Paper detail

On the Storage Overhead of Proof-of-Work Blockchains

Permissionless blockchains such as Bitcoin have long been criticized for their high computational and storage overhead. Unfortunately, while a number of proposals address the energy consumption of existing Proof-of-Work deployments, little attention has been given so far to remedy the storage overhead incurred by those blockchains. In fact, it seems widely acceptable that full nodes supporting the blockchains have to volunteer hundreds of GBs of their storage, to store and verify all transactions exchanged in the system. In this paper, we explore the solution space to effectively reduce the storage footprint of Proof-of-Work based blockchains. To do so, we analyze, by means of thorough empirical measurements, how existing full blockchain nodes utilize data from the shared ledger to validate incoming transactions/blocks. Based on this analysis, we show that it is possible for full nodes to locally reduce their storage footprint to approximately 15 GB, without any modification to the underlying protocol. We also discuss other client-side strategies to further reduce the storage footprint while incurring negligible computational overhead on the nodes.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.