Read it before; read it again at your prompting. I want to see Bitcoin succeed; would it kill us to pay full nodes a tiny fee? |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter how much money it costs you for others. Having good hardware doesn't have much of an impact on the quality of your node either. Good internet speed does though. You can check how https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/ as it might interest you. I have pretty good internet speed; 90Mb/s down and 11Mb/s up. I'm in bitnodes at 73.190.2.60 but haven't once received anything. |
|
|
|
|
It costs me real money to run a full node. Besides the extra wear and tear on my gear, the full node software consumes memory, disk space, bandwidth, and processing power which generates heat that has to be dealt with driving up my cooling costs. I would like to be compensated for this expense.
I have a pretty powerful processor with fast and large memory and SSD. I have a pretty high speed link. Clients of my full node benefit.
Perhaps there is no hope of getting compensated. If not then maybe I would be wise to switch to an SVP wallet instead.
|
|
|
|
|
How would one go about getting the software implemented to charge for the high quality full node services I provide?
|
|
|
|
|
I moved about 10% of my total wealth into Bitcoin; wise or stupid is yet to be determined. I went in assuming a significant chance of the whole thing going to zero.
If the transaction rate grows then the current 1MB block size will eventually force higher fees; so? Oh, I know, if the fees get too high then Bitcoin loses one of the advantages it has over other systems. So? ... Oh, I know, Bitcoin fails. So? I knew that was a risk going in. So? I go on less cruises in the future. So? My kids get less inheritance. So? ...
I happen to work in the computer industry. As such the challenge in front of me often is to get systems to handle more and more workload. To this part of me it is obvious we will eventually need a larger block size. Apparently there is a 32MB limit buried in some library. I recommend jumping to that limit as soon as is reasonable; keeping fees low. Moreover we need to get to work on overcoming that limit. Btw, if the workload isn't there then the blocks won't be large; I think some folks miss this point. It seems some folks wrongly fear every block will be huge. Using the block size to resist spam is a case of using the wrong tool. Anyone with a network link that can't keep up; too bad. Anyone with a lack of storage; too bad; although pruning would be just delightful. Anyone with a lack of processing power; too bad.
In between these extreme positions (how can one guy see both sides?) are the fancy approaches. Whatever. Enjoy. I do run a full node and would be interested in having the option for getting paid for the services I provide. Miners get paid; why can't full node operators get paid?
Bottom line; let the debate continue. If no change comes then we will live with higher fees. So? ...
|
|
|
|
Um, I, for one, felt that was a good article. I currently run a Bitcoin full node for no direct compensation. It consumes electricity which I pay for; it generates heat which I do pay to cool on some hot days; it might be wearing out my equipment faster than otherwise; it consumes space on my SSD (by choice as opposed to a regular hard drive) costing me some performance for other things I do; all the previous costs are well within my current means; there is some amount of environmental impact of all this; might be interesting to calculate all that. However, I get way more fun personally (to each his own) out of this than paying to go see a movie, for example. I want Bitcoin to do well and believe that running a full node helps. So sue me. For the record, I have consistently championed an unlimited block size. Now, after reading the article, I believe I should be paid for the services I am providing by running a Bitcoin full node. If/when the Bitcoin traffic grows to point of saturating my resources then no matter how much I want Bitcoin to do well then I would be limited (well, I could go get more resources but I am only so generous/wealthy). I would suggest the main developers take this on soon or they are going to lose more of the full nodes. If I'm the last full node standing then that's going to be a problem. |
|
|
|
|
My script could use improvement; as is, it requires the GUI remain the window with focus which is inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
I could be having a moment of not remembering something. But what language did your write the script in?
AutoHotkey http://www.autohotkey.com/ |
|
|
|
|
toggle = 0
#MaxThreadsPerHotkey 2
z:: ;hit z to toggle script on and off.
Toggle := !Toggle
While Toggle{
Click
Send, {tab}
Send, {space}
Send, {backspace}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {tab}
Send, {enter}
Sleep, 240000
}
return
esc::exitapp ;Kills script
|
|
|
|
Do you have a fan pushing air on it? The nano can get pretty hot and it would effect it's preformance.
And yea there are actually 2 gui's. One is in English and easier to use for my language. The second looks nicer but was in Chinese (they could have added English I have not looked recently)
If a fan does not work you can try to run cgminer without the gui. The commands are in the thread to do that.
No fan; I was thinking it would cool enough without one to get going by itself without having to be prodded along so often. Perhaps I will try writing a script to get it going automatically. |
|
|
|
For my combined birthday and Father's Day gift my son gave me an Avalon Nano (I've got a great son). The software installation and configuration was, er, not trivial but I got it going http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1NFpUu9D76jRL9m2TAdcKjgwr8axLg4YqN (give it time). One thing I've notice; a couple of times now it got "stuck" in sleep mode. It wasn't too tough to get it going again but it requires attention; I want it to run unattended. Anyone else seen this behavior? |
|
|
|
The buyer immediately transfers the coins to his own private key so that the seller can't spend them, but as far as block chain analysis can tell, it's still not linked to anything else the buyer has.
Oh, so, only this transfer is on block chain. Still the buyer is vulnerable until this transfer is confirmed. Moreover, I still fail to see the advantage over just creating a new address for the Bitcoins and transferring them into it. |
|
|
|
|
If the deepest pocket (bottomless?), the US Feds, wanted to spam Bitcoin into oblivion how much would it take? Won't US dollar inflation eventually kick in? Won't the miners force the spammer to pay more for fresh/recycled Bitcoins to keep the spam going?
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide some detail, e.g. transaction ID, so that we may investigate.
|
|
|
|
It's unlikely that he sold his coins since they haven't been moved on the blockchain. The only way he could have sold them while still remaining undetected would be if he sold the private keys to these addresses instead.
Goodness; why in the world would someone buy private keys??? The original owner could still have them and move the funds before the buyer. The only way I would agree to buy private keys would be if the original owner sat there while I moved the funds. |
|
|
|
|
To avoid these sorts of delays I suppose one could enter the private key into the wallet instead of sweeping.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if those large transactions are pool block reward distributions.
|
|
|
|
https://blockchain.info/address/1KvmcX8VqrVxkabVgGiWV2yMZXanVKZfqu --> ah, there are large transactions that are clogging up the works in front of your transaction. A miner can't mine your transaction into a block until the inputs are themselves confirmed (or at best they have to be mined together). Getting those big transactions, e.g. 35KB, into a block will come eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
