You can try close and reopen Bitcoin Core in order connect to different full nodes, but don't expect much difference. I agree this won't make a difference, but you don't need to shut down and reopen to change peers. In the GUI, just go to "Window" -> "Peers", right click on any of your peers, and click "Disconnect". After a few seconds Core will fill the gap with a connection to a new node. That's good point, i forget such feature exist. You can also check what kind of download speeds you are getting by going to "Window" -> "Network Traffic".
But last time i used that feature, it only record download/upload speed after you open that window. In addition, the data removed if you scroll time duration. |
|
|
|
With 450 MB dbcache, this is going to take a long time. If you have the RAM, you should largely increase this (4096 or even 8192, but don't make it more than half your RAM).
I have 8GB RAM. How much dbcache should I choose then? Yup, it's taking a long timeeee...(Running it nonstop for 7-8 hours) While other member already suggestion, i'd say choose depends on partial amount of free/unused RAM. Although if you use Windows, i don't expect it'll have relative small amount of free/unused RAM. --snip--
The only problem is my internet speed. I tried doing other internet related stuff and everything is running as usual. Not very fast not very slow. But the bitcoin core isn't running with all the bandwidth.
Is there any way to prioritize my bandwidth allocation to bitcoin core?
--snip--
Usually no, since it's cause by either: 1. CPU or disk bottleneck. 2. Bitcoin Core happen connect to node with slow connection speed or physically very far from where you live (which cause slower download speed). You can try close and reopen Bitcoin Core in order connect to different full nodes, but don't expect much difference. |
|
|
|
- Block Size Limit: What is the community's stance on potentially adjusting the block size limit to manage growth? Are there ongoing discussions on this topic?
There are few of such discussion on this forum. But IIRC there's none on bitcoin-dev mailing. - Second-Layer Solutions: How effective are second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network in relieving the main blockchain? Are there experiences or concerns that we can share?
LN only useful for those who somtimes create Bitcoin transaction, since you need still need 2 on-chain TX (1 to open LN channel and 1 other to close LN channel). Bitcoin sidechain remain unpopular. Pruning: For those already implementing pruning, how has this impacted your node's resource usage? Any insights or recommendations for others considering this approach? If you cannot buy a larger disk, then you should apply this now, and put for example 500 GB (or whatever) as your pruning size. But of course, note that by default, your node will send only last 288 blocks (or something around that) to the network, if you use default settings. No matter size of latest blocks you store, Bitcoin Core only broadcast last 288 blocks to prevent fingerprinting. |
|
|
|
Yes, it's caused by Ordinals (mainly BRC-20 which depends on Ordinals). I've observed this problem back on June 2023. If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below). 0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)
With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.  Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=nowThis trend still on-going and already slow down IBD process for device with 8GB RAM (such as Raspberry Pi 4 8GB) or less. |
|
|
|
Since pruning is allowed, i expect someone will try download pruned node snapshot from 3rd party in order to skip download first 500GB+ of blockchain.
No pruned blockstate images exist in the wild though - someone would actually have to run the client in order to make such data. I do not count "airdropped merit" differently from any other merits. It's not true, try search "pruned bitcoin snapshot" on DuckDuckGo and you'll find few website data created a year ago or more recent.
That's not how Bitcoin works. It downloads all blocks from start to finish, but it discards all but the last N megabytes of recent block data.
Convince me why that should be the case, to first download the whole blockchain just to discard it later? Who designed that logic? At least for Bitcoin Core, you need to download whole blockchain to verify almost everything and build UTXO set. |
|
|
|
Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid.
L-BTC is more like to be an altcoin than Bitcoin, and because blocks are signed by 15 Liquid functionaries, it is far from being decentralized. I don't classify Liquid as altcoin since it depends on Bitcoin blockchain. And while i agree it's far from decentralized, it's also true for many altcoin. If it is not possible to use LN, increasing the number whitelist members is better than accepting altcoins.
I agree, it's better option. |
|
|
|
I get that low-fee altcoins are one bridge too far for Bitcointalk, but would it be possible to add LN payment as an option for evil fees? That would allow new users to make a low-fee transaction, and they can even use some (centralized) exchanges for it, or send a low-fee altcoin through an instant exchanger to pay for the evil fee.
