Bitcoin Forum

Good Afternoon Folks,

I hope all is well. With all that has been going on w/ the FTX SBF business it gives me peace of mind knowing that my coins aren't on any exchange. Its a shame for all the people that lost all of their money, they learned a very valuable lesson. Having the peace of mind of running your own full node would certainly be the best case scenario for any Bitcoiner I would think.

With that said, I know this is probably a question that has been answered many times but what is required to effectively run a full node of your own? What kind of equipment & knowledge does one need to have and how much would this investment cost? Are there other benefits you get from doing this other than holding the keys to your coins?

I know that these questions are probably all very newbish questions but I do not currently run a full node. I am genuinely interested on what it would take to do so & would love some expert advice in this space. I'm looking forward to seeing your responses, thank you in advance!

Cheers,

-TREAD

As hardware you need a decent device that you can leave running for long time, preferably 24/7, but not necessarily, since after the initial (long) blocks' download, afterwards it would be rather quick (of course, it depends on how many hours or days you don't sync). What is important is to have a big disk (preferably more than 1TB) also if you don't have too much patience then SSD would be better.
There is however, this topic you may want to read (Cheap Node Self Hosting: Just because you CAN does not mean you SHOULD (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399730.0)) telling about the hardware choices. The worse the hardware, the more time you'll waste. So you better use decent hardware.

Knowledge: it depends on what you want. Starting Bitcoin core alone is not difficult. Configuring it is not difficult either. If you want more (eg. I have Bitcoin Core, and Electrum Server so I can use my hardware wallet with Electrum and also I have a block explorer), you need at least patience and some basic skills in following instructions on installing this or that (usually under Linux), but if you're not too picky there are tutorials too.

I'll get back to te system. While most of the things are made for Linux, nowadays you can put a Linux subsystem under your Windows 10 or 11 (maybe less, but lower Windows is no longer safe to use). So you don't have to worry much.

----
All in all, I think that running your own node is not that difficult. And if one just wants to avoid the FTX like problems, he doesn't necessarily need a node; just get a hardware wallet and use it with Electrum and you're already way better than most.

Following this would be helpful: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ and read the full node guide (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node).

Enjoy this also: Connect to full node on Trezor Suite using Electrum server (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5393686.msg59797318#msg59797318). Especially reading the extra links.

This is a very good idea since I missed quite some points on hardware side. And although it tells only about some few gigabytes of space, I think that such size is for pruned nodes and I strongly suggest to just keep the full blockchain, which nowadays is more than 400 GB or, if also txindex is on, then it's over 500GB.

In my opinion, not an experienced one, use a Linux system and a Raid 10 drive system. 

I've setup many bitcoin ndoes in the past, mostly running linux and it is fairly simple to do if you follow the instructions online and use a vanilla flavor linux distro.

That said, if you just want to run a node to have wallet and a node to verify transactions for your wallet, you might want to just install a node on a Windows machine as the GUI there will make things much simpler. Depending on your HDD space and time you intend to keep the node online, you might want to run it in a pruned mode to save on disk space. The initial download of the blockchain is needed as well and will be the thing that takes the most amount of time (anywhere from 24hr to a week).

If you want to learn the process how to set it up the best option is still a raspberry pi. If you just want a full node, there are already a few out of the box ready full nodes for sale.

Plus this Medium article/blog/guide in how to actually install, and run a full node for newbies/inexperienced users by StopAndDecrypt. It's the best written guide about the topic in my opinion.

StopAndDecrypt was also accused to be gmaxwell's alt-account by many anti-Bitcoin trolls in Twitter and Reddit because they couldn't win in a technical debate against him. A good person to learn from. 8)

https://stopanddecrypt.medium.com/a-complete-beginners-guide-to-installing-a-bitcoin-full-node-on-linux-2021-edition-46bf20fbe8ff

Budget is also important, you can as been shown do it for $50 or $60. You can do a nice RPi build for a couple of hundred with a SSD and a full PC build with RAID for $500.
Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

There is also learning, do you want to go to the store, buy a prebuilt PC, download 1 file and go. Or, do you want to compile it from scratch on a linux box you built yourself.

Nothing is wrong with any method, but if you don't want to compile anything and don't want to spend a lot, it is a different answer then I have $749.00 and just want it to work.

-Dave

Really not that much. It’s pretty easy and cheap to run a node nowadays. You either build one yourself (easy with the right tutorials) or you get one ready to go(more expensive and less learning, but fast). But i would advise option a, as it’s actually fun and feels rewarding to do it yourself.

A raspberry pi or old laptop, an sd card and 1tb ssd should suffice. Raspberry pis are hard to get at the moment, but sometimes it’s possible to reserve one by just contacting an official retailer found on the official website. This should come around 150-200€, but it’s also possible to do for cheaper (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364742.msg58135909#msg58135909). It might seem complicated to setup at first but with the right instructions like raspibolt (https://raspibolt.org/) and a community for when you need help it’s definitely doable. So not much knowledge is needed beforehand, you’ll acquire it while building and when asking questions to understand how it works.

Better privacy, you enforce the consensus rules and decide which rules run on your node and no need to trust third parties anymore. You get a whole copy of the chain, you can resist changes you don’t agree with and verify everything yourself. Helping the integrity of the network and allowing yourself to become sovereign.

Running a full node would have been so easy and a common thing to do if it had not been technically and capital intensive, in fact all of us would have been running a full node but we consider those that has a higher value of bitcoin and those that does not mind the cost to be running it at most, but you will need a high speed internet connection, steady power supply, data, storage and the technical acquisitions of connecting the blockchain network entirely, all this are the challenges that makes only but few people to be running a full node but you can also achieve something similar to that without downloading the entire blockchain, just get a hardware wallet or install a cold storage.

Running a full node is still an online wallet, but it gives privacy, than to connect to a central server on SPV wallets or light clients, but there are ways you can run full node with hardware wallet or connect to Electrum server with hardware wallets.

Cold storage wallets are SPV wallets which also offer no privacy.

If you do not want to download the whole blockchain and still want to run full node, you can go for pruning (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#reduce-storage) which requires less than 6 gigabytes. But the disadvantage is that you have to resynchronize your wallet with blockchain if you import wallet file (wallet.dat) that has data synchronized that is not done on your prune node before.

With BitcoinCore prune node, you will have technical trouble too if your node, your wallet is not shutdown appropriately. Such as if your electricity supply is lost suddenly and when you re-open your wallet, restart your node, you will have issue.

You won't have the technical issue by electricity shutdown if you run a Bitcoin full node. It saves lot of time if you use a full node, than a prune node.

It should be mentioned that that's already with design decisions made by the Core developers to preserve anti-fragility, decentralization, and keep hardware requirements as low as possible, while taking the trade-off of accepting moderately larger blocks through Segwit upgrade. Other networks gave them up because they want "speed" now, without care and without a long term vision.

oh will you just once try and step back from your device when this subject is mentioned. take a break and think before picking up your device.. do some research when you pick it up.. and THEN AND ONLY THEN reply to people talking about the subject.. you have had years of opportunity to do the research, so please take the time to do it.

..
now to respond to your ignorance
over the years the debate has not been about expanding the blocksize purely to bloat it with data for the sake of filling it with data

its about increasing the blocksize for the sake of increasing transaction count

now if you do your research.. such as this:
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720

what you will see. if you use your eyes... you will see segwit has NOT! i repeat NOT helped increase the transaction count

..
now what you will learn with further research is that core devs have admitted that 4mb of data is not harmful to the network and not an overweight of average peoples hard drives
in short they have said it is not the 1990's where 1.44mb(a floppy disk) is a limit of inconceivable amount that should not be passed
we are also not in the 1990's of slow internet

average PC's have hard drives in TERRABYTE sizes and internet is fibre/5g

yep 4mb blocks are not apocalypse scenarios. but if you remove the cludge code of misrepresenting a "byte"(vbyte) with miscalculations. to instead go back to counting bytes where bytes were counted as byte like in 2009-2016.. but with the 4mb blocksize

4mb would have offered 4x tx capacity compared to 2016

now please stop following your party line/hymn sheet of your social club. and do some research and actually understand bitcoin. not your buddies network preferences.

the only purpose and function of segwit. is a gateway tx format to allow bridging to other networks.. it was never meant to be a solution to multiply onchain transaction counts by upto 4x.

