in 2008, 10gb would have cost you around $1. Ofc, each node would have required the 10 additional gb, so each node would be $1 more. Of course, there weren’t that many transaction in the chain and it wouldn’t actually cost that much, but ok.