Bitcoin Forum

   Greetings to all good will people!

   Now, when the bunch of deceitful,  greedy,  incompetent,  irresponsible idiots from B2X (sorry for some harshness) are really endangering the Bitcoin,
  
   All of us who are smart enough and responsible should immediately start a Bitcoin core (best of all the latest 0.15.0.1 version) full node client!

   If until now you haven't started your own bitcoin core client - just do it right now!
   Believe me it is so simple!

   Personally I have been running mine for 3 months already.
   For those of you who perchance are afraid of keeping money in a wallet which is constantly connected to the Internet, and even accepting incoming connections (be sure to turn this option on),  I want to say that you do absolutely not need to store any money in your Core full node client!

   You may just keep somewhere offline just a key phrase for recovering your bitcoin private keys and addresses (your real wallet). Or you may run somewhere on another computer the electrum wallet,  or any other wallet that allows you, and no one else, have full control over your wallet's private keys.

  In my own full node bitcoin core 0.15.0.1 client,  for example, I keep absolutely no bitcoins at all.
  I run it solely for supporting the true bitcoin network!
  The most important thing is that your Bitcoin Core full node should be ONLINE as much as possible!

  (After you setup your Core full node do obligatorily check that you really have the 8333 port open and accessible from outside. You may check if your node is seen from outside here for example : https://bitnodes.21.co   (https://bitnodes.21.co)

I actually didnt think about implement a full node on my computer, but Ill do it. Is not 24/7, but is something. I have a mining rig and a raspberry pi 24/7, but i dont have any free disk to use for that.

Bitcoin will be just fine, you are being paranoid. Running a full node always helps the network, it won't do anything special now. It isn't a voting system, it doesn't matter when it comes to forks. There might be a bit of lost connections during a fork as nodes start following different chain and disconnect, but this will last for a very short time and if you want to help for this purpose only then just run it during those 10 minutes when the fork happens.

Of course I hope all must be fine too.

But the b2x fork is not a usual hard fork producing an altcoin.

The problem with b2x is that they refuse to implement the replay protection!  They wish to make the whole decentralized community  comply to their (totally unnecessary) 2Mb sized blocks decision!
That's how I see it

I agree. That is how I see it as well. It is just that this is trivial for anyone to do and there is nothing we can do about it. It is their right to fork, that is my opinion, and if you just ignore their existance, they cause a very little harm to the network.

To be honest, it is pretty obvious that Bitcoin is can not be stopped. Not by a fork, not by a government, not even by shutting of the Internet. Bitcoin will be as good as ever, don't worry too much.

Aleksej996, I do very much like what you're saying!

 Most of all I wish your words were really true!!

Yes i know how to run a bitcoin core remotely but i donot understand why you are using this abusive language towards the b2x developers.
They are implementing something that they thing will be good for bitcoin.
Support them or not is your personal issue and  choice ,but please try to be respectfull,they are doing their jobs you do yours. >:( >:( >:(

Cryptorony, the problem with b2x  supporters lies in dishonesty of their chosen methods.
As I said above:
That's the main reason why I allowed myself the "abusive language" you critisized me for

OP, I tried running one last year but I have given up waiting for the sync to finish. I also thought about sending one Bitcoin in my unsynced wallet to give me more incentive to go through with it, but no.

How large is the blockchain, what is your bandwidth and how long until you synced your node?

Yuk; the 0.15 versions disconnect btc1 nodes and disrupt the network causing propogation delays. No thank you; want to be well connected to many different versions of nodes because it’s more redundant as some nodes even 0.15 have certain bugs. Your advice is very bad technically speaking.

Wind_FURY, I have just looked into the directory with my blockchain, it is now exactly 160 522 921 148 bytes.

My bandwidth is approximately 2.5Mb/s download and 1.5 Mb/s upload.

I started downloading the blockchain in June this year it seems to me it took for about 2-3 weeks.

But remember! The Bitcoin Core 0.15.0.1 version has got a newer database format, so it is downloaded much faster now!

And you know what? I am going to try to upload the whole blockchain to my Google drive (maybe from 2 my different accounts if Google drives have disk space limits) in a 7zip or rar archive formats. It seems to me anyone may then take the all ready blockchain folder, extract from the archive, and point to the folder when first starting the Bitcoin Core client

I totally disagree with you.

(of course anyone may have his/her own opinion

Rabbi1001,

In my opinion, the biggest monetization is the maintenance of the TRUE Bitcoin blockchain itself, the prospect and the gradual growth of Bitcoin's exchange rate is going to fully compensate you all of your costs.

Personally, my bitcoin core full node costs me almost nothing: the node is launched on my laptop that I set up to be always online (banned hibernation, sleep, automatic restarts after updates, all done through group policies).

It consumes very little energy, my home Internet channel is unlimited.

I disabled torrents, etc., to provide the entire upload bandwidth exclusively to my Bitcoin Core 0.15.0.1 uploads.

Can you please clarify the point about 0.15 - in red?

In what way ate btc1 nodes disconnected?

How is the network disrupted?

I'll tell you what I know for now.

Btc1 nodes are the b2x nodes that were recently assembled by their main developer.

After their hard fork btc1 nodes will reject all legitimate bitcoin core and other legitimate nodes, which would not support their 2Mb blocks.

After the Segwit activation this summer those 2 mb blocks are totally unnecessary!

But seeing that they are blocked by the new bitcoin core 0.15 nodes, they have recently created some other FAKE bitcoin Core nodes (their user agents are Satoshi:0.15.0: 1185
Satoshi:1.14.5: 126, etc,  see details here for example:
  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/70jjmk/there_are_already_10x_more_core_015_nodes_running/ ), which impersonate community nodes, but in fact they are all launched by the b2x on servers they lease.

To be absolutely sure you are definitely downloading and later launching the REAL Bitcoin Core full node, download it exclusively from the main official site:


  https://bitcoin.org/en/download  (https://bitcoin.org/en/download)

what if it is a pruned bitcoin core node?

I might be wrong, but as far as I know,  pruned core nodes preserve original user agent string (do not change it).

i used to run core, but im worried about the 2x fork and what that means

will the 2x take over existing BTC chain? or will there be separate chain for the 2x fork?

As I repeated above, since 2x supporters refuse to implement the replay protection (and that's the main problem and claim to them) it is not quite clear exactly what is going to be if 2x supporters do not regain consciousness.

But I very much like what Aleksej996 has said above about  the situation, so I believe all must be fine and great in the issue!

In general I'd strongly recommend to everyone to carefully read full nodes' wiki here for example:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

Personally, I'm now uploading the all ready Bitcoin Core (version 0.15.0.1 format) blockchain database as of October, 24th to my Google drives (in 7zip multivolume archive, 12x10Gb parts).

I just took everything (except wallet.dat and debug.log) from my Bitcoin Core's data directories and packed into the 7-zip archive.

Anyone with a pretty thick download internet bandwidth would be able to download my archive, extract it with full paths, start his/her  latest 0.15.0.1 Bitcoin Core wallet, point to the extracted directory, and after the core rechecks (pretty fast) the database and blocks integrity he will have the all ready blockchain as of October, the 24th.

But users with pretty weak,  "thin" download internet bandwidth might gain almost no advantages, they might be better just start the Bitcoin Core 0.15 full node and let it sync itself as usual.

There's always a separate chain when a hard fork occurs. This is why there is always so much concern about splitting the network. Because, by definition, hard forks split the network.