What about configuring the drives as RAID-x?
As a RAID novice, it seems that the read/write speeds will increase by having the data spread across multiple drives.  And if the configuration is right, then a bad drive may be simply swapped out with no down time.  Using SSDs in a RAID would be quite fast.  Saves on power compared to hard drives.

Comments?  Details on the advantages of the various RAID configurations and what they really mean for a full node?

EDIT
On thinking more about this and reading more about RAID, I realize my ignorance as to the hard drive / SSD  bandwidth needed by a full node.  I am guessing that once the data, blocks, are written they are never changed.  Relatively recent blocks need frequent reads, and older block still need reads for transaction for bitcoins that have not been moved for a while.

How would you describe the read/write load on the drives containing the blockchain data? 
What about the system drive?  I presume it will always be separate from the data drive, but also presume some amount of read/write temporary data there.  Does memory size play a significant role?  My guess is to use a minimum of 8 Gig and probably 32 is better.

Do I hear the troll again, with his name-calling, gaslighting, and disinformation? Is he again putting words in my mouth, claiming that this is "what you're saying" and call you ignorant? Haha.

Plus it's been debated many many times before Segwit, and? The big blockers/Roger Ver-lovers like the troll LOST. The troll will say this, he will say that, everything going in circles.

Newbies, if you want to learn, listen to the troll, then read this blog, https://medium.com/hackernoon/moores-observation-35f7b25e5773

grow up.

actually try to include some actual hard data evidence not some social blog post a buddy referred you to

do you know the average internet speed in 2002
do you know the average internet speed in 2012
do you know the average internet speed in 2022

your refered blog is saying 2x-4x slower growth per decade

how about hard drives
i had a pc in 1999 with a 3.6GB hard drive and they were saying 4GB was the then limit of consumer/retail hard drive capacity

do you actually have stats of the growth rate since the millenium to back up your silly assumptions that things have slowed down to a snails pace and so bitcoin should not onchain scale at all in a decade

here ill give you a hint
1994-1998 28.8k modem (4 year)
1998 2000 56k (2 year it 2x)  
2000-2005 internet was 0.5mb (5 year it 10x)
2005-2010 internet was 5mb (5 year it 10x)
2010-2015 internet was 35mb (5 year it 10x)

oh its 2022 now and people can get gigabit internet speeds
(oh and i was low balling numbers because 7mbs internet was available in 2010 and 50mbs internet was achievable in 2015)


if you are using your blog you think internet speed growth on a chart would look like
  __
 /       not       /
|               __/

however the opposite is true
technology is not dying/stifling, becoming limited. its.. wait for it GROWING
and bitcoin should too..


lets make thing very simple
if 7tx/s was acceptable in 2010 when internet was 7mb/s
with 5G and fibre in 2022 offering upto 1000mb/s do you think we should still be stuck at ~2000tx/block average (3.3tx/s(2k/600))

or do you think we should be on more transactions per block by now seeing as the internet and hard ware is much more than a decade ago

The troll assumes that all of the internet connections that will join the network will be very fast, and low latency. He's assuming that the network was designed to be like Netflix, streaming gigabytes of data everyday from their centralized servers. Bitcoin, as designed by the Core developers, is to give as much people as possible to run a node without owning high-end hardware, and without needing access to high-speed bandwidth. It is designed to be ROBUST, with as little attack vectors as possible.

The troll says "my buddies", but who are his buddies? The big blockers? Roger Ver? The people in the New York Agreement who tried to co-opt Bitcoin?

Plus what did the troll say before? That Bitcoin bilaterally split into Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, and starts calling Bitcoin Cash "is the real Bitcoin" because "the white paper"? ::)

i never called BCH bitcoin
grow up you social queen of false drama


also you mention netflix
did you know the data amount of a netflix video to a users computer..

you will now.. so no future ignorant excuses if you want to scream netflix again..
 now that there are a over 200m netflix users. and they are happy to be receiving video.. they are not screaming "netflix unfit coz internet"


SD = 166mb per 10min
HD = 500mb per 10min
4K = 1166mb per 10min

and guess what.. no one is screaming "NETFLIX NOT FIT COZ INTERNET"

as for hard drive space

2010 hard drives were 250gb
2022 hard drives are 4tb


try to use some real world statistics and data and not your diatribe of lies and stupid antisocial stories your girlfriend  told you

This comparison is really off. First of all Netflix doesn’t need to store their complete catalogue across 15.000 || more nodes in the world. Centralized databases work more efficiently in this regard. Also the data is just streamed to the clients, it’s not permanently appended to a blockchain. If streaming meant permanently adding 166mb - 1166mb every 10 minutes to your drive, it would become impossible quickly for almost everyone out there. It doesn’t make much sense to compare the architecture of a centralized service to a globally distributed decentralized ledger. The requirements are completely different.

Also im still using 256gb hard drives mostly and just got a 1tb one for my node. 4tb ssds would already price many people out or atleast delay their decision to run one. 4tb is definitely not the average drive size even in 2022 for an ssd, even if it’s still relatively affordable. Going HDD while increasing storage requirements simultaneously would also make IBD painful.

firstly i was not the one that brought up netflix..

secondly it was about bandwidth utility where the person that brought it up tried to use netflix about "server" crap but didnt realise users experience of  netflix is based on bandwidth.. thus they failed the comparison
but i tried to go along with their comparison to just knock them down a peg

if we were to discuss hard drive sizes rationally though.. my personal comparison is things like PC or PS4/5 gaming.

yep ONE GAME is 60GB+
meaning if someone is crying about 500gb. then that is like saying they cant play more then 8 games in X years
(ps4 comes with 500gb-1tb .. released 2013)
(yep even gaming specs of 9 years ago is 500GB+)

EMPHASIS .. NINE YEARS AGO

we are in an era where gamers have more then 10 games loaded up on their computers/consoles at anyone time.. where people will play alot more then 10 games on a PC or console

and right now gaming pcs/consoles are.. wait for it.. more then 500GB

we are not in the 1990's of cd-rom (ps1)

if data is "bad" if it exceeds only 250gb,, then you and him and the buddy group you all mix with are trying to say the gaming industry is broke and unfit. and no one should want to play pc games


seems those trying DESPERATELY to say bitcoin is unfit for use are using lame excuses of data measures i seen 20 years ago.. they are using scripts and outdated rhetoric that is debunked a decade ago. but they keep pushing it

i went into computer retail stores 12 years ago and seen computers that had more then 250gb

check out this example o found in a 5 second google search about someone in the UK in 2010 PC specs
https://davescomputertips.com/what-were-your-pc-specs-in-2010/
yep he had a 1.5TB hard drive even 12 years ago

so screaming 250gb is the hard drive limit of 2022 is not saying the physics limit of 2022. its saying old outdated tech of 2010

did you know that bitcoin core does not support windows vista.. and only supports windows 7 plus
windows 7+ means it supports computers of 2009+

so lame excuses about specifications of 1990's are redundant. because bitcoin core are not even wanting to support window 1998,me/XP/vista

even core devs have moved on from supporting outdated software/hardware pre 2009

so move on from scripts about bandwidth and hard drives pre 2009 spec.. realise you are all in 2022 now and things have moved on from the 1990's

..
if you bunch of a dozen same mindset social queens of altnet preference think that 2022 standard hardware billions of gamers use is unfit for gaming because "hard drive data"
or think that hundreds of millions of netflix is unfit due to "bandwidth"

now that you know gaming and netflix both use more than bitcoin requirements.. then how come netflix and pc gaming is a massive industry that is functioning, yet you think that it shouldnt be functional due to your delusions of current technology availability of 2022

yes netflix and PS5 quality gaming would be unfit for a windows 98 PC or a vista PC.. but we are not in the 98-vista era. of computing anymore

you guys sound like idiots that are screaming that netflix should stop offering HD or even 4k streaming because you scream that its 1990's

Karen, you’re the only person i ever came across that put the words "bitcoin unfit for use" into their mouth. So maybe stop hallucinating and look into a mirror. If Blocksize was too small it would become self-evident. It doesn’t make sense to keep discussing marginal changes for which there’s no current need, no community consensus, that are consensus breaking and that have negative consequences without much benefit if not actually needed. Bitcoin is working fine and fees are cheap too. If you disagree make a BIP and get consensus. Just stop spamming the same boring, predictable and repetitive talk/ uncreative insults and stop trying to gaslight anyone talking about or working on Bitcoin that doesn’t fit your narrow view (which is probably everyone in your mind).

