I'm getting the impression that adding more RAM mostly reduces disk writes before the node is fully synced, not after. Each new block requires verification, which includes reading and writing to chainstate. But I have extra RAM and I can bump it up to 16GB so I can give it a shot. The Celeron supports up to 64 GB of RAM Usually the mainboard is the limiting factor. With 16 GB RAM, that doesn't leave much for the rest of your OS. I'd go for no more than half your RAM, so try 8 GB dbcache if you install 16 GB RAM. Is that the only thing I need to change? Or are there other settings I should try too? That should be enough. For what it's worth: my system has 16 GB RAM (and the mainboard can't handle more), and during IDB I increase dbcache, but when normally running I reduce it to 1024 again. I don't want Bitcoin Core to occupy the majority of my RAM, I need it for other things. I just checked: I've written 7.5 TB in the past year (I didn't do a new IBD on it). That's 21 GB written per day, for Bitcoin Core, swap and everything else running on my system. I keep chainstate on this SSD, and blocks on my HDD. At this rate, I'll reach my SSD's rated writes after 80 years. |
|
|
|
This is ridiculous! Absolutely barbaric! Everyone knows the top pizza should be upside down. On a more serious note - if there is such a thing - replacing the bread in a burger for pizza doesn't terrible. |
|
|
|
The system has 8GB of RAM on an Intel 8th gen Celeron CPU (2 cores, 2 threads). Adding more RAM should largely reduce your disk writes, but that may not be possible considering it's a Celeron. The node isn't pruned. Xubuntu's built-in task manager is showing Memory at 25% (1.9 GiB / 7.6 GiB) and Swap at 34% (1.4 GiB / 4 GiB) at this exact moment, having had both Bitcoin Core and ElectrumX running 24/7 for about 3 or 4 days. I guess I don't really understand why the Swap is being used significantly given how much memory appears to be available, but maybe this is normal. If not, let me know. That's normal. The other memory is not empty, it's probably in use as file cache. Writing to your swap file is meant to improve overall system performance. You can adjust this behaviour by changing " swappiness", but be careful not to make it worse. Size of database cache, I see it is set to 450 MiB. That's the default, and usually a larger value is recommended. Ideally, it should be enough to fit chainstate, but since that's 12 GB, most people don't have that luxory. I've never tested how increasing dbcache affects performance. I assume Linux file cache is quite good at it by default. In addition, according to Jameson Lopp benchmark, the write is much lower if you have much bigger RAM and configure Bitcoin Core to use lots of RAM. 561 GB disk writes That makes sense: with enough RAM, chainstate can stay in memory until you shut down Bitcoin Core. So all that's written is the full blockchain, which must have been 561 GB back then. |
|
|
|
blink.sv They could not have chosen a worse domain extension. |
|
|
|
Also, I am not sure whether the bot on Telegram is working or not, to me it seems to be working, it responds when prompted with commands, but I would need to try by receiving merits or replies to check the other functions... Have a quote to test it  |
|
|
|
I can easily add this feature in a custom script or in my browser extension. Would you use it? I wouldn't, but I don't like installing browser extensions. Every extension adds to the risk. That's why a forum feature would be cool. Then again, I don't think too many people will use this. If I pay something on my laptop, I use a wallet on my laptop and not on my phone. |
|
|
|
The list is currently a few days behind again  It works again, since a week now. See addresses.loyce.club. |
|
|
|
I fixed the title scraping and updated everything, but that wasn't the reason the other titles didn't show up. I manually ran my script, and everything works! See: So somehow it fails from a cronjob, which makes me think it's caused by environment variables. I tried to change that, but now my cronjob is spitting out other errors. I'll try again. Do you know why this is happening? Still no |
|
|
|
Later edit: damn, you just ruined the flippening, and I called you "amico mio"!!! How could you? 🙈 Blasphemy!!! Just break some spaghetti, put pineapple on pizza and drink wine from plastic bottles. That will get to him  |
|
|
|
In the case with silent payments, it can be implemented more efficiently than in Feather: Request from the server to send you only transactions that contain a Taproot ouput, occurred after the last time you opened your wallet, and haven't yet been spent. That will exclude a lot of unnecessary information. Thanks, this makes sense. It's quite genius! |
|
|
|
I have been running Bitcoin Core 27.0 with txindex=1 and ElectrumX 1.16.0 on a Samsung 860 Evo SSD on Xubuntu. This is a dedicated machine doing nothing but running those two programs all day. Can you share how much RAM you have, how much swap is in use, and Bitcoin Core's dbcache setting? Unfortunately, I only have a few data points right now, but all of these were recorded AFTER both the initial block download and after the transaction index was finished being built:
30 total gigabytes written to the SSD from June 24th to June 25th
108 total gigabytes written to the SSD from June 25th to June 26th
158 total gigabytes written to the SSD from June 26th to June 27th It looks like something changed in between those days. I'd expect Bitcoin Core to write approximately the same amount each day (at least in days so close together). It is also possible I have the LBA size wrong for this drive and I'm inflating the gigabytes written without realizing it, but 512 bytes is standard from what I can tell. Correct. I've used this script (use at your own risk) to check it in the past.