If you have a highly centralized system, where participants basically change consensus rules on a few days notice if Vitalik Buterin says so, hard forking without splitting the network is possible. Not so easy in Bitcoin, especially on a 3-month timeline. Most people don't upgrade their nodes on that timeline, and we can see by observing the network that the vast majority of reachable nodes are not running 2x software.

the chain that will be chosen as the dominatn one is that with the most nodes running up. So if you support Bitcoin Core you must run a Bitcoin Core node and accept and check transactions with it.

good luck

Yes. Take an old computer and run a node. Thousands of people should do that. Tens of thousands. Think it over.

These are so important messages that I consider it necessary to quote them and highlight in red:



Now one little tip on opening the 8333 incoming connections Bitcoin Core port - in case you enabled incoming connections and UPnP in Bitcoin Core configuration, but your following checking of your 8333 port on https://bitnodes.21.co/ is showing that your 8333 port is still closed.

For those of you who (like me) don't have a static ipv4 address and get dynamic internet addresses on every router boots, I'd suggest the following :

1. Open your internet router's configuration web interface and look for your router's current external ip address (as it changes on every router boot with dynamic addresses).  Remember it.

2. Then go to https://www.whatismyip.com  (or any other online similar service) and remember your real external internet address.

3. Compare the two addresses. If they are equal then go to step 5. Otherwise go to the next step 4.

4. Contact your internet service provider and ask them NOT to use NAT for your router if ever possible. (that's exactly what I did and what then really allowed me to open 8333 port for incoming connections).

5. Again open your router's configuration web interface and either enable 8333 port forwarding or (what has worked for me) enable the UPnP for your IPv4 WAN connections (this setting will allow Bitcoin Core itself to open the 8333 port.

Now don't hurry up, give the Bitcoin Core application some time (from 30 minutes to a couple of hours) to establish incoming connections.

Easier said than done my friend. Most people in third world countries have crappy and expensive internet bandwidth. I visited some of these places and most of their internet are capped and very slow. Some people in 1st world countries have no clue what these people have to deal with, to get the most basic internet access.

Someone should start a project to subsidize or to donate equipment to these countries to run their own nodes in those countries or we will end up with full nodes being centralized in 1st world countries.

Donate hardware seems to be a nice idea, in most third world countries the electricity is quite cheap so I guess it wont be a problem to have a device turned on all day long.

good luck

Hello everyone)

As I promised, I have uploaded the whole Bitcoin Core blockchain database (0.15.0.1 version format packed into 12x10Gb 7-zip multivolume archive) as of October, 24th, 2017.

The 1-9 parts of the archive are here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1hDozqK5OhbYy1BNTFsRHE5S0U

The 10th part is here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bwp9hqEINfq7emI0TE9HSWUzT3c

And the 11-12th parts are here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B04jj__m9bS6djlfc1F4RjM2RlE

I have tested the archive, so you may download safely.

To extract the Bitcoin Core blockchain database from the archive you should use any archive manager that supports 7z archives, the genuine 7z archive manager may be downloaded from here:
http://www.7-zip.org

After downloading all 12 parts launch the 7-zip manager, extract everything anywhere into your hard drive (where you are going to keep the blockchain, there must be at least 200Gb free space there).

Then launch Bitcoin Core 0.15.0.1 application, on request for the database folder point to the extracted folder.
The Core will (pretty fast) check integrity of the database, then it will start syncing the blockchain to its current state (it will start downloading and verifying blocks since October, 24th).

If you had already have your real Bitcoin  wallet before, just add into the root of the extracted folder your own 'wallet.dat' file.

If you have any questions you are welcome to ask them

Is there any way to run it on a Cheap VPS?  200GB is much...
I dont want to ruin my 40/2 connection. Is there Any way to throttle the outgoing internet for this node on a rasp PI?

You can certainly run Bitcoin Core without using 200 GB of disk space. However Bitcoin Core will likely need more computing power than a cheap VPS can provide.

Yes, read https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#reduce-traffic

I think it is not necessary to download from you the whole blockchain. I don't know your intentions , they might be good but it is a security risk to download from another person the blockchain.

As long as you have a nice internet connection you can download the blockchain from your full node client i.e. Bitcoin Core.

peace

I had thought about it very seriously before uploading the database as well.

I am still a newbie in the subject.

I just think that the Bitcoin Core must be a very smart application, and it must thoroughly check the data directory before actually accepting it.

As for the speed, my home internet connection is very fast now but the blockchain downloading (syncing) was VERY slow. My download bandwidth was being used at 2-3% only.

But if there is a security risk, then maybe is there a Bitcoin Core command or something to validate all its database against the actual real blockchain?

I just want to really help speed up downloading, But I consider ANY SECURITY RISKS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE HERE!!

If you want to help other to download the whole blockchain just make sure your node accepts incoming connections.

You can check it in bitnodes21.co

Every one starts downloading the whole blockchain when they starts their node for the first time. It depend on your CPU and RAM to sync pretty quick. There are some tweaks in the bitcoin.conf file that you can do to speed up the syncing. Take a look at google and you can find them in stack exchange.

good luck.

Of course my own full node does accept incoming connections! It is online almost 24/7

I cannot go on our discussion further for now  as it is night here already, I have to wake up early Tomorrow, but if there is a real security risk, then tell me a little bit more about what it might be, and i will delete my upload then

Always running a full node on pretty beefy Debian workstation, but its definitely resource hungry. As of yesterday db is 160.4 GB, if you want to re-index DB that is already on hard drive (SSD's in Raid) - few hours. Looking at the code I dont know if it can be dramatically optimized. Disk space requirements can be lowered by around 25% with slight sacrifice of performance pretty easily if you use on-the-fly gzip on blocks. OS-based compression on file system will do the same...

Furelise, you know, what I think, Bitcoin is of such a great value that I'm sure the 'cost' you describe is just nothing compared to its actual value and potential!

Most 1st world countries are dumping their older model mobile phone handsets onto third world countries in any way, so why not dump older computer hardware that can be repurposed to serve as full nodes? These computers are being destroyed and recycled, where it could have been used to run full nodes.

I have to disagree on the cheaper electricity statement. Not all third world countries have cheap and reliable electricity. I have visited some of these 3rd world cities and electricity was very unreliable and expensive. ^hmmmmm^

Well, I guess the term "cheap electricity" doesn't apply to all the third world countries. I can speak about Venezuela, cheap but unstable electricity is a fact.
It doesn't have to be a robust hardware to support the bitcoin core node network. You can donate Raspberry Pi's or Pine64's.

I’ve been running a full node for years, I don’t see why anybody who is even half serious about bitcoin wouldn’t.

Esit - After quickly reading through the entire thread - I do not advise anybody to download the blockchain from anywhere other than the official source, saving time is no good if it gets you a virus or a buggy download.

As for downloading the all ready blockchain (like mine), there's no doubt at all, it is always much better and much safier to allow Bitcoin Core download the blockchain itself.
The only reason using my upload might be this (quote from another topic):


But the very most important thing is to agitate as many people as ever possible,   as soon as ever possible, to start their own Bitcoin Core full node application

Yes I think it is very important now as the majority of the hash power will be switched to the 2x chain. We need to show support for the core and our true bitcoin, we cannot be threatened by the miners to turn off the power from the main chain. If we will ignore 2x they will just come back to the real bitcoin, people should panic, we don't need that 80% of power. The difficulty will be adjusted after some time and everything will go back to normal.

