Thank you for the kind words.
I've fired it up and I have the numbers while syncing (blocks from about half a day) - first image and from when it was quiet - second image.
The data is from both Task Manager and Process Explorer.





As you see while syncing it goes up to 1GB, but when it's cool it's much lower.
Also I'd add that I have in config


which is higher than the default and may have as result some more memory allocated, but honestly I didn't read much into the docs and I may be wrong with the implications.
However, at some point at startup it was showing:

I'll bump this since it would be useful to be read by more people and I also come with something potentially interesting.
It's only partly related to flags - it's more related to the red warning - , but it's a behavior of the forum that may be good to be known.

I mean this:


And for a better context I'll add this topic.

---

@Upgrade00: if you think that this information doesn't belong here, please PM me to remove this post and I'll do that.

That's correct. I thought that OP has mistaken something.
TryNinja's quote clears it up completely. I didn't know either about this behavior.

So you want us to help you convert your bitcoins into some tokens (not even altcoins!) supposedly pegged to the value of bitcoin (until the issuer gets in trouble and will depeg it and run with the bitcoins), in order to keep those tokens in some questionable businesses' custody for some extra dollars you may or may not receive for doing this.
I guess that some may help you, especially in the altcoins section. But I wouldn't. When (not if) the things will go wrong you may want to hold people responsible for helping you transform your bitcoins into ... well.. dust. I am not certain you want that and I am not certain you know what you're doing.

Yes, if you're lucky you may end up with profit. Far too many didn't.

That kind of message is shown if one has active flag opened against him. The flag is different from negative feedback.
So there is feedback - positive, neutral, negative - that can come from DT, or somebody you trust, or somebody you distrust or don't care about, and this is visible in colors and numbers.
And there's the flag. The thing with the flag is that it can be supported or opposed. If it gets enough support it becomes active and you'll see it that visible.

For more details you may want to read: [GUIDE] Overview of the trust flags

I am not the developer of Fulcrum, I'm just an user. I would get the same asc file as you'd do. And if I'd put the content of the asc file into OP I'd have to update it with each new update of Fulcrum, which is not something I would want to do.
So, as I said in OP, the user will look for the asc with the same name as the zip he's about to download/use. For Fulcrum-1.9.0-win64.zip it would be Fulcrum-1.9.0-win64.zip.asc.

The user can be nuked if he breaks badly some rules. If you've found him plagiarizing, for example, and you can prove that, he's as good as gone.
But just by asking nicely, you won't obtain anything. Even more, if it's a case of scam, that's not moderated, so your actual choice is to make (in Scam Accusations, see the reporting format there) a new topic proving his scam, to make people tag him. It won't nuke him, but the trust feedback will be visible and people will start avoiding him.


That's not enough. Duplicated posts are reported and removed. But nothing more.

Just look at your transaction. It's public, any block explorer can show it. One example is:

https://mempool.space/tx/554491c4960fed3cde81237c192f36c18ad6d5144c260c9886b6ff91d259295c

Look up for your address and you'll see what you've received. You'll see also that many other addresses have received coins. And the transaction has plenty of confirmations.
So all that was sent was processed. Nothings "caught in the wire" or anything. And since it's confirmed there's nothing to accelerate.
Conclusion: if anything is missing and the transaction on the block explorer shows for your address exactly what you've received, then it's the sender who didn't send the coins.


This is utter bullshit. If they would be honest they
1. could have been sending all the money in the transaction already sent.
2. could send the rest of the money paying maybe 1-2$ fee from those thousands you supposedly have there.

But actually they use some oddly complicated words for a non-existing problem to fool you deposit more.

This is how I see it. You can way for others' opinions too though.

You are only partly right. People are interested of bitcoin because of its price going up rapidly. This being said, many just keep their coins at exchanges without knowing nor caring about the wallets and whether it's easy or not to use them.

Now, about the wallets. It can be made easier, actually afaik some custodian wallets use/used to be pretty easy. But yeah, custodian plus made by some developers paid by that company.
I kept saying some months and years ago that easier to use wallets should be a plus. It should have been, but that time frame has closed.

Now we need safer wallets, then, if possible, easier. And since some hardware wallets makers are going to the direction of making them like credit cards, your wish may come true faster than you'd think. It won't be the wallets people will advise because you won't have the control the established wallets provide, but for some that's OK. You won't reach the safety of the hardware wallets that have their own screen, but again, for some that's not a biggie.
So it won't be perfect, but may be something.

CUDA I don't know 
So the only error is that extra space and should have been
??

Or also Visual Studio doesn't handle this well or is missing something?
That Medium page also tells (yeah, that guy was installing on Linux) about CUDA Toolkit and so on.

<<< works in java, not in C++
<< < needs something in between (a bitwise shift maybe and then a comparison?)

But, since in the first post we have

__global__ void hash160(char *pattern, unsigned char *out, uint32_t *nonce)

you seem to be calling that void function, hence I would comment that erroneous line (at least for now) and put instead:

hash160(dev_pattern, dev_out, dev_nonce);

---

It seems that I was wrong, sorry, see below.

If one wants to have an Electrum server, one of the options is Fulcrum.

I already have an Electrum server (Electrs), which I use and for which I've made a more complete tutorial in the past, but at some point I've made tests with Fulcrum too and it would be a shame to remove it without providing a tutorial for the others who want it.

So... one major advantage of Fulcrum comes on Windows: the user can just get compiled binaries for Bitcoin Core, Fulcrum and Electrum, configure and run them all, without the need of stepping into Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). Another good thing is it's performance: it's processing the requests significantly faster than Electrs. Just in my experience (HDD, infrequent use for rather short tasks) Fulcrum gets in the state I can access it significantly slower than Electrs.