Different architectures.

Side note, but depending on your install / configuration people running with 500GB drives are now starting to hit the storage wall.

I had 2 machines run out of storage overnight. I knew it was coming with the 500GB drives they had and the LVM default layout. Base OS install, some swap space, a few small utilities they are now full.

Was hoping for another week or 2 since I figure 1TB SSDs will be under $50 for Black Friday, but so be it. I moved some files around and got enough empty space to keep them up for at least another month.

-Dave

really..
strange how its the same group (even see you blind follow their mindset many times) that are saying that altnets are the "solution" because bitcoin shouldn't/cant scale because x,y,z lame excuse

do you see what i mean. they are saying bitcoin cant do X because technology limits. cant do Y because "centralisation" cant do z because no one wants to see people spending only $3 in a privileged data space


are your responses more about being on the defence of protecting a social groups hymn sheets to restrict, prevent,delay bitcoin from scaling, with lame excuses outdated by a decade
only sung so they can promote other networks...

or are you thinking of actual bitcoin, where congestion/high fee's are seen, actually being discussed by more then "just franky" but really shouldnt be seen if it was able to scale 5 years ago as requested by the wider bitcoin community(not the small corp group+social fangroup)

are you personally of the mindset of:
A. people should use altnets like LN to lock value up with a middleman and rely on other middle men to be online and accepting to facilitate payments..

B. people should be able to stay with their wallet keys on the bitcoin network where they can just send a transaction and get it settled and confirmed without having to pay high fee's or having to wait days due to whatever dev politics are putting restrictions in place that have not been needed for a decade

Haha. You did, you also said that it's also very OK to call BCasH = "Bitcoin", because it will just be like there's a U.S. "Dollar", Singaporean "Dollar", and other XXX "Dollars". For you, it's probably OK if we call Dogecoin = Bitcoin too?


Moot. They are different networks/designed differently, and it was actually you who first mentioned, and compared Netflix to the robust, anti-fragile, decentralized network architecture of Bitcoin.

Using other peoples coins, on other peoples infrastructure, on other peoples rules is not scaling. Because it doesn’t scale the actual solution.

Youre ignoring the cost of being able to decide over your rules tho. Everyone should be able to run their own node, and most people are heavily resource constrained. Each increased requirement will price x amount of people out, permanently or temporarily. So when they’re actually able to decide over their own rules, they’ll also be able to decide over things like blocksize etc. It doesn’t make sense to keep obsessing over fees only, when the cost of a running node is the prerequisite for people to decide when its time for a change or when it isn’t time for a change. I also don’t understand what we’re discussing about, because its the decision of node runners that they can take at any time they please. Our opinions doesn’t matter for this.

"resource constrained" is the myth of the speaches debunked and outdated from many years ago

i still laugh that the same myths of 2015 are being used in 2022.. not realising their data restraint arguments have changed since then

yes in 2015 your 250Gb hard drive would have been good enough for 5x years of 52k blocks of 1mb
but the thing is.. after them 4-5 years from 2015 you would have to upgrade your hardware..
gues wat. that means in 2019-20 .

so arguing in 2022 that you are resource constrained. is not a bitcoin fault. its a personal choice of yours to not upgrade.
where by the normal upgrade window of all tech is usually 4-5 years any way for all tech purposes, whether its office use, gaming, video editing. whatever

gamers upgrade their console/gaming pc far sooner. they dont cry that gaming should be halted at certain dpi/ping/frame rate.

phone users upgrade far sooner then 4-5 years. they dont say they want apps and features to be halted so they can carry on using their 10yo phone

if those myth makers think its ok that bitcoin is $1 a tx+
they are ignoring the fact that $1 is only reasonable for about 600m people in 1st world countries... but pricing out the utility of bitcoin as a whole no matter if is custodian, lite or full node usage for multiple billions of potential users where $1 a transaction is not reasonable.. does not sound like a myth that is aiming about making bitcoin more reachable.

even if people transacted just 1once a month doing a open/close sessions of an subnet, as their utiopian dream way forward where by $1open$1close per month($2). in a 4 year time scale (when people usually upgrade hardware/software). that amounts to $96

if you think bitcoin should remain constrained... where they myth make that a hard drive cost change from say 52gb data per year to 200gb data per year  is the problem(4mb blocks of full legacy utility and byte count)
then they really need to so some better math.

a 1TB hard drive which is more then a 4 year utility of say 4mb block of true way of counting true bytes amounts.. is far less than $96 cost.

heck real math of real research show that you can get a 4TB hard drive
this amounts to over 16 years of true 4mb block utility.


heck even if people only upgrade once every 10 years
a 4mb block system allowing for true 4x of legacy byte counts without the cludgy code. costs far far far less then 10 years of monthly open/close sessions of a subnet over same 10 years under the constraints/premiumisations of fees they want to keep implemented in the code

so scaling(it means progressive small growth periodically. so dont myth make it to myth that it means leaping) to 4m block of actual true byte count is not resource restrained at all
even most core devs admit 4mb is no harm to the network

so while on one hand the myth makers say using bitcoin just once a month for 4 years to close reopen some subnet system. is better than paying to buy a cheap hard drive once every 4-16 years. the math shows that its actually the opposite.

tx counts need to go up and fee's need to be kept down.

pretending that bitcoin should remain at a 2000tx average block and people should just "pay more" per use or use an altnet.. is not even good economics for the myth makers

because math of the open/close costs show that it still ends up more expensive than just upgrading hardware which people usually do anyway for different reasons unrelated to crypto

if you want to sing a hymn sheet of myths . atleast include lyrics that involve math and economics and not hopeful thoughts of promoting a subnet

do not reply if you just want to repeat the outdated hymn sheet of the subnet promotion lyrics.

do some research. take average internet/hard drive statistics of 2015(where the scaling debate vs myth began) and then realise it is 2022 and so also take some stats from 2022. and remind yourself its 2022.. reply with some data, stats, evidence that backs up your myths. come back with something that has some logic and common sense included

a 250gb hard drive was out dated in the 2019 era.
dont be stuck in the past

resource constraints are not the issue.
code implemented restraints are the issue.

in short. its not a physics problem its a political problem

Instructions to run a full node:

Download the Bitcoin Core wallet

Open it.


Done.

Yes really, this is the simplest way. If you know a bit more about computers, you can just run bitcoind using cli only in Linux. Like others said, all you need is disk space. A full node helps new nodes start, that is the main difference from pruned nodes, you need about half a gig today but better put a 1tb hd so it lasts before going full.


