I expect someone will make a torrent available of a fully pruned .bitcoin/ folder. You would need to trust them, but it would be a good fast way of getting your "full node" initialized if you do.
I don't think that will work, as you have to customise the pruning to your wallet. You can also set the pruning size, and I don't think all people will use the same value. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that the network is congested. There seems to be a problem with block density as selfish miners ignore transaction fees. This may become worse if they increase the blocksize. The real problem seems to result from various people trying to gain control of Bitcoin imho.
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to include the nodes that are supporting side chains. These nodes will handle the transactions that give value to the side chain currency. Do you think that these will be enough to counter the consolidation in mining that will follow the halving?
|
|
|
|
|
I wondered about this, but I decided that if I wanted to mine, it would be better to mine altcoins rather than Bitcoins. My reasons for this are -
Cloud mining seems to be a ponzi variant.
Some mining pools seem to be getting dishonest reputations.
Solo mining is not practical as you don't have the hash power and speed to find blocks and get them accepted on the blockchain.
I'd be interested to know if there are viable options, as I feel small miners are an asset to the Bitcoin economy.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real value of Bitcoin will become apparent when people start to use it for escrow, time locked payments, multi-signatures and similar applications.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that there is going to be quite a mix of nodes running next month. As I see it, these will include
Full mining nodes
SPV mining nodes
Thin nodes who don't perform any confirmations
SPV nodes
Full nodes with a closed input port
Full nodes with both input and output ports open
Nodes running Satoshi 0.12
Nodes running older versions of core
Nodes running alternative software such as XT and Classic
Pruned nodes
Light clients who just push transactions.
Only miners get a financial return for running nodes, and this return will decrease as we approach the halving and then the quartering. Core 0.12 offers quite a few advantages, and hopefully most people will upgrade to that. We may also gain a few new recruits who will run pruned nodes. We need several thousand of these full nodes to preserve the integrity and decentralisation of Bitcoin. How can we offer incentives to people to run these nodes? imho you get better control and security of your Bitcoins and transactions as a full node, but will these advantages be enough to keep people maintaining these nodes?
|
|
|
|
Is it me or is everybody all of sudden too worried about the future. I get the whole be prepared thing but zombies could happen in future too.
This whole solving the problems before they even arise is creating more problems me thinks.
I agree, but the 2Mb artillery seems to be trying to kill the smooth progression and maturing of Bitcoin, and that has become a "now" problem. |
|
|
|
but someone who want to hide his ip he can simple run bitcoin core wallet under tor especially with the newest 0.12 version. Then he can connect to a normal node even if this node is a part of a sybil attack.
The way things are going at the moment, Bill Gates and Google will know about it.  |
|
|
|
|
Underutilisation of resources will limit bitcoin (not destroy it). Fill the blocks, and do something about selfish miners.
|
|
|
|
and what the benefits to run a node under tor? Network need nodes like this. If yes i will setup my nodes to run under tor but i dont know if after that the slow relay will be good for the bitcoin network
It might give more ammunition to unsympathetic governments and bankers. |
|
|
|
|
OK - I begin to see the problems. I thought the 21M Bitcoins was hard coded, so that is a different issue. The problem of underutilised blocks seems to be present in all solutions, and is probably greater in the 2Mb blocksize solution. Maybe the answer would be a variable reward based on block utilisation. Transaction fees should solve this when all coins are mined. Maybe the finders reward should be variable until then, but I suspect it is too late to change that.
Blocks aren't really a measure of activity, transactions are. How difficult would it be to use the number of transactions to vary the difficulty rather than the number of blocks? I appreciate that this is a massive change, but if Bitcoin is going to expand exponentially, it will need to address the empty blocks and the time delay problems. Increasing the size of already under-utilised blocks will not be a solution.
|
|
|
|
Following the attacks in ISIL income and reserves, they are now giving up the idea of creating their own money. They now use the currency of another country to fund their terrorism. Well they always did, but I gather it is now their everyday currency. What is that currency - The US dollar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8e2sv9fm0E |
|
|
|
Whether posts are long or short, the posts should add value to a thread and should not be merely because you are getting paid. People usually view threads that cross 10 pages as spam threads but all many not be just spam threads. There are also many users who keep posting the same questions "How to earn BTC" "How to gamble" and so on which makes users answer the same questions over and over again. In my knowledge, the following posts fall in the respective categories:
1. Very poor: "Thanks" "NP" "+1"
2. Poor: Less than 5 words, Posts without any meaning like "I like your idea and feel everyone should like it", "Posts containing too many emoticons" "Repeating the above posts" etc.
3. Average: Posts that are grammatically poor but the content is helpful to the users, engaging in a conversation without going off topic, giving references, posting meaningful content.
4. Good: Posts that are really helpful and have useful information (may it be technical responses regarding bitcoins, mining, wallet recovery and so on).
5. Excellent: Posts that are made by extremely knowledgeable people who give examples, tips, tricks, tutorials and explain their answers with examples. Their responses may be extremely long but the content is useful to one and all.
Obvious trolls and spammers do not fall in any category.
I agree with 1, 2, 4, and 5. I would qualify 3 to compensate for posters that don't have English as their first language. For example, should we downgrade you post because you say "less than 5 words" rather than " fewer than 5 words". Also, I think that people asking questions can be valuable members, even though their level of knowledge is low. |
|
|
|
It must be time to introduce a 2Mb blocksize, or would SigWit cure the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Blockchain pruning is in the next version of core.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the activity concept is good. I know it's a bit of a pain to have to wait, but it is better than just using the number of posts. Somebody like me can easily knock out 200 or more posts in a day if we have some background tasks going on.
I was going to say that there are a lot of (to me) low value threads with hundreds of replies. Topics such as "Bitcoin is dead", " Does Bitcoin cure erectile dysfunction", "Is Bitcoin better than Obamacoin" etc seem to appear quite often. However one does have to consider the economics of maintaining the board, and if these threads finance the really useful technical discussions, then they are valuable.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I don't think I explained myself very well. I was suggesting a permanently fixed block size of 1Mb, but the regulation of the unconfirmed transaction pool size by changing the hashing difficulty. This would mean that in a busy time, the number of blocks would increase, but when it quietened down, the difficulty would increase, thus reducing the number of blocks created. This could provide an incentive to miners to populate the blocks.
I can see one danger though. Selfish miners could submit unpopulated blocks to increase the pool, and thus allow them to create more blocks for higher rewards.
|
|
|
|
If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.
why not? Well I guess you could start a dating service, and encourage people to share the double pizza. |
|
|
|
|
If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
