Bitcoin Forum

I fully support Bitcoin Unlimited, clearly it is the superior scaling solution.

UASF is very dangerous, every fork that Satoshi did was user activated, see how they all turned out. When Gavin proposed miner activated forks in 2012, miners started stalling them, every single one was stalled for a period of time. Even the very first miner activated fork, p2sh, had to be user activated after miners stalled it. Clearly this shows how malicious UASF is.

The 300GB bandwidth and 2GB RAM it currently requires to run a non-listening node is absolutely nothing at all and an initial sync that can take weeks is perfectly fine. Doubling the block size increases bandwidth by more than double. Clearly 600GB+ bandwidth is nothing for 2MB blocks.

SPV wallets send all their Bitcoin addresses to the node, trust the node to relay their transactions, trust the node to not lie about unconfirmed txs, and trust the miners not to do any of the hundred malicious things they could do to SPV wallets. Who cares about privacy, security or anti-censorship? those are for those silly anarchist types.

Clearly there is no need for anyone to run a node! So theres no issue making it harder and harder to run a node until they become highly centralized, making it possible for them to be forced to spy on people, censor people, or even get completely shut down.

The Blocksize limit Satoshi added was very bad. Clearly he was bribed and extorted by the centralized banking cartel to insert this malicious code in to completely obliterate Bitcoin so that they can further their goal of taking over the world with liberal ideology and communism so that the USSR will reign once more. Gavin tried to warn the CIA about what happened, but it was too late, Satoshi shortly vanished after he met with the CIA.

Roger Ver also an extremely trustworthy and upstanding citizen. I was a large customer of his, and he always delivered the explosives that I bought off him on eBay and counterfeit cisco hardware that he also sold to the US government on time and provided excellent customer support when he was an admin at blockchain.info wallet, and was nice enough to publicly post a blockchain users full name, address, phone number, wallet URL and wallet secret answer publicly on bitcointalk so that they won't forget them.

I have to admit this gave me a really good laugh.

Are you having a laugh? Fools day have past  ::)

All Core developers are FULLY controlled by Blockstream LTD. Blockstream is fully controlled by AXA insurance. AXA is controlled by the centralized banking cartel, which is controlled by the deep state, which is controlled by the liberal media, which is controlled by the illuminati, which is controlled by wizard alien overlords trying to bring in a millenia of darkness to Earth.

Open your eyes sheeple!

HOLY SHIT, this dude is making a lot of sense! Its one big alien conspiracy!!! This must be why franky1 and the shills hate Blockstream so much hmmm...

wizard alien overlords

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wo6MKVmqAKI/TjxkdqYsazI/AAAAAAAACNs/ZuD3jkoZqE0/s1600/Martians+from+Invaders+From+Outer+Space.jpg

Do not be afraid.

starting a comment with the truth then throwing it salted sci-fi details to make it all sound false, does not hide the partial truth.
you cant deny the core-blockstream-axa/dcg ties..

all you can do is pretend that dcg and/or axa is then tied to some sci-fi alien to then try to make people think that blockstream dont exist.

i think you have reached the bottom of the barrel trying to defend blockstream.
maybe its time you stop it and start learning about bitcoin.

Yes I am very sad that the centralized banking cartel killed Satoshi because Gavin warned the CIA that they were extorting him into inserting the malicious block size limit code into Bitcoin that caused it to self destruct. Those damn wizard aliens are too powerful for us mortals. Be careful not to think rationally and logically, the wizard aliens are able to read your mind and will kill you just like Satoshi.

your trolling =1point for comedic relief
your smoking weed to get inspiration for troll= -500 points

Back then everyone agreed with satoshis vision so of course everyone would fork alognside satoshi. 
Ignoring satoshis fork would be very stupid because you'd clearly be the minority.     

Also, miners didn't block gavins proposal, the other core devs did.   
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that satoshi handed the keys to gavin, and gavin choose to share his authority with 4 others instead of taking control on his own. And yet the same persons who got shared access accuse Gavin of trying to gain more control of bitcoin.     
If Gavin was trying to get control, then why would he share the keys? He didn't have to do that.       


Gross exaggeration and you know it.   
Furthermore bitcoin was never designed to have regular users run nodes anyway.
Run a node if you can handle it and want to do so, but if you can't or don't want to, don't.