Of course!
The TRUE Bitcoin is the only REAL, TRUE money!

And if you control your private keys it IS indeed your only REAL money!!

And your real FREEDOM in this (to a very large extent) material would!

So I'm absolutely sure that running Bitcoin Core Full node, donating those 200 Gb free hdd space and some other tiny hardware donations  - all that is just nothing compared to the Bitcoin's true value and prospects!!

Core downloads blocks from many sources and it is comparable to a torrent. The downloading itself is fast but the validation process is very slow. Its not a problem with the internet speed but rather, your hardware speed.
There really isn't a security risk. The security risk it has would be the same as a user downloading any other files from the internet. If you want to be extra safe, use -reindex when you start Bitcoin Core up. Be warned that it could take days for it to be completed.
No. Nothing is chosen in the hardfork. Both chain will still exist.
No. Outgoing connections also helps others to synchronize their blockchain.

It seems to me, you are not quite right here.

When my Bitcoin Core 0.14.2 was syncing itself (downloading the blockchain), I saw the bottleneck was precisely in an insufficient number of other full nodes that accepted incoming connections, from where my node could download the blockchain data.   As memory, processor, Internet channel, all they were busy for only 2-6%!

You compared to torrents.
OK, when I started any popular torrent on the very same computer, then the whole my 2.5-3Mb/s download bandwidth was immediately busy at 100% (ram and cpu were of course still almost free).
But if I started a rare unpopular torrent then it would be similar to syncing the blockchain as of June this year - very slow indeed

There is also another potential factor that you ignored. If your internet connection is somehow throttled, it would definitely be much slower. In addition, if your internet is slow, that can be a bottleneck. Bitcoin Core is also heavily reliant on the disk speed. If your read/write speeds are slow, it would also be a bottleneck.

I wouldn't pin the problem straight to the lack of nodes. You have 8 outgoing connections and the blocks are all supplied to you, if you have less than that, you can add nodes manually. I have never encountered a problem with the synchronization due to the lack of nodes, it has always been on my computers.

Of course. Torrent doesn't have validations that is on the level of Bitcoin Core. It would naturally be way faster. The only reason why the synchronization would be a lot slower is due to the fact that there are more transactions in the blocks that Core have to validate.

I'm completely with running a full node to support the network. But the average joe, doesn't have to.

No, no, my internet has been neither throttled, nor slow.

The only potentially possible bottleneck related to my computer could have been hard disk read/write operations (as it was a usual 7200 rpm hdd, not an SSD). But! At a moment (when the downloaded blockchain data had not exceeded 32Gb) I tried to move the data directories to a fast USB 3.0 flash card (exactly to find what was the bottleneck).
The syncing did become a little bit faster indeed. But Not significantly!

I've been running a full node over public WiFi since I joined Bitcoin Talk, and I've had very few problems apart from the initial download of the blockchain. In fact, that was taking so long that I used a cable connection to complete the synchronisation. I'm running the node on a Windows 10 notebook, and Idecided to run a second node on a small netbook. I bought an SSD, and copied the blockchain onto that ( I used the notebook as source of course). Ubuntu picked that up without any trouble. I ran the two nodes for a couple of months with no difficulty. but Idecided that the Linux node was a bit of an abuse of the hospitality provided by my WiFi donors, so I deleted the blockchain on the SSD. I can't accept inbound connections, but the full and unpruned node seems to be stable and up to date without this.

I'm still considering how to handle the recent forks, and I may start a forked node on the netbook to pick up a few altcoins to convert into Bitcoin.

I also download the blockchain in my best CPU and then copy the data to my other devices where I have nodes (rPi, Pine64, etc)
It works like a charm.

I dont think you could get alts if you start a node from a fork. I think you better stay with the bitcoin core node and support the network.

I see Bitcoin as a store of wealth, and I support core. However, I'm not averse to increasing my savings by collecting a few free coins, and converting them in the true Bitcoin.

OK, but remember the 2x attack on the true Bitcoin is too serious a danger to be 'collecting a few free coins' at the very time of the attack!

Therefore, in pursuit of an additional tiny profit, you are going to seriously risk losing your main true wealth on the contrary

How will running a Bitcoin cash node (for example) on a second machine whilst I cellect some free money affect Bitcoin? If I keep my core node running on my primary machine, then it seems to be to the advantage of Bitcoin, as it will just increase the value of Bitcoin. A much bigger threat would be for me to sell my Bitcoin and save the money in a fiat bank account. This is something that a lot of Bitcoin Talk members seem to do.

I'd like not to argue on 2x here any more, I'll just say there's a big difference between the cash fork and 2x fork:
 
the cash fork was honestly openly implemented as an altcoin with a reliable replay protection, whilst there's a crude, blatant attempt to force their own (unnecessary after the Segwit activation!) 2Mb blocks hard fork without implementing any replay protection at all!

I fully agree with you in your other statement that escaping into fiats seems to be not very wise (and pretty cowardly)

I run Bitcoin Core on a VPS with high-speed internet and SSD disks.  The bottleneck during initial block download for me is definitely CPU (100% CPU utilization).  I've noticed the same thing on my desktop system.  So it really depends on your hardware and your internet connection.

ScripterRon, definitely, in my case CPU  has never been the case:  peak cpu loads % never exceeded about 10-12%, the average load was usually significantly slower at all

Hmm, weird. Given that it was the earlier blocks, synchronization should have been pretty fast. If the synchronzation did become faster after you switch, it would mean that the node's speed wasn't the main bottleneck. What are your system's specs?

A solution that I use is to increase the dbcache. If you increase the dbcache, the synchronization would be exponentially faster. You do need a good amount of ram though.

Wierd, of course! Very good that you've noticed! I've been so much busy writing in many threads at this forum simultaneously these days,  that I made an annoying, stupid mistake! I tried the flash drive when the already downloaded blockchain had not exceeded (but was already close to)  128Gb - that is really the size of my largest,  fast (at that moment free) USB flash drive (it is ADATA UE700 128Gb).

Even though there's no monetary reward for running a full bitcoin node, I still feel like I want to run one myself at some point. Right now now I have one main machine for all my needs but as soon as I get a new one I will dedicate at least one to cryptocurrency. And I will be running a full node on that machine. I hope more and more people start doing this as well even though there's no monetary reward.

J. Cooper, good, very wise decision, start your full node as soon as you can!

This is actually new to me about running full node on a computer just to support the Bitcoin community. For what? What are the benefits of running 24/7 that costs power but what in return? I guess big mining companies are doing the same way since they have top of the line hardware.
I wish one day I could get my hands on the work to experience this Bitcoin core personally.

Supporting the TRUE Bitcoin network,  its most reliable, really competent developers team and its main and most important application Bitcoin Core wallet.

Supporting them, along with realizing the extreme importance of 'the more, the better' number of full Bitcoin nodes for implementing the true decentralized, free, REAL money world service (especially taking into account the 2x threat) - these are exclusively serious, necessary and sufficient reasons to as soon as possible start your own Bitcoin Core 0.15 full node.

Now for the 'cost'.

I wrote this (when people worried about their costs, benefits, etc. in running full nodes) :


And this:

As bitcoin fan pointed out, there's no monetary reward for running a full node. But you do get the chance to not only contribute the system by verifying transactions and you also get the best security if you link your wallet to your node.
I have a question for you bitcoin fan. Do you think buying a bitseed core would be a good purchase? It's online 24/7 by itself and it would save me a lot of hassle keeping a laptop running 24/7.