Running a full node helps others start theirs. Running a node (full or pruned) helps the network be more safe and robust. Bitcoin is a "cloud" and each node is a part of it. If a node fails the others take the load, so the more nodes the better for everyone.

pruning does not help
by not having the blockchain you are not helping the blockchain

pruners leach data but dont keep it to be seed data sources for others. thus if there are more pruners there are less full noders.
pool of seeders decrease more so due to the pruning feature adverts than due to physics

idiots pretending the world works on 2005 hardware and pretends everyone should prune. are not people that are advising on how to be a full noder and support the network

yes people are not forced to be full noders. but using fake rhetoric suggesting that pruning "is full".. is bad advice.

not everyone needs to be a full noder just to use bitcoin as a currency, it is a personal choice but trying to convince people that WANT to protect the network, that want to be a ful noder.. trying to convince those that want to, that bitcoin should not scale to allow more people in, to make that choice. is then not a choice. its a restraint

bitcoin in 2022 using technology available a few years ago will allow utility for a few years after 2022.. whereby people naturally upgrade hardware anyway.

however trying to suggest people should use subnets or prune or just pay more in fee's as reasons to not allow expansion of the tx count thus not allow expansion of users on the bitcoin network is not a good suggestion. especially of the silly hard drive myth constraints are of hardware from 17 years ago as the reason to politically restrain bitcoin from user growth in 2022+

First off the best way to run a node is use an old Mac mini or an old Lenovo tiny pc.

Rasp Pi is lacking the testicles to do a good a job.

here is a Mac mini that will do a killer job

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144480984769?

with a code for 15% off  CORE15OFF

has i7
has 2tb ssd
has 16 gb ram

far better than a rasp pi.

and simply clone the drive once you downloaded the blockchain.

put the cloned drive in a safe spot.

the above setup is overkill but should be good for years.

if you hate Mac OS the Mac will run linux.


note I do not know the seller nor do I endorse him. just a quick ebay search.


now here is a screamer of a deal
https://www.ebay.com/itm/325417040077?

$135 usd.

16gb ram

 i5 6500t cpu

the ssd is small 256gb

so buy this

https://www.newegg.com/samsung-2tb-870-evo-series/p/N82E16820147794?

grab the windows key from the 256 gb ssd

and you have a machine for 135+160 = 295 plus tax.

now all of the above is assuming you have 100 internet speed


https://www.speedtest.net

shows me at 215 Mbps down and 37Mbps up

I can load the whole block chain fairly quickly but I average 150 speed on a long download.


Both examples above I did not include your cost to clone the drives BTW you can clone the drives for backup onto and 2tb hdd you do not need to do an ssd for backup.

The big blockers debate against that is, "but you don't need to run your own node because it won't matter to the network". BUT it SHOULD matter personally to the users themselves FIRST, not the network.

The troll also brings back another disinformation effort saying that the Core developers and their supporters are turning the debate from technical to political. Wasn't it Roger Ver, the queen of all Drama Queens, who turned everything political after a MAJORITY of the community came into consensus behind the Core developers? Wasn't it the signers of the New York Agreement who tried to co-opt Bitcoin's development away from the Core developers? 8)

windfury you are wrong again. and i laugh when you just shout insults but never back it up with data or actual facts

stop getting your opinions from doomad.. he is not a source of information in the slightest

the participants of the NY agreement aligned with the core devs actually
they were the economic few but are part of the main decision makers

do some research. i know you like things spoon fed to you but do some research for once

the DCG funded blockstream devs who have merge/maintainer status in cores github (DCG funded the devs involved with segwit)

heck even check out the DCG portfolio. notice that lightning is listed as their portfolio

do you know who the CEO of DCG is .. barry silbery
do you know who headed the NY agreement.. yep barry silbert. with his sister company like coinbase and other exchanges in his portfolio spreading the word to other exchanges and pools that if they dont follow suit the pools blocks will be rejects and exchanges wont see their block rewards or subsequent spends. thus it was a blackmail.

DO YOUR RESEARCH

if you cant be bothered to check the blockchain for the flag data, if you cant be bothered to check the code linked to the flags that show the mandatory crap.. atleast realise who was involved in the NY agreement

you do realise doomads rhetoric he teaches you make you look more like a idiot by repeating his hymn sheets right..

try for once some independent research. not of social media of buddy opinions that match your own. but of actual data and time events of the period.
give it a try

But since some HDD company use base 10 while computer use base 2, the actual size of 500GB HDD (5*10^11 byte) should be about 465GB. Size of blocks directory on my HDD already reached 466GB, so node operator who use 500GB should already upgrade their storage or shutdown their node until they make upgrade.


Pruned node make small contribution by broadcast latest 288 blocks and relay unconfirmed transaction. Personally i'd say pruned node is less helpful.

Some people that want to run a node may see downloading the full blockchain to be discouraging, better than not, they might just use pruning.

If up to 10 gigabyte of data is needed monthly for recent new mined blocks and transactions, won't the prune node need it too? Which means it will start having the blockchain right from where the pruning started?

@franky1
At least prune node is helpful to some extent, it does just like full node, just that it does not have the entire blockchain, but it has the capability of validating and invalidating transaction and relaying it. It has routing function and communicating with full nodes. Because of these, we can not say prune node does not help the blockchain.

Running pruned node also require you to download whole blockchain. Although it's different case if you use copy of pruned node such as https://prunednode.today/ (https://prunednode.today/) where some trust is needed.


Correct.


No, pruned node only store recent block based on your setting and limitation of full node software you use. For example, Bitcoin Core only let you store recent block ranging from 550MB to 99GB.

Yes, but the point I was making is a lot of people out there [looks in mirror] who setup 500GB nodes a while ago and have had them running on autopilot so to speak and hit the wall.

However, NEW 2TB spinning drives are now well under $50 here in the US and 1TB SSD and NVMe are at the $50 level.

So upgrading to a NEW larger drive is not that big a deal.

USED drives with low hours and good smart info are about 1/2 those prices.

It's no longer an expense.

And unless you want to trust a download you still have to download and verify the entire blockchain so no real bandwidth savings there if you are going to do it the proper way.
After that your daily download is the same for pruned or not.

Would also like to say that if you are US based it looks like for Black Friday there are going to be some 1TB 2.5" external drives on sale for $29.99 so if you want to run a node on a RPi you can keep a look out for that.

-Dave

I found a very good pc deal on Lenovo.com  and a 12% cash back on Retailmenot.

I got this pc

System Specs:
View All Models >
Processor
10th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-10700T Processor (2.00 GHz, up to 4.50 GHz with Turbo Boost, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 16 MB Cache)
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro 64
Graphics
Integrated Intel® UHD Graphics 630
Memory
16 GB DDR4-2933MHz (SODIMM)
Storage
1 TB SSD M.2 2280 PCIe Opal
Power Supply
135W
AC Adapter
135W
Pointing Device
USB Mouse
Keyboard
USB, Traditional, Black with Number Pad - English (US)
Networking
Integrated Gigabit Ethernet Port
WiFi Wireless LAN Adapters
Intel® Wi-Fi 6 AX201 2x2 AX & Bluetooth® 5.1 or above
Warranty
Three Year Premier
Mounting / Stand Option
Vertical Stand

I got a 4 year warranty multiple discounts dropped price to 572

1tb nvme.2 ssd
16gb ram
i7 10700t cpu
wifi
bluetooth
1G eth
hdmi
display port

pretty sweet gear for price.

572 pay no interest till Aug.

I started with a MyNode running on a Raspberry Pi and then I also decided to run an Umbrel on a Pi. I think they are both great options and you can get started for like $250 and then they only get more expensive from there but it's a great rabbit hole to venture down.

IMHO, I think that running a node is one of the most important things you can do to protect your stack and also support the network so it's well worth the upfront costs and learning experience.

Next, I will be building a dedicated BTCPay Server because I can't seem to get it to work on either of my Nodes.

With Umbrel BTCPay should just install from the app store. IIRC with MyNode it's in the pro / paid version.
What issues were you having. Both also have active discussion and support.