Here's my findings: on a standard pruned Bitcoin Core (so no txindex I guess, and no ElectrumX) with only 8 GB of RAM, my SSD wrote just under 5 TB for the entire IBD. It looks like you're writing a lot more than that.
a Samsung 860 Evo SSD The 500 GB version can handle 300 TBW. Even at 150 GB per day, you're looking at 5 years. |
|
|
|
They won't know who you are, but wouldn't they still be able to link all Silent Payments together? Say you post your SP-address here, and receive 2 donations. You'll receive both of them on a different Bitcoin address. But Silentium will know they belong together, right? No they won't. Only sender and receiver know addresses and amounts that are send How? From what I understand about Silent Payments, you'll need to check all blocks to see which payments belong to you. If you use a light (or web) wallet, how can your wallet know this without a central server also knowing it? I'm skeptical about Electrum, because their priority is to be lightweight, and silent payments move the burden to the user That's what I mean: I don't see how this can work without the server knowing the details and without the user downloading all (new) blocks? |
|
|
|
Oh boy! The flippening has happened! The terrible ( ) event occurred yesterday. As of now, I have 20 merits more than 1miau -- which, of course, may involve another flippening in the future  Congrats! I guess I shouldn't tell you to calculate how many Merits each of you earned on average per day. I really shouldn't tell you that, that would be mean 2775483 234771 1137579 379487 Here you go:  |
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for your flawless timing!
|
|
|
|
Is there any user whitelisted by you or your team members that has risen to the rank of a Hero member? I don't have "a team" Feel free to check the list, but I'll highlight some of the more obvious users: Synchronice, n0nce and PowerGlove. I can't know for sure if they would otherwise have paid the evil fee, created a new account (with a less cool name), or just have abandoned the forum (that's what I would have done if I had to pay to register) after their proxyban, but I'm glad I could whitelist them. To highlight: 0.7% of all Merit ever sent was sent to users who I whitelisted. Obviously I can't take the credit for this, those users earned their Merits by themselves, but I'm glad I could contribute a bit. With only 8 * banned whitelisted users so far, I consider this a big win for the forum. Sometimes, innocent people become collateral damage. This is generally considered as unfair and very unwelcoming. It still is. * Disclaimer: this data is a month old. |
|
|
|
You shouldn't have aired that out, they'll change their approach now. I have many more criteria to reject requests. But I'd be happy if they stop sending me AI-crap. |
|
|
|
IMO trying to trick people into believing a bitcoin fork is "The Real Bitcoin" is dishonest and worthy of red trust. As we all know there is only one "real bitcoin" and it is Bitcoin. I wouldn't tag people for this, but I see the dilemma. If what's real is decided by what the (large) majority of the Bitcoin community thinks, it feels like forcing people to stay in line. Years back there was a few people who came to the forum to complain about buying BCH thinking it was BTC. This was because of dishonest marketing at bitcoin.com. So what's your opinion on Binance? They have many withdrawal options for fake tokens they call Bitcoin. It's going to be interesting when it happens to the ETF-guys. |
|
|
|
It would not be that easy as setting up a Lightning node, because the problem of Statechains (and the reason why I'm not really interested in that concept) is that the operator is an entity which can steal coins with no possibility for the user to penalize him and claim his coins back. I can't say that's worse than millions of people who now keep "their" Bitcoins on exchanges, or exchanges that make up their own "wrapped" Bitcoins. I'm okay with custodial usage for low amounts, as long as it's widely accepted. A bigger problem may be if we get different sidechains from different providers. |
|
|
|
Lol Today, I received this email: I am asking to get the proxyban removed because I want to speak and engage with conversations related to alt/shitcoins outside of Bitcoin. As I have been researching the subject for a bit. I also want to comment and wish people good luck with the products that they decide to sell here. I usually wouldn't share emails, but this contains no identifying information and it's just too funny not to. Needless to say, I'm not whitelisting him. At least he's honest
On a general note: sending me chatbot verbal diarrhea isn't going to get you whitelisted! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