If I were you I would just buy a Raspberry Pi and configure a Raspnode. In fact, this is what I am doing right now, I also have a Bitcoin Core node on a Pine64.

http://raspnode.com/diyBitcoin.html
good luck

J. Cooper, great excellent idea, I think!

I'd myself buy one! But maybe some later in future, as my laptop fully satisfies me for now

Sometimes it is not about YOU, but about the good you are doing for everyone else. People run FULL nodes to support decentralization of the network. The more FULL nodes we have running globally, the more decentralized the network will be. If some governments or hackers wants to shut Bitcoin down, they will be faced with 1000s of FULL nodes popping up all over the place. <making it almost impossible to take it down>

Do something good for the Bitcoin network, by running a FULL node to protect Bitcoin for everyone that is involved. ^smile^

You will also protect your own investment. < If it gets taken down, you will also not be able to use it >

A BitSeed core has enough space (> 1 TB) for the Bitcoin Blockchain and it is small and portable like a Raspberry Pi. The energy consumption is about 10 watt while a laptop consumes 90 Watt, in this way you save cost for the energy. Building a Node on Raspberry Pi is the same as a Bitseed and the costs may be the same.

I don't quite see the benefit of run your own full node.
Aren't the miners already providing the needed computational power to verify the transactions?
What am I missing here?

You are missing so much, that I'd ask you just read this for start:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

Believe me, if only you can, do start running your own Bitcoin Core full node!

My laptop consumes not more than 60 Watt even at peaks. So laptops, netbooks, those excellent little wonderful computers like the Raspberry Pi 3 Model B, or the Bitseed, choose which ever you may afford!
Just set it up sooner and run your full node!

I've quickly read up on this.

Mining has gotten more and more centralized because it nowadays requires specialized hardware and significant investments.
Each running their own full node would protect the bitcoin network against being hijacked by a group of miners with bad intentions.

Is this your main concern and the reason you'd want everyone to run a full node?

Not only.
The more full nodes, the more reliability, speed and fault tolerance there will be in the whole Bitcoin network ecosystem.

And the more people in the whole world would actually perceive the Bitcoin as the best and most reliable, TRUE money that they really accept, value and fully trust!

It is really a good thing to support the Bitcoin network by running a full node, I am doing that too. the problem is that Bitcoin core needs a huge free disk space which is not available for every user, also downloading Bitcoin core takes too long especially if you don't have a good Internet connection, it may take days or even weeks to be completely downloaded. But it is nice to remember others how important it is to be part of the Bitcoin network.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've heard you need to be a little bit more technical for a pi but I think I can manage. Purchasing a pi would actually be very convenient since I am in the need for a raspberry pi for something else as well. I'm going to do some digging on both the pi and the bitseed and hopefully purchase whichever fits me best.

That's right, straight to the point if run Core full node just for avoid B2x hard fork, 10 minutes will be enough.
I would like to run Bitcoin core someday when I have new pc, but for now I don't have enough space disk to storing a copy of the blockchain.
Look at the recommended minimum requirements for Bitcoin core full nodes:
- At least 145GB disk space
- Download capacity of 500MB/day (15GB/month), plus a one-time 140GB download the first time you launch Bitcoin Core
- Upload speed of 5GB/day (150GB/month)
- 1GB RAM
- Desktop, laptop, or compatible ARM chipset
B2x hard fork will be live on October 16th, right? But it seems 2x supports continues to decline over time.

I do not agree, but naturally, you have the right to have your opinion

Having a full node running is a very good idea - that is one of Satoshi's visions behind the decentralised nature of Bitcoin.

I have had one running 24/7 since I first acquainted myself with Bitcoin. Currently the blockchain database uses 150GB (I have it on a dedicated 238GB SSD disk, dimensioned for growth).

Mining - computational power for processing of the transactions.
Full node - a complete copy of the Bitcoin ledge, that miners read and write against. Full nodes ultimately "vote" which chain is perceived as main by the miners.

Is there a geographical map of where nodes are? I have a 300/300mbps connection - and a Ubuntu installation. Is running a node hard on the disk? Is 500GB disk sufficient? Sound like it. Can I install the node software and let it rebuild of the blockchain?

That is a really good question!
Is there any way to know where nodes are, and what is the best server to launch one more node?

you can check https://bitnodes.21.co I'm not sure there is an actual map but it shows nodes around your location.

Assuming full nodes don't use much CPU on average, and mostly just serve blocks, I think a laptop for this usage would more likely consume 10-20W.

.
500 gb is absolutely sufficient. If only you can, do install and launch your full node as frequently as it's  possible for you! If you also allow incoming connections and open 8333 port (either by port forwarding, or enabling UPnP in your router)  that will be just great!

The full nodes map and your 8333 port accessibility can be found here for example :

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/live-map/

Exactly! That's why I think I don't have to buy those tiny excellent Raspberry Pi 3 Model B, or the Bitseed computers (yet) to run my full node.

I used to run the full node on my workstation. But since I switched to a laptop (much more handy for what I do at the moment), I cannot do that any longer.
First, it will take ages to download the blockchain;
Second, while downloading the blockchain, hardly I can do other things (even though my laptop is not that bad)!
That is a shame I cannot keep doing it!
Would you have any solution?

p3ppymon,
Possible solutions:

1) You may download the whole blockchain at once from my Google Drive (see details in  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2321650

2) You may keep  a pruned blockchain (personally I have never tried it)

3) while downloading the blockchain you can be safely doing any other things with your laptop! Process, CPU, download bandwidth will be busy 3-20% only.
Besides, on windows you may use any advanced task manager (I use http://systemexplorer.net  it's free)  to set the process priority, etc. for the Bitcoin Core application to even more reduce its hardware requirements.

If it's similar to the HDD access issues (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2291857) I've experienced with the latest version, and you don't have an SSD, a decent solution is to do the initial sync with the "chainstate" directory linked to a RAM drive. When it finishes, copy the results to phyical HDD.

If it's a CPU issue, try limiting BitcoinCore to a single CPU core (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#configuration-tuning). You can also lower its process priority from the Windows Task Manager: right click a process and use "Set Priority". In Windows 8 and later it's in the "Details" tab.

Okay, I became curious enough to measure an Ivy Bridge laptop. :) I got 14-36W. 14W with very light load and screen off. 36W with CPU maxed and screen on. Didn't check the effect of HDD activity. The measurement accuracy may be off, especially at the low end. The laptop's battery was connected, but not charging. I don't know the efficiency of the AC/DC adapter.

I have a couple of Raspberry pi Zero, and you gave me an idea to start a node on one of it. I will try in in a couple of days and tell you how it works.

Does running a full node earn bitcoin?

No. That's mining.

Thank you. So the only way to generate bitcoin organically is mining, but the nodes are what verify the block chain even exists and full node earn nothing, maybe that should change, me being a noob looking from the outside in, this does not seem fair.

Interesting. Are mining rigs and/or pools require to run on a full node to mine?

I have found the answer myself (below) on why to run a full node, but still wonder is running a full node required to mine? I assume miners are the node backbone? Thanks

Why should you run a full node
Summary

Running a full node is the only way you can use Bitcoin in a trustless way. You will know for sure that all the rules of Bitcoin are being followed, for example that no bitcoins are spent not belonging to the owner, that no coins were spent twice, that no inflation happens outside of the schedule and that all the rules needed to make the system work (e.g. difficulty) are followed. Full nodes are currently the most private way to use Bitcoin, with no nobody else learning which bitcoin addresses belong to you. Full nodes are the most secure way to use Bitcoin, they do not suffer from many attacks that affect lightweight wallets.