Aside from LN which require on-chain TX to open a new LN channel, admin should consider accepting Bitcoin on sidechain, such as Rootstock or Liquid. |
|
|
|
If you want no dodgy Software on it you can purchase and have two or three HDDs on you that were released pre Bitcoin era. I would say anything from 2011 and older is good if you are afraid the HDD may have some dodgy Bitcoin related proprietary stuff on it.
Even better. Purchase a pre 2011 very cheap computer only to extract the HDD out of it. This further lowers the chance you get to own some weird HDD although I think this is extreme paranoid already.
It sounds similar with using old PC to avoid Intel ME completely. Anyway, in such case worry such HDD suddenly dead or produce bad sector short time after usage. |
|
|
|
- This challenge is open for anyone with <1000 merit.
<1000 merit in total received merit or including airdrop? - You may run with any other configuration options as you like, such as pruning.
Since pruning is allowed, i expect someone will try download pruned node snapshot from 3rd party in order to skip download first 500GB+ of blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Thread saya kunci karena saya tidak sering membahas harga Bitcoin. Saya persilahkan member SFI yang aktif membahas harga Bitcoin untuk membuat thread baru dengan informasi dan poll yang lebih up-to-date.
|
|
|
|
Banning bitcointalk is not affecting the Bitcoin network in any way. Sure, it's the digital museum of Bitcoin, but enthusiasts can already migrate elsewhere.
Decentralizing a forum is not proved sustainable. Scaling is a nightmare, works more complexly, moderation is minimum if not zero (which is pretty much the same as here), and will probably incentivize users to use a third party. I have used nostr, which is a decentralized social network like Twitter, and it's even worse than Twitter.
And BTW, bitcointalk is not scheduled to be banned.
It's also worth to mention creating spam post become far easier since there's no risk account ban and IP blacklist. |
|
|
|
BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement confiscation stealing mechanism[4].
All the Faketoshi stuff aside, its blockchain is approaching 10 terabytes and is supported by less than 100 nodes. One mining pool dominates with 54% of the hash rate. There couldn't be a clearer picture of why large blockchains leads to centralization. You can say, "ah but nobody wants to run a coin led by Faketoshi," and you'd be right, but even if he stepped out of the picture completely, I sincerely doubt things would be any different. Even if faketoshi stepped out now, it's far too late since the damage has been done. And Etheruem would be somewhat better example since it has 16.5TB storage usage[1], but with 7.3K node running[2]. Although node number is rather high since Ethereum use PoS. [1] https://etherscan.io/chartsync/chainarchive[2] https://goto.etherscan.com/nodetracker |
|
|
|
How did you conclude that i forget what block size is? I literally mentioned that in my previous post , but ya anyway, blocks have been capped at 4MB long before taproot, you could construct a block that large without taproot, it would just have to be a weird combination of transactions, but ya again, not sure what is the point of bringing this up.
I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big. If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately, the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution. It's an easy solution but will eventually cause problems as we can already see with BSV. BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement confiscation stealing mechanism[4]. [1] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/910[2] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/1045#issuecomment-1504229868[3] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/11/bitcoin-sv-drops-as-robinhood-ends-support/[4] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/ |
|
|
|
2. How do I circumvent high fees? Don't collect small Bitcoin inputs, use Segwit, and if possible use LN. Using Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid or Rootstock) also works, but it's hard to find other people who use Bitcoin on any of those sidechain. 3. Why aren't developers tweaking the Bitcoin blockchain code to accommodate millions of transaction like Solana and BNB? I don't know Solana but BNB is a centralized shitcoin made up by a rich guy. A centralized database can't be compared to a decentralized blockchain. Solana also centralized and some people know Solana as coin that frequently going down. |
|
|
|
--snip--
1. While it's true you can prune witness data, AFAIK there's no full node which let you do that. 2. It's still waste of block size since Ordinals TX has size more than 0. Possibility of pruning witness data actually means it's not waste of storage space. The point is Ordinals embeds data in the structure of the blocks that store witness data, not the part of the block where the UTXO set resides. In that context, I don't know what's "wasted" because none of the embedded data is "stealing" space from actual Bitcoin transactions. Plus as a consensus rule, the block size is regulated up to 4MB. It's allowed to be that large. What? There's no part of block dedicated to store UTXO set. UTXO set is created by your full node. As a reminder, SegWit and Taproot TX include data classified as witness data. It's definitely more concerning, although it's easier to make such TX become non-standard.