Keep in mind, at the end of the day running them on a RPi is fine, but make sure you do backups and such since there is no RAID or anything else.
I admit I don't backup as much as I should, but I don't have life altering amounts of BTC in open channels.

-Dave

Newbies, that's the kind of disinformation that troll uses. He simply types anything and pretend that they're "facts", and then tell those who do actually tell the truth "to do their research". That's called gaslighting. I won't debate him anymore because it's not good for my mental health. I'm only telling everyone, to be careful or learn the HARD WAY. If you believe Roger Ver is telling the truth, OK, that's up to you. Be on that side, the side of the Flat-Earthers of Bitcoin.

all windfury can do is insult and play victim

i have linked him and his girlfriends everything below before multiple times over a couple years. which is why now instead of re-linking him again. i just tell him to go research.. because he knows the information is out there, i know its out there he just needs to go look at it himself and realise it.

i say go research so he can independently verify it

so one more time. here goes
so fact DCG funded blockstream
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  oh look blockstream

DCG ceo is barry silbert
https://www.linkedin.com/in/barrysilbert - oh look founder and CEO

barry done the NY agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

does the mandatory flags exist
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

were the mandatory flags deployed
https://i.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png

yep
blue line is the NYA flag threat which reached its threshold to stark orphaning/rejecting blocks that dont flag the red segwit activation..

if you look at the near perfect diagonal red line at end of july (before activation) you will see that is a unnatural event caused before activation triggered the activation (perfect 100% is unnatural in a diverse system unless someone has removed/rejected/orphaned those not voting)

now dont go playing the fool by playing victim of some mental ilness to excuse yourself. actually stop listing to the playlist of your buddy/girlfriend and instead for once do some research . it only took me 10 minutes via google searches to collate the information

now why would you waste years avoiding doing the research and blindly follow your girlsfriends words that cannot be backed up by actual data.

yes the block flags exist in the blockchain of immutable data that has now 5 years of confirms depth security to ensure that the flags have not been edited.

if you wish to say blockchain data is wrong and false. then you have no idea how bitcoin works

please just do some research instead of wasting time in denial and social group "kumbaya"

as for facts of this topic.
multiple TB hard drives exist
wireless and cabled internet of over 5,25,50 and 100mb/s+ exist

and as for the myth that segwit increased the transaction count norm.. it didnt
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=7years&h=405&w=720

Ser, I am neither making an insult, because I, and other people, know I'm telling the truth, AND nor playing the victim because, I and many people, know the facts.

Newbies, that's the kind of gaslighting franky1 is very good in. Plus I have noticed this very recently, read his trust rating and read who made it and what was being said. He tricked many newbies like me before, that should not happen again.

meanwhile

the newbies and long term PC users will actually go to their retailer and see computers with multi TB hard drives. sign up to a telecomms internet provider and see that are getting more then 56k internet.. and more like 5-500mb/s internet

and realise, yea windfury has self admitted mental health issues

i still have no logical reason why a guy like him, and his girlfriends waste so much time on a story that been debunked even by the devs that first promoted it.
there is soo much information out there people can easily see and verify.
i can speculate a few polyamorous reasons. but thats speculation

and to all others that sound like windfury
its 2022 and you can get a 1TB storage and it does not need not some large server datacenter to store it.

it is actually smaller then the width of your finger or a postage stamp
research: 1tb micro-sd

yep they exist
the great thing about information. is you can actually find it if you look and verify it using real world exploration

It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha. ::)

“Bigger blocks make it harder to scale the network”

Therefore, we will freeze the block size - which, in fact, CANCELS the network scaling.

Iron logic. :)

what you do not realise is that in the era of 2018 when gmax cried on the trust rating.

is that you were part of the cries of one topic and the cries of your girlfriend were part of another topic. yet you do not want to explain why you were crying and wanting gmax to kiss you better and make you happy, by wanting gmax to argue with me and assert his authority

the two topics where gmax first got emotionally triggered... the first topic concerned core centralising the network
the other trigger(involving you) was about segwit utility being low where the supposed 100% activation in 2017, yet under 11% adoption a year later

ill start with the debate your girlfriend was in. as that was first trigger in late september 2018
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5035144.msg46029392#msg46029392

windfurys girlfriend(Doomad(windfurys favoured source of mindset)) was open to thinking outside the core box. asking about decentralising the code base.


within days. he got recruited into the mindset that centralisation of code is good

heck. even gmax was having a tearful session arguing with cobra about the centralisation
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5035144.msg46080594#msg46080594

. then you see even cobra starts toeing the line of less implementations and sites hosting release are better
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037612.msg46211591#msg46211591

so while windfurys girlfriend now says "its franky and only franky thinking this way"
she forgets her own mindset before she and others leaped into the centralised core fanclub of single implementation rules all

and then when i explain in a different topic that segwit was not being used as much as promoted. he got super upset

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg47306700#msg47306700

fact was segwit was not being used much in 2018,
i was highlighting that instead of using stats of P2WPKH
they falsely included P2SH as a "segwit count" even though p2SH was a count of legacy based multisig too.
and not all inputs or outputs of P2WPKH or P2SH or psWsh were segwit inputs or outputs

EG
1legacy -> 3legacymultisig
                 3segwitSH
                 1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 33% segwit

EG
3legacymultisig -> 3legacymultisig
                            1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 0% segwit

i even highlighed how there were over all utxo, a low count of segwit
i even narrowed it down to a conservative window of april 2016-october 2018 and showed the low segwit use count (p2Wsh and p2Wpkh)
but gmax wanted the p2sh included to muffle the results and he called me the mis-informer

pfft

gmax got all riled up and felt like his efforts were being attacked by anyone suggesting to decentralise core and have other implementations aswell as having the efforts that segwit was not being used questioned too. totally made his head blow

he didnt like it because he was co-founder of a company thats main income was an investment to get segwit activated and used by majority
and it done so by having core as the defacto repo everyone should use.
..

in recent years he has settled down a bit and realised that his opposition to me was less about what i was saying. but more about how i was saying it.. my thing is how i inform people where im just frank and to the point without ass-kissery..

even things like debates as far back as 2016 about anyone-can spend he backed down on .. after all the segwit wallet allowing p2wsh and p2wpkh was not released until months after segwit activation because yep i was right there was a flaw if they released the wallet signing feature too early..(before majority nodes upgraded to not treat them as anyone-can-spend)  as i warned

but hey.. windfury will just reply without explanation or reference. and just insult and play victim that he is going insane due to me,

many devs now see and admit to the centralisation of core and the bad utility of the mandatory activation policy that was used...
.. so 4-5 years after all the crying. they seemed to have realised things . unlike the fangirls(winfury and clan) who are stuck in outdated scripts from many years ago now being debunked even by their dev idols

You mention "network scaling". I believe you didn't truly review your thoughts. Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize. If you're talking about something else, what I'm talking about is real network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network, WITHOUT sacrificing decentralization, and to let the network continue to expand/scale out/increase in validating node count. Isn't the whole point of Bitcoin censorship-resistance?