It seems people call different things "full nodes".

The wiki here (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node) defines it simply as a node that has personally verified the whole blockchain, and that continuously does so for new blocks and transactions. I suppose that also implies relaying only valid transactions to its peers. According to the wiki, a full node does not have to be an "archival node" which stores the whole blockchain and accepts incoming connections.

By that definition, miners are necessarily full nodes, but I'm not sure if they must also be archival nodes.

Here's a 2014 thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=726658.0) where someone asks about full node rewarding.

I also thought about sending one Bitcoin in my unsynced wallet to give me more incentive to go through with it, but no.

Great! Of course do try it, I wish you success, as the more full nodes, the more decentralization, the more reliability and the better!

As I understand it, according to the original plan, ALL of the wallets were supposed to be full nodes, so naturally there was not provided any reward only for that. Moreover! All of the nodes (wallets) were supposed to be MINERS as well! And as miners they would have gained the reward!

If your full node keeps the whole blockchain ("archival node" as you named it) it is much safer and better for the Bitcoin Blockchain ecosystem, and your own money accordingly, if you have any real (Bitcoin) money at all.
So if you can afford 160+Gb blockchain then do it! If not, then keep a pruned node.

Anyway, the main idea is having any is very much better than having none.

That's not entirely true. I'm not sure what security features were supposed to be in place with regard to Satoshi's reference to "Simplified Payment Verification" in the whitepaper. Maybe fraud proofs along the lines of what Core developers have proposed, or maybe he did not foresee that miners would try to change protocol rules from under users. See here:


It's easy to see how a user could be attacked this way. By verifying block headers, he can tell that miners have included in a block and further that the block has been confirmed. He can't verify that this blockchain is "Bitcoin."

OK, I may be not entirely, but I am basically right :) saying that all of the nodes were supposed to be full nodes.

Anyway, every smart and responsible Bitcoin holder, fan and enthusiast should:

1. Run his/her own full (maybe pruned) node.

2. Even much better if he is also a miner (now also signaling NO2x).

Thanks for the recommendations. I will try to give it a go downloading again the bull blockchain from your drive.

That does not sound like what Satoshi wrote. At all.

Agreed. Did this guy even read the white paper? Lmao. Satoshi wrote a whole chapter on how merkle roots should be implemented to help streamline the system for average users.

He then specifically says, that if you are a business etc. and SHOULD NEED extra security, it would be better to run a full node.

Do your research bro.

OK, I shouldn't have used the words "were sopposed to be", but I'm sure Satoshi, knowing the actual situation today, would support me in what I said  earlier :

It's not enough to run a full node in some raspberry pi that you will never use. You should use it to transact too, so it becomes an economic node and you are in charge of your money 100%, knowing what you are doing. The problem is keeping your bitcoins safe.. which is why im asking what is the best operating system to run a full node that is also used as a wallet:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2332405.msg23830612

please help.

You may point your lightweight wallet to connect to your own full node.
Personally, I signed transactions in my electrum cold wallet (I run it on always offline system that starts from a flash card, the OS used doesn't actually matter much, most important it could never go online), then I just imported the transaction into my electrum read-only wallet to just send the previously signed transaction

Linux of course.

But Electrum in an SPV wallet, how does this work exactly? and where does your full node enter the picture on that setup? you just said you use electrum cold wallet then electrum read only wallet to transact. So wheres your full node there??



What distro? and what do you think about OpenBSD?

http://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper

I think a good choice is Ubuntu (which is derived from Debian).  This is what I run on my VPS and it is very easy to maintain and upgrade (I just upgraded to 17.10).  My SPV desktop wallet (Windows 10) connects to just my VPS node, so I know that wallet transactions have been verified.

So would you consider your Windows 10 desktop wallet (I guess it's Electrum?)? If it's in Windows 10, you are still expose to Windows 10's viruses and so on, not to mention which is closed source, with in-built spying stuff etc. Why would you consider this safe even if it connects to a node that is on Linux? Also can you really trust Canonical Ltd? Richard Stallman called Ubuntu "spyware" at some point.

Last time I sent some bitcoins (on 0.37 seems to me, which were actually stolen by a scammer fake shop)  just from mobile lightweight wallet. I didn't use the cold storage scheme then. I didn't think yet honestly how to set up the electrum to connect to a specific Bitcoin Core wallet (mine). When I try I think I'll find a solution (I have no time now, tomorrow I go for the first time to my new job, I have to concentrate deeply on that from now on

Could be nice if it were possible, but nowadays it doesn't make much sense if you don't have special hardware.

Debian is considered potentially much more secure, but if you have no experience with Linux, Ubuntu is much closer to the ideal than anything Windows.

The remainder of the chatter above such as running one thing on Windows or PI and hooking it to the Linux machine is meaningless complexity.

You asked what was the best OS to run Core on "which was also a wallet."

As I promised, I have tryed to launch a node on Raspberry pi zero, that was not a very good idea at all))

I'm also curious about the Nov. 16 fork.  I run two copies of Bitcoin-QT and one is a full node.  I see Coinbase is going to be calling the chain with the highest difficulty Bitcoin.  So, if one needs or wants to change to 2x after the fork how would one convert?  Thinking each of my Bitcoin-Qt's to run a different chain.

soy39

There is a very simple safe answer which is "Do Nothing and Wait."

Can't go wrong this way. Think about it. A crypto coin, Bitcoin 1x - 2x - cash whatever, needs wallet support. Programmers change programs to make and allow that.

Yes there are ways to do it earlier just as there are ways to post transactions to the blockchain without going through a wallet.

I understand.  Besides I've no mining involved with the blockchains I maintain.  I do however mine with pools when it's cool enough and that's off and on now.  

If the difficulty proves 2x is the Coinbase choice as Bitcoin, failing to have the higher difficulty will see it called Bitcoin2x there, if 2X, will it require any change to my miners other than where they're pointed at?  Could I have one blockchain as a primary and the other as a secondary?  Work is dumped when one updates choices so why not if the machine can do either or?

You're correct, of course....almost everybody mines with pools, which means pieces of work are sent you you, and your ASICs run a bunch of calculations.

I imagine that means the pool operator's software examines incoming transactions, rejects some for wrong chain, insufficient fee, whatever, accepts others and sends them to the pool members.

Given that, hard to see how a miner could do two chains, except with separate hardware with separate pools.

So, the hardware for each of the forked Bitcoin chain would be different?

What I had considered is like what I do with two pools currently.  I change the pool address, login and password, mash Save and Apply and Bob's your Uncle you're on the other pool.  But if 2x will require different hardware, e.g. Bitcoin Cash, then it wouldn't work.

I maintain two blockchains but my mining is with pools and don't bother with my blockchains except as a destination for payouts. 

If you wanted to do two at the same time, you'd need two computers each with it's group of ASIC miners.

lf one of the forked products had a different mining algorithm, like Bitcoin Gold, obviously that's a different miner.

I wrote my own wallet and I trust it :)

I doubt that Ubuntu has 'spyware'.  And even if it does, there isn't much to spy on in my VPS ...

Do you think so? Please, read Bitcoin whitepaper more attentively. Here is it:

If a pool goes to 2x, will my Block Erupter or Jalapeno be able to mine satoshi on that pool?