But, tbh, I don't like Fulcrum as much as the other option I have (Electrs)
* Fulcrum is made by somebody with BCH ties and it may be much better optimized for BCH (to say the least)
* As I said, Fulcrum starts/syncs slower than Electrs and that's not OK for my use case

Something more about this tutorial. This is made for a Fulcrum as I use it: me, for myself. No discussions with other servers, not announcing my server, also no SSL. I've kept it simple. If one wants to expand the tutorial with that, be my guest.

Since an Electrum server works on top of a Bitcoin Core node, I'll handle Bitcoin Core first, but shortly.

Bitcoin Core is with pretty much the same as in my other tutorial, but with some tiny bit of change in config:
* already in that topic, later on, I've switched for use with rpc user and password instead of cookie. If you want to keep using cookie, that's fine too, just pay attention to the config files (both of them)
* Bitcoin core's config needs one more line: zmqpubhashblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:8433

So, I will not insist with Bitcoin Core, it's in the other tutorial, I'll just put here my config:

Fulcrum (https://github.com/cculianu/Fulcrum)

You download Fulcrum from https://github.com/cculianu/Fulcrum/releases ; you will get something like Fulcrum-1.9.0-win64.zip
It would be nice to verify your download, which is done with the correcponding *.asc file, like for Electrum.

Unpack the zip into a new folder, maybe FulcrumBinaries. We won't touch that folder from now on.
Now we create a file called Fulcrum.conf with the content:

Some details:
* The username and password has to match with the one from Bitcoin
* x:\FulcrumData_MainNet is a folder you create, preferably somewhere fast (SSD), since this is where Fulcrum will keep its data; mine has now ~113 GB, but it may be safe to have some more space there, especially at start
* that fast-sync line should be commented (put a # in front of it) after the initial sync finishes
* the server is set to not discuss with other servers, not announce itself for other clients and so on; also no SSL

I've made a batch file for start and one for stop, but this stop works only after the sync is done. Else you better press the good old CRTL-C.
The content of the batch file is not very useful as it is, maybe as example, because it contains the path to the exe and, as parameter, the path to the config.
In my case it's:

Same goes for the stop.

After starting Fulcrum (start.bat) it might take an awful lot of time until everything is sync-ed. You may want to look for lines like:

or


Then you can start Electrum. As I wrote in the other tutorial I'm lazy and I'm using the portable Electrum. For me the command line is:

The bitcoins I can put away are meant to become someday the bulk of my retirement savings. But that's the bitcoins I can earn and that I manage to not spend.
The rest of my retirement savings come from the old channels, from the stable day job (but I expect that to just barely keep me fed).

So if bitcoin goes to oblivion before I get to the retirement age, I won't remain 100% uncovered. However, the chances are small for that.
If bitcoin gets to new highs... I hope I'll have the chance for a decent life at old age.


But all that is really far. For now.. it's easier to just stack sats and don't think that far.

It's not. Really.

The only problem is that some people learn from others' experience, some learn from theirs. You chose the hard path, to learn from yours.
What I mean is that trust feedback is extremely important in a trade. Look for users' trust feedback, whether it's "trusted feedback" or not and decide for yourself if it worth going forward. This user already had negative feedback. Now he will get more.

Another important part is rank. If one is newbie, there's always a chance it's an thief that wasn't caught yet. The higher the rank, the chances for uncaught scammers somewhat decreases (but don't go to zero).

And last, but not the least important thing is to use escrow when you can. A trusted escrow from the forum can easily help you avoid getting scammed.

Oh, almost forgot, one more: unless you get more experience, avoid making deals in mixed bitcointalk + telegram (or similar), since impersonation can trick you badly.


This being said, I agree, it was a rather inexpensive lesson. I'll help with tagging the scammer, hoping that the next potential customer would open his eyes better.

You must be doing it wrong.
Did you make a proper thread with proper proof in Reputation? Nope.
Did you read the forum rules and tried to understand the way the forum works? I doubt it.

I've looked in the history of your (mostly deleted) posts and the fact that you are even asking for proof from a seller already having red tag means that you ask them to show ingenuity in scamming you.

Your posts in those topics may have been reported as off-topic, and without proof you just look like a competitor seller that wants to discredit them; hence it's not that odd to see them removed.


So... do it right and I'm sure that people will start listening to your points.


PS. This very thread should actually be in Meta, I'd say...

I don't know who is coming up with these news, but one day they're worried because the devs don't have their ID and driving license posted on git, next day we have to be worried because they are paid by this or that companies, hence their work may be biased, and third day they post that the devs are paid by donations and that's not a good model.

I, myself, got the point: somebody wants us be worried on devs, no matter what. Is that somebody getting desperate?!

Linux is safer, better made and also most distributions don't spy on you like Windows does.
However, I also use Windows on the daily basis, hence my Electrum also runs on Windows.
But this is OK, since I know how bad Windows can be, hence I've done some things that should keep my funds secure:
1. I use my Electrum with a hardware wallet.
2. I always double check the addresses when sending money or when posting my addresses, since clipboard malware is widely spread.

Yeah, that review of yours made me hope that maybe they're different...

...And I see the account was online in Feb 22, so 2 days after your message being sent.
I'm sorry...  

Supported the flag and also added a red tag. This looks too much like and exit scam 

Multumesc pentru notificari. Am fost plecat, nu le vazusem. Am participat acum. Bafta sa avem!


Am primit raspuns si sunt OK. Multumesc de atentionarea din timp! Si sa stii ca tot sustin ultimele 2 randuri din ce am scris aici.

Username : NeuroticFish
BTC addy : bc1qeuvhugrlu8g34e8wl3s8dtm2k8mjf0khvqxmaf

Thank you!