Even if this is true, then it's still not worse then LN. 
However, I'm pretty sure SPV can be designed in a better way than what you are describing above.   





Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay for very long, in fact he hinted at removed it over 6 years ago.   
When it was placed it was 1000 times larger then the average blocksize back then, and only placed to prevent spam/bloat attacks on the network because back then every user had to download the full blockchain just to run a wallet.   
Right now most bitcoin users don't even download the blockchain, so the blocksize limit is already not serving the initial purpose anymore. 
Satoshi was quite clear about his intentions:
To prevent the blocksize from becoming too large too fast so that users new to bitcoin would not be discouraged downloading a wallet because of a too large blockchain (which they had to download in order to run a wallet).     
Right now the blocksize limit is discouraging new users from using bitcoin due to high fees and slow transaction times. In fact, it's not only discouraging new users, but it's discouraging old users as well.   
So not only does the blocksize limit no longer serve the initial purpose, it has actually become harmful.   
And it's not because satoshi was wrong for adding it, it's because the current core devs are wrong for not removing it like satoshi suggested.     


Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.   
Unlike Adam back and his gang.

Now everything makes sense!  I bet it was also Donald Trump that paid the USSR to get involved.   Bitcoin is just a ploy to make the rich even richer ...  Agggggggggh

It goes to show that UASF isn't so dangerous and we don't necessarily need "miner approval" to make changes, as long as there is economic approval. It worked many times before.


Thats not what happened. I'm talking about p2sh.


I never said that.


No it's not, it's an understatement. It was 300GB a year ago for a non-listening node when I stopped running mine. A listening node requires 1-2TB a month. Here is a log from a node from a year ago that I found doing a quick Google search, showing it using 300-400GB/mo:
https://hastebin.com/dukuheneva.1c

If you don't believe me, run a node for a month and come back. I await your threads complaining about the issues you have.

Bitcoin Core crashes when there is less than 2GB RAM. It's the most common reason for crashes. Hundreds of threads out there. First question people ask when some posts about their node crashing is "do you have 2GB ram free?" You need 3-4GB RAM for it to run smoothly.

The problem is so bad that there are many Bitcoin businesses not running their own node. And there are miners doing 'spv validation' at times because it takes so long to validate blocks and txes. Very dangerous. Those miners caused a fork before by doing this.


Fraud proofs prevent miners from doing most malicious things to SPV wallets. They don't exist yet and there are questions about the kind of resources requirements they would put on an SPV wallet and nodes. But we do need it.

There is no easy solution to the other problems.

Mike Hearn tried to use bloom filters to prevent the node from knowing your addresses, didn't work so well.

Anyone will tell you you're giving up a lot of privacy, security and anti-censorship protection by using an SPV wallet.

When you use an SPV wallet, there is a tradeoff. Convenience for less privacy,security and anti-censorship.

LN is optional and Roger Ver has stated it's coming to BU too. It is necessary for instant microtransactions. It only works with txes less than 0.042BTC in practice. Few people actually think that onchain scaling shouldn't happen. It should be done safely.

IBLT/weak blocks will lower the resources required to run a node, though they will take a long time to be developedl, but when they are, increasing the block size limit can be done very safely and there should be no reason for anyone to oppose it.

Sharding is another one, monero devs are developing this right now to deal with their scaling problems. Monero does not have a blocksize limit (something like 1700tx/sec) but a non-listening node requires 1.5TB/mo currently as monero txes are 10x bigger than Bitcoin. We can learn from monero and implement sharding if it works well for them.

Segwit allows for extension blocks, so the blocksize limit can be increase in future without a hard fork. Even if devs refuse to implement any onchain scaling, it would be pretty easy for users to do it. Sidechains such as a MimbleWimble sidechain will allow Bitcoin to scale to visa level, and don't require anything from the devs once segwit is activated.


He also hinted at payment channels (LN). We need both, but it has to be done safely. We can't give up decentralization for more capacity. Centralization = less privacy, security and anti-censorship.


He's been involved in all kinds of shady shit. All the things I mentioned happened and he spent 10 months in prison as a result and had to rat out his counterfeit cisco hardware supplier for a deal.

He pays for BU development. Allegedly over $1 million.

He also pays miners to signal for EC. His bitcoin.com pool (which runs Core cos BU keeps crashing) pays them a 10% bonus for mining there. He wants to increase this to 200%.