I've also been recommended Debian, it at least has a GUI online OpenBSD. Will it auto-update itself fixing any vulnerabilities etc? do you need to mess around wit the terminal to make it work?

What do you think about the openSUSE one?

In general would you consider using Core as a wallet under Linux safe? I just don't understand how this idea of running the node separate from the wallet while still using the node to transact works.
It seems ideal tho.. since you would sign the transaction offline, then use your node to spread it into the network, but I have no idea how this could be done properly.

how much memory do i need to host a full node?

You may see here:
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/features/requirements

Hello Community,

I run an ESXi host as my IT training lab. I decided to run a Bitcoin full node to support the community. It will be a Linux server (no gui) virtual machine. Can you please advise what Linux distro is better and where I can find install/configure/sync the blockchain instructions?

I really wish I could do it on a cheap VPS, but with the 145GB blockchain and growing... the only cheap option is a rasp Pi with Harddisk?
Besides that I wonder how much up/downstream traffic does it generate (only have a 20/2 Mbit) line.

very nice, the main page misses some crucial Information like how much space is needed.
i always wanted to Store my copy of the btc blockchain inside the sia chain and Keep it updated.
but ive been very busy in real life. still Hardware is the best way to Keep it safe.

I am going to try to upload the whole blockchain to my Google drive

I'd start from
https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

Almost all necessary info may be found here
https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node/

The extrated archive will occupy about 160Gb
Of course you can do, just note I have already uploaded one as of October, 24th

All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core.

Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit.

Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words ;D

The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online.

The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe).

Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node.

The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely?

Neurotypical,  I'm very busy right now, maybe look through this topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651344

The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that.

As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin.

But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line."

Electrum offline (cold storage) scheme is easy, reliable, simple and free!
Personally, I live in the poor, miserable, totalitarian country of Belarus, it is pretty expensive for me to buy any hardware, given the very high customs duties including.

Besides, it's turned out trezors may be very weak and vulnerable as well, the famous history here:
https://www.wired.com/story/i-forgot-my-pin-an-epic-tale-of-losing-dollar30000-in-bitcoin

I don't really trust Trezor, they keep adding unnecessary cluter specially with the new Trezor T which raises surface of attack.

I also don't trust the concept of "seeds" in general, or anything that could spawn all of your private keys thought a single passphrase.

Can't you sign transactions offline with the Bitcoin Core wallet in an airgapped computer, then move this into another computer with another Bitcoin Core and relay it to the network?

But maybe this is unnecessary and considering im not going to be running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a node 24/7 and only boot the Linux partition when I need to transact or create a new receiving address... I should be safe.

I would need to encrypt the Linux partition tho, otherwise when I boot in Windows the wallet files could be accessible if my Windows partition gets hacked.

So you don't trust the seeds or word list, but Electrum uses them. As does Trevor. Core has the HD flag today, but doesn't seem to have deterministic stuff implemented.

This explains the overall theory. There's a link at the bottom on how to do it with Electrum.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_set_up_a_secure_offline_savings_wallet

HD literally means Hierarchical Deterministc. Bitcoin Core allows you to make an HD wallet, so it is deterministic. What Bitcoin Core does not have is the mnemonic or seed phrase. That is completely unrelated to HD wallets; it is a totally separate BIP and not required to have an HD wallet.

Now I'm up and running Bitcoin Core on my Ubuntu :-)

You're welcome :-)

Excellent, very good!

And you are welcome to the family of smart and responsible fans of the best crypto currency and currency in general - the Bitcoin!

Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.

The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.

The method of a double computer setup is achieved by dumping the raw transaction data on the offline computer, then passing it on (with an USB stick for example) in the online computer where your node is.

This can't be done with the GUI afaik, so you would need to use the command console, so this has added risk, and you still are at risk that the text file containing your raw transaction gets compromised somehow during the process of relaying it in the network.

I have never used this method so you would need to ask someone that does for the details, but I think an encrypted Linux partition with a node used as a wallet is safe enough in most cases.

It seems,  there was a topic discussing this issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651344

1. It is me calling.

2. You are talking about yourself.

3. Shut the fuck up!

4. Or is shall call Hitler!

Beavis and Butthead Prank Call Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9laOl7cqR4

Anyone knows if the different Ubuntu flavors (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu...) are maintained at the same speed as the original Ubuntu LTS?

I have seen Lubuntu, it's really cool and lightweight, would be perfect to run a node. Xubuntu is also lightweight, but with better GUI, a good compromise between lightweight and minimalist GUI. Then there's Trisquel, which also looks easy to use and is FSF approved, but im not sure if it's easy to install like Ubuntu, and if it will get updates constantly.

Are updates automatic or manual?

I think im close now to deciding one, and I think I will stick to running the wallet as a node and only fire up the Linux partition everyday for a while to keep the node updated so when I need to transact I don't need to wait hours for it to catch up. If you open your node just 20 minutes a day or something, you can keep it synced on the daily. I don't think this will pose a realistic risk. I will not be even opening the internet browser on there. I can still browse with windows since my windows partition contains nothing of value anyway.

It's important to not get overly complicated or confused.

Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage.

Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still.

Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address.

Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right.

Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain.

You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s).

Now build another wallet for incidental purchases.

That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."

Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.

I cannot abstain from quoting myself  :)  (as the topic is quite long and people may have missed my answer to the claim) :


The general idea is simple, and the truth is always simple.

You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  

You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

???

Parasitize?

Miners mine for profit.

First of all, it was about users' lightweight wallets.

As for miners, naturally, miners get profit, but unfortunately, now few can afford to be independent miners (who can be signaling NO2x for example

I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum. :)

As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion :)

hmmm...well since both clients are open source, how much can they hide? If they suddenly close source Parity, I'll switch to something else since I use the one from github. :)

You're right of course. That may be just from my personal hard experience, I know too well what that Putin and his current Russia are, as I live less than 50 km near the Russian border, I am in many crypto currencies' Russian speaking Telegram channels, and I know that, for example,  just soon after that "morally flexible" Vitalik met Putin, the Russian authorities have begun constantly attacking, regulating, etc. (actually forbidding) the Bitcoin and other cryptos. Because they realized that they cannot control (actually steal) Cryptocurrencies from their citizens, as they constantly do with the usual fiat currencies!

I have the right for my personal opinion, so I'll repeat, I am very much cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik, his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them.

Loving the self-entitled privilege demonstrated there and pretty much everywhere on these forums lately.   ::)

It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing.  No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with.  See it for what it actually is.  The people you disagree with are possibly leaving.  That's not a forceful imposition.  That's them leaving you alone to do what you want.  If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.

So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it.  There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead.  You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.  

Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether.  You could do that job yourself and start mining.  After all, you did just say:


So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself.  Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on.  All you have to do is run your preferred code.  

They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it.  You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs.  Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks.  So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you.  Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon.  What's with the constant bitching about it?

You have a very crafty position.

You keep distorting the facts all the time, portraying free will where there is really absolutely no freedom of choice.

For example, personally, I would very much like to be an independent miner, but I just cannot afford to buy the necessary equipment.

Therefore, although formally you are supposedly right, but in reality - no, in no case.

All participants in bitcoin have just enough control and freedom of choice, so that no one entity is in overall control (http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/bitcoinforbeginners/moreinfo.html#what-control-do-i-have).