No one is crying, franky1.

windfury you are crying. your using insults and saying im hurting your mental health

maybe try to stop the social diatribe. and instead take a break and then do some research to straighten out your mental status of right from wrong. emphasis without seeking a buddy to tell you how to think. just do proper research independent from anyone whispering in your ear

so some more facts that you can check(without a buddy whispers or hand holding)
the first commercially released 1TB hard drive was released in 2007

even bitcoin core does not want to support 2007 era computers
it wants at bare minimum windows 7 which was not even a thing in 2007

so if you want to plead that bitcoin will centralise if 15 year old computers are not allowed to operate on the network..
..please realise its 2022 not 2007

as for your cries. you in 2018 went crying to gmax and others with your rambles of not understanding something and you pleaded to gmax to kiss your ass and make you feel better and to call someone else a troll.

funny part is years later.. TODAY your debate still fell flat. even now. the amount of segwit utility is not even at the 90% utility that you thought you would see if there was 90% threshold of user flagging to want segwit.. its not even at the 40% of your debate
it was 10% at your debate and now its at 18m (https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/p2wpkh-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1) utxo bech + 1m (https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/p2wsh-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1&from=now-6M&to=now) utxo of p2wsh of 83m utxo (https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?viewPanel=6&orgId=1&panelId=6&from=now-6M&to=now) = 19m of 83m = 22.9%

yep 4 years after your cries pleading to get your idol cal me a bad man that misinformed you.. your debate at that time still holds no substance today only 23%


next time. come back with a topic of substance that includes some actual statistics and numbers from hard data and actual sources. and not just point to social drama to rederail a topic then cry victim when the person involved in your crap social drama bites back and corrects you YET AGAIN

its 2022. you have had many years now to learn about bitcoin, do some research on statistics and do some proper real world view of the modern world of 2022

This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.
As evidence, we can refer to your favorite Segwit.
Since 2017, after the adoption, the real physical block size has increased, but no one talks about the loss of decentralization. Everyone understands perfectly well that the network will not even notice an increase in the block by the estimated 1.7 times.

Computer bought for the same price:
1. in 2008 copes with a 1mb block
2. in 2017 copes with a block of 2-4 mb.
3. in 2022 will easily cope with a block of 4-8mb.

You can reasonably increase the block without necessarily increasing costs. Nobody wants Bitcoin to break.
Above, we have already given a bunch of information about how much technology has grown. But you choose to ignore them.
And you continue to get moldy arguments from many years ago from the dusty attic.

It seems to me that you are not quite accurate in using the word "real".
If we had increased the block size by 2-4 times in 2017, then perhaps we would now have 2-4 times increase in the number of transactions. And that would definitely be real scaling.
Instead, you are suggesting that we all hope for some other imaginary "real scaling". Which in practice can be just an unsuccessful experiment.

I settled more comfortably on the couch. I want to hear from you a cheerful report on how much progress you have achieved in your "real scaling" over the 5 years since 2017.:)

Relax, franky1, no one is crying.


Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.

Plus since you accuse me of "lying", why not come out and use your real account. Who are you? It's just a friendly debate, there's no such need for sock puppetry.


OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?

your even using the buzzwords of certain scripters. you are too obvious that you cant think independently.

the reason forks dont have a wide community is because they are altcoins..
aka crapcoins.. its that simple

if you want to pretend hardware constraints are the physics reasons to not scale bitcoin.. guess what. you are breaking physics by living in a 2007-2015 mindset, even though reality is that its 2022

wake up its 2022. get out of your coma dream and start living in 2022. use some real world evidence. not the written social dogma you follow

a hard drive to cope with scaling up bitcoin costs less over the life span of a computer. than the total tx fee's of regular use of bitcoin in that same timeframe..
tx fee's are a more costly constraint
and whats causing fee's to be premium.. not scaling up bitcoin

people not being able to just transact daily due to lack of scaling is why people dont daily use full nodes. because whats the point keeping a node open if your not going to use bitcoin daily

its like why keep the car engine on when you are not driving it
its like why keep a house light on in a house you dont use every day

if people can use it every day without congestion or a large congestion charge  they would use bitcoin MORE meaning expanding the community

its called economics. learn it

bitcoin is not restrained due to physics.
bitcoin is restrained due to the politics of economics, trying to promote other networks and services as the "must use" things

maths has already been done
full node users are normally people that want to use bitcoin regularly and support the network

if you want to be a full noder. then the costs/day of a hard drive and internet are cheaper than the average tx of a next block confirm

so again to emphasise it. the tx fee is higher then "resource cost"

..
now here is the thing
just to use bitcoin. you do not NEED to be a full noder. you can simply get a seedkey. and start "stacking sats" onto your key by just copy and pasting an address for people/services to pay into.. where all you need is a keyboard
(in the most simplest use of bitcoin investing)
and just use a lite wallet when its time to get out. for those that just want to use bitcoin for long term investments

the more you WANT to be involved in bitcoin and use bitcoin. then you can use better software. but again..
the more you want to use bitcoin you find the fee's of that more frequent use that you prefer to protect with better levels of software.. its still the fee's that cost you more. not the hardware required to run it

---

however those few playing the resource crying game.. they NEED to full node because their subnet payment system that is not bitcoin but a bridged network with pegged other units of measure used as payment amounts.. requires them to have a 24/7 active node or employ a watchtower service to watch constantly of the bitcoin network. due to a flaw in their subnet that allows their subnetwork counterparty to steal from them if they are not being watched.
when it comes back to converting their subnetwork value back to bitcoins

that cost of resource is not due to bitcoin but due to the security flaw of their subnet.
yes they could employ a service to watch. but thats extra cost. more than the resource required to run a full node. plus watch towers are more middle men that have access to broadcast signed payments to move funds to whomever employed them. so more security risk by other parties involved in their subnetwork
..
however.. sticking with bitcoin.. not using the silly subnetworks
in bitcoin when funds are confirmed. you can switch off your computer and go to bed and not worry.
i have coins from years ago that i dont ned to regular check on. as i know they are secure.

so the cost for the subnetwork users is based on the lack of security and flaws of their altnet NEEDING them to be actively watching even if they are not actively using

::)

I'll ask again, does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?


The trolls are speaking with situational premises, and OK, but I can also speak about other situational premises too, like not every user has the same access to cheap hardware, cheap bandwidth, and so increasing these requirements would be centralizing for the network. Let's avoid that. Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

Running your own node is super cool, and gives you a great appreciation of the power of Bitcoin. You’ll probably end up buying more and it will ensure valid and accurate bitcoin trading transactions...

again he shouts out his song sheet but doesnt back it up with any data/statistics or charts or anything.. he has done no research on his song he sings in 5 years

so one more time.

more transactions per block = less congestion
more transactions per block = less fee's per tx
more transactions per block = more users transacting
more transactions per block = users wanting to be full nodes

the cost of a new hardware over a 4 year lifecycle costs less than 2 tx fee per month if you were forced to only transact twice a month

heres the facts
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/fees-usd-per-transaction.png?timespan=1years&h=405&w=720
over $1 a tx

so while Mr Windy is currently doing the rounds to promote a song about how people should stop using bitcoin regularly(facepalm) and use another network instead.. another network of cheap fee's and only need to settle up on bitcoin each month.

that settleup is a close and reopen tx.=2bitcoin Tx a month = over $2

which again simple maths for 10year olds, ill round it down for him too
(per year)$2 * 12month=$24 (2.64 x 12 =31.68 at time of post)
(per 4 year)$24 * 4years=$96 (31.68 x 4=126.72 at time of post)

so even in windys dream utopia of telling people to stop using bitcoin daily and use another network (of bugs, flaws and security risk if you just want to sleep) which just settles one a month, costs him $96 over 4 years, before considering all the fee's and value lost inside that network

upgrading a hard drive is less than this

as for internet.
even the most basic packages are able to cope with bitcoin use.

heck they are able to cope with HD movie use which is more data streaming than bitcoin

however. if people want to transact more than twice a month on bitcoin .. its the FEE'S that cost more than hardware.

Fee's due to the econo-political decisions to restrict utility. not due to any physics reasons

its the fee's that is turning people away from being bitcoiners regular.
its the fee's that is turning people away from running a full node, because they dont want to use the network when it costs more than other payment services that fiat offer
EG why pay someone abroad in bitcoin if its cheaper to just use paypal/venmo or even.. a postage stamp

For running a node on a dedicated computer like a Raspberry Pi, it will cost about $300 for all of the necessary hardware but if you have an old laptop or desktop computer sitting around, you can probably run a pruned node on that.

For a brand-new user, I would suggest starting with Umbrel because their UI is the cleanest and their instructions are the best. They also have their own community forum with all sorts of topics that have been helpful to me personally. I use it all the time and I wish there were more dedicated forums for the different node implementations.