Bitcoin is the sworn enemy of the centralized banking cartel. This extraterrestrial group sabotaged Bitcoin by inserting the blocksize limit malware.

So Trump is an extraterrestrial?  Oh that does make sense ...  :o  It totally explains his hair.

No!! its the FBI who runs bitcoin NOT aliens, JEEZ.

Is this the start of an alien invasion or it's just another one of those alien conspiracies ?
I guess trump is behind in all of these.

OP, either you are a paid shill or you need to get back to CS 101 (primary school version). Nothing in this post adds up, neither the false claims, false equivalencies, nor the false number thrown out as "requirements".

I wonder who you, and the BTU folk are tied to. ::)

Sorry OP, but this pic was definitely photoshopped. A real alien from Aztonica would never use a class 5b gun within the atmosphere of this planet. Every child knows, that he would have to use this one or similar:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/be/7f/bc/be7fbc0a488a4e8669de5f89cdd8e3aa.png

Yes, make a vague post that doesn't respond to any of my points claiming it's all false and throw in a few insults too. Genius, you will be safe from the wizard alien overlords.


https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/how-to-run-a-full-node#minimum-requirements


^this is outdated too. I searched and it's actually hard to find anything in the last year. I wanted real time data. Shorena used to have a node showing bandwidth consumption, shut down. Looked through some other node bandwidth monitoring pages, all shut down.

Honestly im unable anymore to read buggy unlimited threads. Let's stop beating a dead horse and move onto better things, for example, following Litecoin's segwit activation, which is about to happen. Now that is a cool topic. Buggy unlimited? Not again please, let's give it a rest.

Ok so I wasn't taking this seriously from the title, then it sounded serious for a bit... then I was 100% sure you weren't serious because of the explosives comment hahahaha. This was pretty great but I wish it was posted a few days ago.

Yeah I agree here, Ver is a great guy.
His video on MtGox showed me how trustworthy he is.

The explosives really did happen by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ver#Selling_explosives

Disagreed. UASF is not that dangerous, especially not 'very dangerous', and even further, not dangerous in comparison to the alternative (BTU 51% attack).

Quadratic hashing - DoS attack. Look it up.

If you don't care about either one of those (assuming you're not being sarcastic), you've come to the wrong place. I advise you to leave Bitcoin immediately and join some centralized shit like ETH or Ripple.

Now I see what is going on here. Wasting everyone's time trolling? ::)

There. I should have spent more time initially reading it rather than just skimming through the buzzwords. Shameful troll.

The Area 51 is filled with Blockstreamcore developers. Gmaxwell is the chief scientist of UFO research and Dr Adam Back administers injections to innocent aliens. The evil!!

>Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.   
Unlike Adam back and his gang.

you mean the guy who is bribing pools by paying more than the block reward, the guy who vouched for mtgox and isnt technical at all. Why should we trust him ?

I just pointed 27.5 TH/s to a BU pool today, after much consideration, because the unpredictable transaction times and fees make it difficult to purchase goods and I believe may hurt the price of Bitcoin.   I support BU because I use BTC and I do not see SegWit solving today's problems.  I would like to buy a Litecoin miner and point it to a SegWit pool because I believe SegWit is better suited, right now, for the Litecoin network.

The wizard alien overlords thank you for your assistence.

OP, as far as scaling solution ideas go, I will be fair and say "maybe". But we should not allow incompetent developers to become the stewards of the Bitcoin network. The buggy code they released has shown that they cannot be trusted to take over and their code has not been thoroughly tested.

Show us an excellent group of developers and the community might support them.

I agree. It's value has doubled and I think SegWit is perfect for Litecoin because it:

• has a much smaller market cap
• has 2 MB block size
• has a fairly deep ASIC supply
• has 2.5 minute block times
• has a 6 year history
• is a direct fork from an early Bitcoin blocksize increase
• is rummored that Coinbase will accept it

I'm feeling the #LTC50.  

Due to the inherent interest of attacking "the network",i.e., stealing coins, I'd think this is true of all changes to BTC, LTC, etc.

This really comes down to: (a) do you use BTC as useful currency like cash or (2) do you put it in cold storage? At least, that's who the infiltrators^* have led us to believe.

_{*What is the biggest threat to bitcoin? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-XUbH1F0Os)}  

Read post carefully.