There is no distortion in what I've said.  If currently stated intentions prove to be accurate, you'll still have roughly 15% of the current network's hashrate with which to continue building the blockchain and prove that your vision of Bitcoin provides the greatest incentive for all participants.  You might get even more than 15% as crunch time draws near and some miners reconsider their stance.  None of this is set in stone.  You will absolutely, 100% guaranteed have the option of continuing to use Bitcoin as it presently exists in it's 1mb base and 3mb witness space ruleset.  There is undeniable freedom of choice in that.  Having "no freedom of choice" is entirely a product of your imagination.

If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong.  They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.

It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies.  That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.  

The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin.  They don't.  No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.

Fortunately, I think you are deliberately, or unintentionally, lying.

It is you who have roughly 20% of the current network's hashrate, as https://coin.dance/poli is showing now for example if I understand it right (I looked not into the right page, sorry, see my next post)

More and more sane miners prefer staying away from 2x and your Garzik's false, fake btc1 software.

I see no reason to continue arguing with you. You might be working for the mad, insolent 2x miners, while I'm just spending my free time on you.

You may be right, I looked into the wrong page, I should have looked into https://coin.dance/blocks.

Yes, you seem to have 83% miners yet. OK, maybe. We'll see.

The whole spectrum of the game theory involving miners goes deeper. Miners can be bribed to act in a way that would seem irrational at first, without knowing that there is a bribe going on.

Case in point: An attacker (let's call this Government A) bribes miners into mining at a loss, the chain of a fork, in order to push this fork as "the real Bitcoin on all major exchanges, which are also bribed by Government A, such as Coinbase et al. These miners seem to be mining a less valuable coin, but they are making more money doing so by accepting the bribes.

This is an attack on bitcoin, and this will explain when you see any miners mining segwit2x at a loss in the following weeks.

It would be easy to maintain only 1 address in a cold storaged wallet, but this is very bad advice when it comes to maintaining privacy.

Ruling out Electrum, I would need to keep that 1-address wallet.dat file from Bitcoin Core. So everytime I send coins to my cold storage, they all would end up in a single address, which means it could be analized to find out how much BTC you own. You have to avoid this. You don't want a lot of BTC showing up on these "rich addresses" things (I don't have as much by any means, but it is still a mistake to do that privacy wise).

Also if you delete Bitcoin Core you couldn't test if your wallet.dat has been corrupted or not (files can corrupt over time).

In your cold storage wallet you may generate a thousand different addresses, and every time send Bitcoins to different ones. You may even generate as many whole wallets as you can safely keep. There are no privacy issues here at all.



Bribes - maybe, quite possible too (I live right near the Putin's Russia, and bribery is the main type of economic activity there... :)

Now seriously.
Lord, bless the Bitcoin, as it is the golden ray of Freedom in the realm of lies, fakes, inflation, selfishness, injustice and slavery.

That's actually a really interesting way to look at it. And it could very well be true. But how can we counter this? Should we all start running nodes that support core and reject blocks that were mined by miners with the 2x software? Would this help? Because large companies have stated they will support the chain with the most hashing power.

I've pretty much always had a full node since 2011. As well as talk about it everywhere heh. Grind the bitcoin cash for my friends who had no clue how.

I've been lazy lately but I'll make an effort.

Just went online with a full node on my Xeon 24/24 server hosting my company domain name, port forwarded obviously.

I'll copy the blockchain and have it run on a few other machine soonish as well. Using another IP and still port forwarded.

I agree with your negative comments about sending everything to one address. Didn't occur to me...wish I had enough coin that that was a concern.

As for "telling if the wallet.dat has been corrupted," of course any backup file should be tested. Unless a backup is verified by testing, it can't be considered verified. Depends on the program too, of course. With electrum one has the passphrase, the word sequence, and the wallet file. With Core you only have the wallet file, and an encryption password, if that was used.

Very good points you raised.

xFiber, one thing I know for sure: it's better to try to do something than to do nothing at all.

If you can afford your own mining pool, then that's just great!
But if not, you should at least run your own Bitcoin Core full node.
I'll repeat, it is better to be doing at least something than just be passively sitting and waiting.


interprog, well done!

(look, the number of full Bitcoin Core nodes have raised pretty significantly recently, and that 2x miners' servant Garzik has had to increase the number of his fake btc1 nodes too.
It is not so hard for everyone to start (at least) one full node, as it is for Garzik to start hundreds of his false btc1 nodes

In order to show my support for the core team (who are the guys who got us here in the first place, not the btc1 team) I have started running a bitcoin node. It is very easy, and in effect is a way of voting, just holding btc is not enough, vote by running a full core listening node.

I started this thread yesterday https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360608.msg24062765#msg24062765 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360608.msg24062765#msg24062765)

It is good to spread the word as much as you can.

That's an important consideration as well, though.  It probably tips the scales in favour of the current chain, meaning that even though 2x might end up with more miner support initially, it almost certainly won't have as much business and economic support.  As I said, this isn't just about what some miners are doing, it's about what everyone participating in the Bitcoin network does.  It's about which chain provides the most incentive to actually use.

As an example, if loads of payment processors, merchants and other businesses end up deciding to not support 2x, then 2x probably won't provide enough incentive for the average user to transact.  Users want to be able to spend their coins and they can't do that if most companies won't accept them as payment.  If users aren't transacting on the 2x chain, then as a result, miners will earn more fees on the current chain, so they'd go back to that and forget about 2x.

---

Or, it could just be that miners have done the math and have worked out that a short term period of mining at a loss is worth the risk if it means they had the potential to reap anything up to double the amount of fees they currently collect once transaction volumes rise.  There are many possible explanations, not just that one.  It's also worth noting that each miner will be doing their own sums based on their own personal overheads and costs, so it won't be the same calculation for all of them.  But the basic formula is pretty simple, more transactions means the potential for more fees.  A tempting prospect for any miner.  It doesn't always have to be a government conspiracy.

I'll repeat, Lord, Bless the Bitcoin!
For me, it symbolizes true freedom, independence and hope to finally get out of poverty!
Since, personally, I live in a poverty-stricken, totalitarian country where the standard of living is extremely low, corruption is rampant, and the evil state strangles citizens with taxes, fees and bans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEQ2nPSL5-0

Great song, thanks  :) 
(I did not understand all the words, yet I caught the general meaning  :)

Good point, that had not occurred to me.

This song is not available with text lyrics, but if you want it I'll provide.

i used to run core, but im worried about the 2x fork and what that means

will the 2x take over existing BTC chain? or will there be separate chain for the 2x fork?

If it is not difficult for you, it'd be interesting :)

Don't worry too much. All must be fine.

If you can run Bitcoin core full node now, then it'd be very good if you start running it again

Great! Thank you very much!  :)

Then there is the prescient, great Zhou Tonged.

Look at this from 2013. He said it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pID03RrmKow

Yes, smart and visionary guy!

I think you misunderstand what running a node does. It helps to verify transactions, which was important at the start of the blockchain being mined. It's also important around forks (for like an hour). If you read the original bitcoin whitepaper you will understand better how it works.

The way to achieve the goal you are after is by mining...and mining enough that you actually have control. Lots of little miners can keep control, but not very well. The big miners will always be able to control better.

That's true. Or the guilds. Mining I have done, nobody ever asked me to vote on anything....

On the music derail (lol) here is one that....incredibly, this is from 2012. (with lyrics)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdrSP0V-KLg

And the great lament about the crash of Mt. Got and 2/3 of a Billion in peoples' funds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ku1A5Ox8U

Of course mining is the most important and most in-demand thing now.

All those who can afford independent Bitcoin mining have already been doing it, I think.