For someone with a little more experience, I would suggest using MyNode since they seem to have a bit more manual control like the ability to get into the command line and enter "/help" to get all of the different commands that you can enter. This can be an excellent learning experience for a new user who is going further down the rabbit hole.

For someone looking to run a lightning node, you can run a RaspiBlitz on the same hardware but their focus is to make it as easy as possible to route payments on the lightning network.

I wrote an article on this recently that might be helpful: https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/technical/how-to-run-a-bitcoin-node

I am working on some more technical node services that you can run but their hardware is a bit more difficult to come by and setting them up requires a bit of technical expertise or even getting into the command line. For instance, I am planning on running a dedicated BTCPay server on a Ras Pi but I need to get it all set up before I can really be sure of how useful it is as an actual node. 

This is where things get kind of blurry for me since I can see all of the steps on their website but don't really understand all of the code in their instructions. I am sure that the node could be used for all sorts of queries but I just have no idea how to do all of that...yet.

That's probably the primary reason why I haven't set up a dedicated BTCPay server yet. Maybe this thread will be what lights a fire under my ass.

The question can be answered simply, not your usual confusing posts designed to trick and gaslight everyone into questioning themselves. Because if bigger blocks was actually needed, then why didn't everyone start using BCash, the coin of which you supported, and which you also claimed to be "Bitcoin"?

Plus big blockers always avoid answering the question, "does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space"?

ok lets actually answer your question

and your using memed buzzwords of trying to pigeon hole people into a group.. using broken narrative which you dont understand the real concepts that were being asked years ago

before 2013 there was actually a CODE/Berkeley database issue where 0.5mb was the block limit.. it was only found when user activity requiring more tx per block reached that limit..

so lets use that as an old implied limit..

removing that implied limit of 0.5mb(berkeley bug) and moving moving to 1mb and then in 2017 to ~ 1.4mb. did those events cause more centralisation..?

did it cause more centralisation of full nodes.. where there is only 1 central point of failure....?  .. answer is NOPE!!
ok got it?

hmm lets see how many full noders existed 2013 vs 2017 vs 2022

oh look there are more full nodes now than in 2013

and again
even the econo-political devs of core deem 4mb as not a network centraliser/threat

just removing the cludgy econo-political code that restrains the tx data to 1.4mb average.. to allow full 4mb a block full utility of more tx count and actually return to clean actual byte count. wont break the network

---

i did not nor ever have supported bch... you absolute social drama queen of ignorance..
grow up

i supported progressing bitcoin [not to be confused with other promoted networks brand stealing the name] to allow more transactions on the bitcoin network. on the main net of bitcoin and not via some other crappy side network people want to push people onto and away from bitcoin

where progress is of more transactions not shammy scammy tricks of saying:
here have more size but not more tx count
have more data space but we will multiply the bytes to make the seem bigger but still restrict the tx count
here have some new tx format thats "cheaper" because we made legacy more premium

my support was actually giving more tx count per block on bitcoin mainnet where its not filled with shoddy code that has manipulated peoples views and aimed to get people off the network

..
if you want to find someone that is promoting centralising the blockchain.. speak to your girlfriends who are trying to get more people to prune(not have decentralised blockchain on their nodes while pretending they are full nodes).. because THEIR game is to centralise the blockchain by having less copies of the blockchain distributed.. not me

look at who is advocating and supporting the use of pruning and promoting it to people that stipulate they want to be full nodes

Thanks to the minimal block size increase of the Segwit soft fork.

But I'm asking about BCash's hard fork to 32MB block sizes. If we pretend that BCash does gain more demand for block space, and those blocks get filled with a minimum 10MB of data every block, you believe that it wouldn't increase bandwidth and hardware requirements = centralizing the network?


What implementations/proposals did you support with jonald_fyookball?

Plus didn't you try to gaslight people into believing that Bitcoin and BCash "bilaterally split", and therefore according to you, BCash is not an altcoin?

............... 5 years on..
still waiting for the extra tx on chain capacity segwit promised
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=6years&h=405&w=720

so what are you thanking segwit for exactly??



ok you wanna poke some social drama rather then discuss the "resource" debate at hand in this topic

ok YOU poked the bear again. so the bear bites. dont cry. you had your hand out

you do know that the 2017 fork was a mandatory fork performed by the those supporting the DCG corporate roadmap that wanted segwit. and that the word "bilateral split" is not my buzzword..... i only used it because the person that first used the word was so angry when i didnt use it.. that just to even discuss the topic i had to start using their word just to appease them
(much like how grammar nazis avoid a topic unless you use a certain level of grammar, where they just want to argue 'cant you even form a sentance' rather than having the brain to comprehend the context of the message and realise the elegance of diversity of the english language is beyond their narrow scope)

so how about you do some research and stop the social drama

try to find out:
a. what is acceptable data in 2017
b. what year you live in today.
c. what happened in the past FACTUALLY by readong code and blockdata. so that you can learn from mistakes to stop mistakes in the future.
d. not research via your spoonfed buddy group
e. work out how much internet speeds have changed in 5 years.
f. how much hard drives have changed in 5 years.

note for (f)
find out the price at retail of a hard drive in 2017(when 4mb was deemed safe) and then take that price and see what it can buy you now

and lastly.
g. work out that its 2022 now. not 2007 (in regards to this years resources

its funny how you have the time to scroll through pages of post history just to poke some social drama but you never have time to do real research on actual data of blocks, blockchains and code..

That's because of actual average usage/demand. If that's your debate, then WHY do we actually need a hard fork to bigger block sizes?

Was it probably all a red herring to hard fork the protocol away from the Core developers? The debate for bigger blocks did start from Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, which Mike Hearn FUD that if Bitcoin didn't hard fork to bigger a block size "Bitcoin will die".


It's not social drama, it's a FACT. You actually said it.

hmm winfury avoids looking for hard data outside the storybook narrative of his buddies to see if bitcoin can scale or not..

shame he didnt spend the day actually researching to realise hard drives and internet plans of 2022 are better usage and better priced compared to 2017 and 2013

---

as for windfuries social drama reply that contains no data

a. so since 2017 winfury thinks less people want to use bitcoin...
(facepalm) funny how windfury tries to make bitcoin sound like a dying network that is not fit for use and shouldnt grow even if it was fit for use.. hmm i wonder why he is against bitcoin but over promotes and over promises another network and thinks the other network "is bitcoin"

b. i used their word a few times and then went back to calling it a hard fork
yep they wanted to call it anything but a hard or mandatory fork. they wanted to pretend it was soft. and mutually agreed.. and al that crap

a true soft fork is where there would be true majority acceptance to not need to do any large scale orphaning/reject process prior to activation(to cause an activation)
a hard fork, contentious fork, mandatory fork.. is the opposite of soft

certain people would not even want to discuss the fork unless i called it by a name they decided to call it. so i used that name they wanted just to progress their avoidance of discussion into actually getting them to discuss it

and as for you pretending it was not a hard/mandatory fork or contentious. where you pretend it was all smooth and non event..
you are ignoring all available facts.
even the blockdata which is immutable proves you wrong.
go check the facts.. not the narrative your buddy story told to you at night to ease you to sleep

While the troll ignores the debate based on the hard data shown by him, and forces the issue that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks. He questioned where was the extra capacity "promised by Segwit", and he wants a hard fork to bigger blocks?

1. Segwit didn't promise more capacity, it was a fix for transaction malleability and had other upgrades for the network.
2. If average capacity is low, then why the need for bigger blocks?

BCash and BCash SV, which both claim to be the "Real Bitcoin", have bigger blocks. Where is the extra capacity they claimed that "their Bitcoin" needed?

