<p><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90871.0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This thread in bitcointalk</a> was posted on June 30th 2012 and discusses a <a href="http://dre.tx0.org/bcg_chart.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">graph of the size of the blockchain over time</a> and predicts it into the future. Currently, the graph looks like this:
<img src="https://i.sstatic.net/rksZM.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T04:21:41.133Z
So in ~50 years, the storage will be more important for "pro-miners" than the GPU, it would seem.
tkbx
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T05:02:13.657Z
This doesn't include the block headers or the index, so roughly multiply by oh, say 1.25 to get in the right ballpark.

 - http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size
Stephen Gornick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T05:22:53.460Z
@lucase.62, the storage issue is likely to be a temporary one for end users. More info here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/478/516 and on general scalability here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T15:01:35.817Z
@lucase.62 Not really, just think back 50 years back and try remembering how big hard drives were available then in comparison to now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png Pretty insignificant in comparison. The block chain probably won't outgrow cheap storage capacities in a long time.
ThePiachu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T04:18:13.587Z
2012-07-05T04:18:13.587Z
Highly Irregular
<p>Here are the current file sizes:</p>

<pre><code>$ date
Thu Jul  5 00:21:12 PDT 2012
$ ls -l blk*
-rw------- 1 chris chris 2035532730 Jul  5 00:13 blk0001.dat
-rw------- 1 chris chris  699731968 Jul  5 00:13 blkindex.dat
$ bitcoind getblockcount
187613
</code></pre>

<p>and to give an idea of daily growth, here it is around 25 hours later:</p>

<pre><code>$ date
Fri Jul  6 01:33:04 PDT 2012
$ ls -l blk*
-rw------- 1 chris chris 2046730806 Jul  6 01:32 blk0001.dat
-rw------- 1 chris chris  703234048 Jul  6 01:32 blkindex.dat
$ bitcoind getblockcount
187757
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-06T14:21:57.193Z
Protip:
`ls -h, --human-readable: with -l, print sizes in human readable format (e.g., 4M 2G)`
deed02392
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T07:22:38.460Z
2012-07-06T08:35:03.837Z
2012-07-06T08:35:03.837Z
Chris Moore
<p>At the moment, it's about 2.6GB, but it will be growing with time.</p>

<p>You can try looking into using an <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Browser-based_wallet" rel="nofollow">eWallet</a> or some lightweight clients if you are tight on the disc space. Their space requirement is minimal in comparison, but the security model they offer is different. The lightweight clients are developed by other people than the core Bitcoin team, so you have to know that you can trust them (haven't yet heard about a case of the lightweight clients being malicious). With the eWallets you put the security of your money in the hands of the third party and their server. There have been incidents of people losing a lot of coins because of this (like <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MyBitcoin" rel="nofollow">MyBitcoin</a>), but if ran well and by trustworthy people, your Bitcoins can be more secure than on your computer.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T04:19:51.450Z
But you can only mine with Bitcoin-qt or the daemon equivalent, right?
tkbx
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T05:18:06.353Z
No, not exactly. You don't need your own client running to mine. You just need to point your mining software at a pool. You do however need the daemon if you want to solo-mine.
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T13:53:39.563Z
Saying that an eWallet offers less security is wrong. It's a _different_ security instead. Keeping your wallet unencrypted on your disk, vs. keeping it properly encrypted in a remote server?
o0'.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T14:56:44.540Z
@Lohoris I said that they CAN offer less security, it doesn't mean that they do. One or either way, I clarified my statement.
ThePiachu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T15:22:19.087Z
Much better now!
o0'.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-05T04:12:49.410Z
2012-07-05T14:55:59.077Z
2012-07-05T14:55:59.077Z
ThePiachu
<p>I just started Bitcoin-qt for the first time, and it is syncing. How much space does the blockchain take up? I have my drive heavily partitioned, and my /home partition (linux mint) is only about 20GB. Does anyone have a size accurate within 100MB?</p>

<client><blockchain><bitcoin-core>
How big is the blockchain on disk as of 5th July 2012?
tkbx
# How big is the blockchain on disk as of 5th July 2012?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-07-05)

I just started Bitcoin-qt for the first time, and it is syncing. How much space does the blockchain take up? I have my drive heavily partitioned, and my /home partition (linux mint) is only about 20GB. Does anyone have a size accurate within 100MB?

**Tags:** client, blockchain, bitcoin-core


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-07-05. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

At the moment, it's about 2.6GB, but it will be growing with time.

You can try looking into using an [eWallet](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Browser-based_wallet) or some lightweight clients if you are tight on the disc space. Their space requirement is minimal in comparison, but the security model they offer is different. The lightweight clients are developed by other people than the core Bitcoin team, so you have to know that you can trust them (haven't yet heard about a case of the lightweight clients being malicious). With the eWallets you put the security of your money in the hands of the third party and their server. There have been incidents of people losing a lot of coins because of this (like [MyBitcoin](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MyBitcoin)), but if ran well and by trustworthy people, your Bitcoins can be more secure than on your computer.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But you can only mine with Bitcoin-qt or the daemon equivalent, right?  
> **username_1**: No, not exactly. You don't need your own client running to mine. You just need to point your mining software at a pool. You do however need the daemon if you want to solo-mine.  
> **username_6**: Saying that an eWallet offers less security is wrong. It's a _different_ security instead. Keeping your wallet unencrypted on your disk, vs. keeping it properly encrypted in a remote server?  
> **username_3**: @Lohoris I said that they CAN offer less security, it doesn't mean that they do. One or either way, I clarified my statement.  
> **username_6**: Much better now!  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-07-05. Score: 4

[This thread in bitcointalk](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90871.0) was posted on June 30th 2012 and discusses a [graph of the size of the blockchain over time](http://dre.tx0.org/bcg_chart.htm) and predicts it into the future. Currently, the graph looks like this:
![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/rksZM.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So in ~50 years, the storage will be more important for "pro-miners" than the GPU, it would seem.  
> **username_2**: This doesn't include the block headers or the index, so roughly multiply by oh, say 1.25 to get in the right ballpark.   - http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size  
> **username_1**: @lucase.62, the storage issue is likely to be a temporary one for end users. More info here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/478/516 and on general scalability here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability  
> **username_3**: @lucase.62 Not really, just think back 50 years back and try remembering how big hard drives were available then in comparison to now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png Pretty insignificant in comparison. The block chain probably won't outgrow cheap storage capacities in a long time.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-07-05. Score: 4

Here are the current file sizes:

```
$ date
Thu Jul  5 00:21:12 PDT 2012
$ ls -l blk*
-rw------- 1 username_4 username_4 2035532730 Jul  5 00:13 blk0001.dat
-rw------- 1 username_4 username_4  699731968 Jul  5 00:13 blkindex.dat
$ bitcoind getblockcount
187613

```

and to give an idea of daily growth, here it is around 25 hours later:

```
$ date
Fri Jul  6 01:33:04 PDT 2012
$ ls -l blk*
-rw------- 1 username_4 username_4 2046730806 Jul  6 01:32 blk0001.dat
-rw------- 1 username_4 username_4  703234048 Jul  6 01:32 blkindex.dat
$ bitcoind getblockcount
187757

```

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Protip: `ls -h, --human-readable: with -l, print sizes in human readable format (e.g., 4M 2G)`  

---