Yet full nodes are very important as well, and not only at the very forks moments.
Besides, it is a way to express support for the Bitcoin Core developers team, and vote what the True Bitcoin is as well.

We shouldn't just sit, wait, and do nothing. We must do something, must support the Bitcoin by all available means

Wouldn't that be done by after the fork, transacting on the traditional Bitcoin chain? Actual transactions are what miners process. With reasonable delays and consideration for issues and dangers of replay exploits of course.

Everyone must do what he (she) can do to support the Bitcoin.
Best of all If one can mine new blocks for transactions, while signaling no2x at the same time.
But if one cannot, then let he (she) start running Bitcoin Core at least, it's much better than be just sitting and doing nothing (though doing nothing may sometimes be the best "doing" actually  :) but this is not the case.

All nodes were supposed to be miners, without full nodes and miner nodes.
But in other argument you're right. Satoshi predicted "light" wallets.

I must take my words back! It has turned out that those 2x guys are not that bad! The terrible 2x chain split seems to be canceled at last!!
Everyone has the right to be mistaken, the main thing is to have the courage, honesty and wisdom to admit that they were not quite right.

About 160 Gb, full node may be run with any bandwidth actually (mine is 2.5Mb download/1.5 Mb upload), I had to wait about 2 weaks, but Bitcoin Core 0.15.0.1 will sync faster. You may download the whole blockchain if you have problems with syncing (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2321650.0 ).
All necessary info may be found in the official, pretty clear docs at https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

The starting point of a phrase search is random, it gets a private key from the openssl rand ecdsa library and starts searching from there, simply incrementing the key. After searching many addresses for a phrase match, it will again get another random private key. The keys searched and returned with a found vanity phrase in the corresponding Bitcoin address can be from anywhere in the range of valid keys, but certainly it cannot "search the entire keyspace", as that would take somewhere just north of the age of the universe.

I installed 0.15 last week and it took just a weekend to catch up. Huge huge improvement vs last time I did this when it took
~2 weeks, as you say.

It's a very good news!  I'm very happy the great Core team has achieved such a progress in the wallet's initial syncing!

I cannot agree with you:

1) The latest Bitcoin Core wallet app vers. 0.16.1 (I run it as my own full node) downloads the blockchain pretty fast (much faster than earlier versions)

2) I used to keep a Bitcoin Core full node wallet on an exclusively weak PC (500Mb RAM , single-core very slow old Celeron CPU) while doing all sorts of ordinary stuff , without any performance downgrade!
 I managed to achieve that by setting very low permanent process priority for the Bitcoin Core process. For that I used one of the software from this review: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/permanently-set-process-priority-in-windows-task-manager-with-prio/

What a load of tosh.

You can just copy the blockchain, no need to download it again.
You can't run a pruned blockchain unless you had a blockchain to prune.
One of my nodes is running on a netbook with a celeron processor. Is your laptop 'lighter' than that?

Was it worth bumping an old thread to post that rubbish?
I've put you on ignore, so no merits from me ever.

Yes I agree I think it is unning a Bitcoin full node isn’t just for mining pools and companies. Today, we’re going to outline 6 reasons why the average user should also consider running their own Bitcoin full node. There is a list of 6 reasons to run a Bitcoin Full Node.
1)   Helps the Network
Running your own full node is the only way to have full control and to ensure that all the rules of Bitcoin are being followed. Nodes do this by rejecting blocks and transactions that don’t follow the consensus rules and by rejecting connections from peers that send them (or too many of them).
2)   Keeps you safe
Running any kind of Bitcoin wallet that does not require you to run a full node means that you have to place a certain degree of trust in the service provider, something that shouldn’t be necessary with Bitcoin.
3)   Allows you to choose
In the possible event of a hard fork where both blockchains remain active with economic activity on each side like the one in Ethereum/Ethereum Classic, running a full node is the only way you can validate the rules of the new or old blockchain, according to your preference. If you don’t run a full node, your opinion will not be considered and you will simply follow the blockchain that is given to you.
4)   Gives you a higher degree of privacy
Using a centralized, lightweight or even SPV wallet will never be as private as running a full node. Since you rely on third-party servers to broadcast your transactions for you, those servers will be aware of which addresses belong to you.
5)   It’s not that hard
To less than tech-savvy users, running a full node may seem like a challenge. However, running a Bitcoin core full node is nothing more than simply downloading the latest Bitcoin core client version and running it.
6)   It’s not that expensive
Running a node will require you to keep your computer on at all times – or at least for the majority of the day. While you can always turn your node on and off at will with this option, it is not a very practical one. Thank you.

This are good reasons to run a full node, but are there any security concerns when running a full node? I can think of one issue, your IP would be visible to the network and therefore you are maybe a target of an attack. Is this a reasonable concern or am I too careful? Are there other concerns?

start your daemon using:
onlynet=onion
bind=127.0.0.1
listenonion=0

Thank you! I didn't know that the bitcoin core wallet supports to run over tor without much configuration.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Setting_up_a_Tor_hidden_service

Any other concers? Otherwise I will setup a full node on my raspberry  :)

pruned nodes sucks, you should buy a bananapi with sata port.
It is bettere to use a pc for initial sync, and move your copy of the blockchain on the bananapi later.
Initial synchronization on a raspberrypi will take some years.

I don't understand your point. The performance of the raspberry and banana are similar and I don't think the disk speed will make much difference (except for the initial sync).


Good suggestion, thank you.

It was not about performances, I don't like pruned nodes, it is only a personal opinion.
better pruned nodes than no nodes at all.

I still don't know what you mean. Why would it be a pruned node? Who would notice a difference?

What's your definition of a pruned node?

with a rasberrypi you have to run a pruned node, or connect an hard disk via usb2(there is no usb3)
with a bananapi you have a sata port so you can connect the hard disk directly. So with a bananapi you can run a full not pruned node. Everything else is almost equal.

I don't like pruned node because, if for some reason I have to perform a rescan I have to download the entire blockchain another time.

Also Im not sure if pruned node relays blocks.

Moreover: Eclair needs a synchronized, segwit-ready, zeromq-enabled, wallet-enabled, non-pruning, tx-indexing Bitcoin Core node. Eclair will use any BTC it finds in the Bitcoin Core wallet to fund any channels you choose to open. Eclair will return BTC from closed channels to this wallet.
https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/blob/master/README.md

or

c-lightning currently only works on Linux (and possibly Mac OS with some tweaking), and requires a locally running bitcoind (version 0.15 or above) that is fully caught up with the network you're testing on. Pruning (prune=n option in bitcoin.conf) is not currently supported.
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/master/README.md

or

You must to be running a non-pruning bitcoin daemon with:

txindex=1
set in its configuration file. If you have an existing installation of bitcoind and have not previously set this you will need to reindex the blockchain with:

bitcoind -reindex
which can take some time
https://electrumx.readthedocs.io/en/latest/HOWTO.html#prerequisites

but of course those are special usecase.

As I was saying pruned nodes are good, but non pruned ar better.

Why would you need to run a pruned node with raspberry pi? just run a regular node. Also, pruned nodes only relay latest blocks received, but not the whole blockchain.

because the sd card is too little, I don't know if an sdcard is able to store 150gb of data. usb is very unreliable and you end up with a corrupted blockchain.

OK, now I understand your concerns. There are many sd cards with a capacity over 150 GB, it will costs just about 100€ and then you can run your full node on a raspberry.

Thanks again, I will use mine for it.