Does making them non-standard come with a hard fork? No, it only requires node operator update their node software which doesn't relay non-standard TX. But miner could include those non-standard TX on their block and deemed valid by other node. |
|
|
|
My understanding is that 1BOB.... is a more readable version of the X,Y co ordinates of the public key obtained after a 1 way hash function. (ripemd160)
So given that the co ordinates X,Y have been hashed, How does the blockchain work out X,Y (the full public key) in order to create the transaction ?
I am obviously missing something
The wallet you use contain data which map between private key, public key, address and other related information. So when Bob want to spend his Bitcoin, his wallet create transaction with associated private key and create signature where you can extract associated public key. |
|
|
|
Bigger blocks may cost smaller miners: small miners and poorly-connected miners are at a disadvantage if larger blocks are produced, and even large and well-connected miners may find that large blocks reduce their profit percentage if the cost of bandwidth rises too high or their stale rate increases. Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on the network. So far top 100 biggest bitcoin blocks are all from us. We do support bigger blocks and sooner rather than later. But we cannot handle 20 MB blocks right now. I know most blocks would not be 20 MB over night. But only if a small fraction of blocks more than 10 MB, it could dramatically increase of our orphan rate, result of higher fee to miners. Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial big blocks. As yhou know, other Chinese pools, AntPool, BW, they produces ASIC chips and mining mostly with their own machines. They do not care about a few percent of orphan increase as much as we do. They would continue their zero fee policy. We would be the biggest loser. As the exchanges had taught us, zero fee is not health to the network. Also we have to redevelop our block broadcast logic. Server bandwidth is a lot more expensive in China. And the Internet is slow. Currently China has more than 50% of mining power, if block size increases, I bet European and American pools could suffer more than us. We think the max block size should be increased, but must be increased smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB, and so on. Thanks. Based on the above information, only big miners that have cheap mining rigs, cheap electricity cost and fast internet connection are make money, while the others aren't especially the small miners. Bigger blocks would decrease transaction fees, but big blocks might trigger Bitcoin's security, it's better to choose good security with expensive fees instead of low security with cheaper fees. But it's been many years since those points mentioned. Most miner/pool would have better hardware and internet at this point and various technology (such as company) allows faster block verification and propagation. And as miners will depend more on TX fee as their income, they're less likely to mine empty block. |
|
|
|
--snip--
So you open a pool in El Salvador. they say fuck you BTC is our currency we accept all transactions.. A usa mine would be banned from that pool. Or would they mine to a proxy via tor. And let all coins sit in a virgin wallet address. If anything smaller miners will be nimble and the big mines could suffer. or Donald mother-fucking Trump gets in and the gov goes in another direction. That would work for time being. But for U.S. miners, they have to hope government won't create new law which prevent them from doing that. --snip--
Thats not how it works. You can operate the machines to different locations. Also, Group B can still mine txns if Group A decided to not mine. Group B will get the rewards. Learn how mining works You missed OP's point. He emphasize about U.S. government idea not to build block on top of block which include blacklisted TX/address which possible if 51% hashrate comply with U.S. government idea. |
|
|
|
Recently I installed a forum for testing. I used phpbb on it but later I realised that it has a big demerit that the URL it gives does not contain the content of title of thread. I checked this forum and here also the issue is same. Its never a demerit for this forum not including title of thread in the URL because it can still be included. I think you missed OP's point. I think OP refer to either SEO boost or ability to let people guess topic of the link without opening the link itself. Recently I installed a forum for testing. I used phpbb on it but later I realised that it has a big demerit that the URL it gives does not contain the content of title of thread. I checked this forum and here also the issue is same. Was this not taken into consideration while choosing forum software ? Or does it not matter much? Are there some special benefits of SMF over other popular forum softwares like xenforo or vbulletin?
Changing topic titles may mean URLs also get altered. Some good reasons exist, however, for keeping URLs static rather than dynamic. Firstly, search engines can index unchanging URLs more easily. Second point - user-friendliness; folks bookmarking threads need assurance the URL leads back no matter if tweaks occur to the title. But it could be prevented if the forum software either create multiple permalink or preserve current URL even when the title is edited. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