Plus social drama? There is no social drama, franky1. It's the people like Roger Ver, and trolls like you that made social drama. You're merely gaslighting. Read the red trust rating given to you by gmaxwell and achow.

windfury i gave the data so how was i ignoring the debate..
all of the topic creators questions have been asked and answered.
the end of that debate is the topic creator now knows they can afford the hardware.

as for your silly antics..

also when it comes to the 4mb "weight" everyone was not asking for more bloat for the sake of bloat. they wanted 4mb of UTILITY of ability to fit more transactions.. they even compromised to atleast 2mb of utility.
but the bitcoin network as of today is still constrained to about 1.4mb average and that is not even giving a 40% tx count growth

they were not just saying "bigger blocks" of useless bloat data(you pretend that was being requested)
they were saying more transactions per block, which means blocks size needs to increase. yet the tx count has not increased thus the problem was not solved

please do your research there is a massive difference
oh and when you look at your buddy groups "events per month" on your favoured subnet. non of them are showing event number per month that even come close to bitcoins payments per block, so dont even pretend that LN is routing more payments than bitcoin is relaying (as your false claim that LN took on that excess congestion utility to not need bitcoin to need more utility)

the core roadmap camp of segwit adoration brigade wanted segwit purely for malleability fix to then offer subnetwork value conversion with out doublespends. but outside that subnetwork adoration brigade everyone else wanted more transactions per block on the bitcoin network.

the debate about scaling bitcoin and more transactions has thousands of users and many many many topics of such.
even this topic had someone that wants to be a full node and your rants are pretending its impossible to be a full node becasue of your silly 17yo reasons of old hardware

those wanting lightning are a small social drama queen army of idiots that dont care about a secure payment network, they just want to say that bitcoin cant cope and they feel bitcoin shouldnt cope with usage. just so they can scam people over to their subnetwork
you guys are worse then custodians with your asset grabbing desires.

you are a shameful example of that plot to say bitcoin cant grow and people cant be full nodes with lame 2015 arguments about pretending everyone uses 2005 technology and cant upgrade their hardware thats now 17 years old

if you dont upgrade your hardware in the time it takes you to have a kid to be born and let it grow up and sent away to university.. its you and you alone thats stuck in the past

its now time you grow up and get a education stop being the baby that wants to stay a baby

The data that you gave, asking where was the capacity "promised" by Segwit. If there's not enough demand, then what do we need bigger blocks for then, franky1? A hard fork to bigger blocks would only make the Bitcoin network go through all the risks, with little benefit to the network.

Do you actually believe the disapproval of the Core developers for big blocks is "because politics"? Or is that what you want everyone to believe? Stop the social drama. Roger Ver, and your community have your big blocks with BCash. You should be happy and promote that, to prove that bigger blocks actually are needed. Not the social drama that you have been posting, attacking the Core developers.

the blocks are FULL most of the time. if you think there is no demand. then you are wrong
take the congestion recently due to the binance deposit-reserve shuffle

the reason the blocks tx count "full" but are not filling to 4mb of data is not a lack of demand issue.. its a cludgy code issue that keeps data around the 1.4mb amount due to bad practice miscounting and crap
which then limits the amount of transactions per block to not be 4x the old 1mb limit pre 2017

atleast try and learn this stuff.. do some research and actually start to understand how bitcoin works!!
really do try to think before you speak and try to back up your assumptions with code and data and more importantly understanding how things work. stop replying with silly comments you heard your buddies say

try doing research for once, learn something

That's simply not true because actually MOST OF THE TIME, it's not, and we can pay 1 to 3 sats per vByte and find our transactions within the next three blocks.

Mempool for one year.

https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/e4gdcrggn4r.jpeg

Plus the congestion caused by Binance's deposit-reserve shuffle/consolidation of UTXOs was gone within the week. I believe the miners were very happy to do their jobs. 8)

windfury yet again you miss many points and you are truly unethical crap you say and social drama insults on bitcoiners and the network has not gone unnoticed.

but lets stick with things you dont understand(or pretend not to)
the "weight unit" is not actual REAL BYTES

but under the cludgy code rules.. that chart of light blue wall with a few white cracks in it..
https://i.imgur.com/SnYhAYx.png
ALOT/most of the chart is highly blue right to the top with the occasional white gap

i know you(windy) are not good at hard data and numbers, so just be honest with yourself and YOUR EYES

would u call that chart a white empty chart with occasional blue spikes of utility.. would u call it 50:50 of white and blue.. or would you say it is a mostly blue wall with some white cracks of inactivity

if you want to be stupid and pretend there is no mostly hitting the limit.. count the pixels at the top line of blue vs white chart.. or actually check the hard data behind the chart. and do the math.. it will surprise you that its mostly hits the limit

and thats without congestion from just ONE service. imagine if all services decided they wanted to use the network properly daily. instead of forced to throttle down daily utility and avoid congesting the network

its not that there is no demand its that the limit has made people not want to use bitcoin daily to a true currency state of utility

the strangling and choking has already persuaded people down from using bitcoin. not due to a persons lack of desire not to. but due to lack of scaling to allow them freedom of use without concern

you know this and you love this because you think its proof that your altnetwork is taking up the slack and daily utility that people are not doing now due to the limitation.

if there was no demand the chart would not be topping the limit

but even toping the limit its not actually utilising the limit to allow more transactions than 2017

oh that reminds me
you are too obsessed about megabytes (blocksize) but you are not actually counting correctly. just like the cludgy code doesnt

it treats a normal legacy as larger than it is in weight units compared to segwit..

if the code actually bothered to be a true 4mb real byte limit and all transaction formats were counted as real tx bytes. and also not have a cludgy code of only allowing witness to use the 3of4 part of weight.

meaning any and all transactions can fully utilise a true 4mb space which core devs have deemed network safe..
then we can actually get true capability of more tx capacity to allow more frequent use rather than the throttled down use forced on users and services due to the cludge

but i do laugh how you subtly suggest "bitcoin is not used much by that many people" yea i see your subtle crap of calling bitcoin useless and unwanted you scummy altnet adorer

just remember about the congestion
if ONE service of ONE days full use, caused congestion that lasted a week.. imagine if there was 2 services, 4 20 services or just 52 services..

then you will maybe(but doubt) start to think that the throttling because of the limit has choked them 50 services down to not use it.. rather that natural lack of demand

Technically, yes. I was merely making a point that, most of the time, if we pay for 1 to 3 sats per vByte, we do find out transactions within 5 blocks, don't we not? Network is not congested like what the troll-gaslighter makes us believe.


Unethical? Didn't you claim that Bitcoin "bilaterally split into two" and also tried to disinform and gaslight everyone into believing that BCash = "also Bitcoin". You are so ethical, franky1. ::)

Social drama? Segwit is done/implemented, and BCash has done their hard fork to become an altcoin. You should accept  that. It's you who's the drama queen by forcing the issue, spreading tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that the Core developers are conspiring with Barry Silbert to keep the blocks small.

you are nuts

point one:
there was a fork... you know it so dont sniff gas and pretend im the one messing with your head.. just stop sniffing your own gas

i never claimed bch was bitcoin. soo stop listening to doomad as its him putting words in your head about what he thinks i am saying thus confusing you when i then correct your dialogue of what you believe was said

here is a little tip.. take a few month break away from the buddy group/. spend some time doing some proper research independently and sort out your head becasue if you are crying that you are suffering mental issues. go sort them out

i keep telling you to do your own research away from anything i or doomad have to say.. that way you can actually learn and not be spoonfed and then you cant cry about your gas indued mental issues

So go research

point two:
you want to make a point of a chart that after waiting weeks after a congestion event you then present there is no congestion..
the congestion was in november.. and it did happen

your attempts of deception is like me saying its christmas week and christmas is this weekend.. so you wait until january 5th jsut to say:
"its not christmas week' there was no christmas, christmas is a myth, stop gaslighting me about christmas. i dont see any santa or christmas trees or tinsil. so christmas isnt real"

Christmas is very real my friend. CHRIST is real.