@loyce
the MANY topics talking about blockchain vs hard drive size.. mention the same doomsday about how hard drives and blockchains cant cope.. its the norm expected evolution of the topic of such. so best bite the bullet and state the facts before the fud
As always: it depends
It's a fact that SSDs have much better access time than HDDs. Linear throughput isn't relevant.
I've synced Bitcoin Core recently on a HDD within a day, but it was a server with enough RAM, and high enough
dbcache. There are multiple factors that can be the bottleneck if they're bad enough: RAM, disk, CPU or internet. Lack of RAM can be partially substituted by a faster disk. But you know all this.
yea yea yea..
but the topic.. is hard drive. so to address the hard drive factor.
there is no need for some special hardware or expense of needing some large super fast device/server
boom. end of story
we could digress and say if you want to download the blockchain faster (as just a download process) by ensuing you have fibre and setting peers to be a higher number than 1-2 (to get more then ~9 blocks a second*)
*(where 36mbit/s is needed for the average pre 2017 data and 80mbit/s post 2017 data)
(then only ~1mbit/s once uptodate/synced)
we could digress and say the validation of blocks can be reduced in delay/bottleneck with high multithread CPU and high ram.. but it actually makes no difference if you have 256gb ram or 32gb ram
when a validation process only needs (purely for validation) 1gb. then you only need maybe 4gb to do all your normal windows desktop activity, plus active scan antivirus plus watching a movie/gaming while you wait for the sync while also having ram spare for the sync
having 256gb of ram on a server is wasted/overkill
there is no need to buy a whole server (usual cries).
bitcoin can sync fast enough on normal consumer bought equipment in their home
even the core devs have deemed upto 4mb a block data as being consumer safe and not cause a need for the doomsday cries of some people you know well shouting "but centralisation" "but servers"
i know you're subtly now admitting defeat that hard drives are not the issue without flat out saying so. by avoiding continuation of hard drives to then digress to talk about ram, internet..
for instance wanting to digress the discussion to now talk about Pc's with 1gb ram(loyce:'Take an old netbook with 1 GB RAM').. but come on.. even a decade ago normal retail bought pc's had more than 1gb ram. so dont do that silly narrative (subtle)"we are stuck with windows-XP era technology so we are doomed and bitcoin is slow" please dont follow your chum group narrative of excuses of decades old tech as sync delay reasons
as you sound like the fools of "but HD snapshot cameras wont be a thing because floppy disks only hold 1.4mb"
that mindset was soooo 1990's.. so dont be like that
and stop the subtle narrative that you only experienced a 24 sync using a super spec server that you wish you had access to, i know all the scripts your chums repeat, no matter how subtly you imply them here.. trying not to be so verbatim, but still trying to hint/push them
and no dont even hit the reply button with the script of "but i never said what you said i said, strawman". i know the silly narratives of your chums, in many topics. i know the subtlety you are trying to imply, but making it not sound like their narrative, whilst you still hint at the same script propaganda points they always do.
(again highlighting the whataboutism of a '1gb ram notebook', hinting of your server experiences)
