If this is true and the study findings are exact, this is pretty big! Never imagined they'd move more cash than BitPay... More than Bitpay, eh? I wonder what the operators of dark net markets will think about Bitcoin XT dropping support for Tor? They can choose: - Bitcoin Core - transactions limited to 7 tps, stream isolated over Tor
- Bitcoin XT - transactions limited to 56 tps, no Tor support
I wonder which one works better for their profit margins? Doesn't XT have Tor support? There were XT nodes on Tor in the past (as well as other Bitcoin Tor node related talk that might possibly be composed of XT nodes) |
|
|
|
I am 100% pro the changes that Bitcoin XT brings (although I would have chosen somewhat different growth parameters, but still). However I'm very much against Bitcoin XT. Splitting up Bitcoin in Core vs XT is absolutely NOT what we need or want. Even if no major problems would occur, it WILL cause a truckload of uncertainty, doubt, FUD, fear, ambiguity, market disturbance, and delay in Bitcoin going mature and mainstream. PLEASE, CORE DEVS, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN  Now this was a really good post, 100% agreed. A pretty nice way to put, haven't actually thought about that. It would be amazing if Core eventually ends up adopting some XT features! |
|
|
|
Survey done. "I like the color red"? What was that about?  |
|
|
|
Tell that to companies like Time Warner Cable, and Comcast. They're not going to give you fast internet until more people take action.
Then take action  Move operators and make them have cheaper and faster services. That's what happened in my country. people constantly change operators unless they give them cheap and reliable services. I know it's easier said than done... But it's not an impossible task. I don't see how a country like the US can't update their internet services. You have control over which hard disk you buy, but you don't have any control on networking development near your location.
Yes, that's the downside. You can ask you provider to increase coverage on your area though. Not sure if such requests are heard outside Europe. Bullshit.
I been in areas where the only internet you can get is dial-up.
And most US ISPs limit their clients alot.
So I've heard. Areas with dial-up will either have to be upgraded, or satellite internet will take over. It can take years tho, that's for sure... As for throttling, the contracts normally state that throttling can be enabled. I assume you're talking about the US. Recently AT&T disabled throttling on grandfathered unlimited 4G plans. So I guess people from the states got that going for them  And that's something that's not happening in Europe for now. And also, we're moving into the era where KB/s is becoming commoditised; Illinois state recently imposed a "Download" tax. Unlimited data plans are likely to become either increasingly expensive or totally extinct. The revolution will not be over corporate TCP/IP?
Bad news. Are there any big businesses that depend on connectivity in Illinois? Such companies will probably depart from there... storage no problem. bandwidth no problem: Extracting the figures gives: #Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit #Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit #Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s #Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551My point exactly Bandwidth might take long to reach some areas but it eventually will. Precisely what I've been saying for quite some time: hard drives will be faster, cheaper and bigger with time... Holding the blockchain will be less and less of a problem You don't even need to store the blockchain. You can safely delete it after you have verified it and built the UTXO. All you actually need is the UTXO, which is basically a list of every address that currently has Bitcoins, you don't need to store the historical data of where those Bitcoins were before, you only need verify it once and then you can safely delete it. The big problem with scalability is bandwidth. Internet speeds vary greatly around the world and don't grow at as fast a rate as hard drives do. However this isn't as big as a problem as most people think. Usenet is a decentralized computer network, yet there are only a handful of usenet servers. Not everyone needs to run a Bitcoin node, if that was the case then Satoshi would have never wrote about SPV wallets. You only need to connect to 1 Bitcoin node that is honest, it doesnt matter if every other node you connect to is malicious. As long as there is 1 honest node then we are fine. Nobody is concerned about storage space but they are concerned about bandwidth, I believe this must only be a North American problem as Europe has much better internet speeds and bandwidth then us.
No we don't! we want Google Fiber! Exactly, excellent post. Besides, better pruning support is coming out in near future on Bitcoin Core... In my country we only want Google Fiber if it's cheaper than current services, fortunately prices drive the market here And then service quality eventually comes. ISP's are constantly smashing each other with promotions. Vodafone now has fiber service here and is making very competitive prices. I said my ISP that they either match their prices to Vodafone or I'd switch services. They ended up matching the price This is the kind of things Americans have to do. They would probably pressure their ISP's more. In Europe there are laws allowing people to end contracts without having to pay a dime of what's left of their contract term. But that's talks for another topic. but for the low connecting speed location, it is really a problem for them! So SPV wallets are a good replacement for Bitcoin core!
Yes, SPV functionality is definitely useful!! Especially for mobile clients! |
|
|
|
|
Nodes are voluntary work. That being said, you can host a page on your node asking for donations. Bitnodes also has a "rewards program" that gives tips to random nodes.
|
|
|
|
It's not so much a storage problem.
It's the matter of downloading it.
Some of us are not so blessed with fast internet speeds.
Internet speeds will follow the same path as disks and pretty much everything in technology... |
|
|
|
Precisely what I've been saying for quite some time: hard drives will be faster, cheaper and bigger with time... Holding the blockchain will be less and less of a problem |
|
|
|
Problem with that post is you can't prove its *not* him.
For all we know he dumped all the priv keys for everything when he decided to quit, wallets, accounts, PGP key and all. We've all done similar at some point in our lives, made a decision with a sure mind, and removed all ability to recover it, burned the bridge so to speak.
If those accounts had indeed been compromised, I think it's fair to assume that the attackers of those accounts would "chime in" as Satoshi more than just twice. Any activity on those accounts has the power to influence, or at least sow the seed of doubt/FUD which the attackers could then profit.
Yet since he left, we've seen 1 occurrence to clear Dorian's name, and this today expressing his disappointment on the block size issue. If anyone other than Satoshi held control of those accounts, I wager that position would be milked dry for personal gain.
I see what you mean, but we can prove it's not him if he doesn't sign it fast. From what we know of Satoshi, what you're saying is highly improbable (although not impossible, obviously). Satoshi questioned why would anyone throw a wallet away for any reason, and said on the forums we should always keep a wallet. So he most probably did not throw any keys away. If someone has full control of his accounts and no access to his PGP key, he can only troll. |
|
|
|
|
Has Armory been tested with recent versions of BitcoinXT? I take it there are no issues, as XT is pretty much the same as Core, with added capabilities, but I was curious if this setup was already tested by developers and if there's any issue with it.
|
|
|
|
I believe people don't care about pruning that much as the blozksize bebate draws lots of attention.
It will become more popular as soon as the block size issue gets resolved(which, according to my estimations won't, at least in the short-mid term.)
I partly disagree. People do generally care about pruning, and have been talking for quite some time about it, but it's just pretty much a "beta" feature at this time and not really usable with anything, and that's what puts people off. You can't be a node and you can't run a wallet with pruning on. So, for most people, why prune? Might as well leave Bitcoin Core off. The block size is indeed part of the problem, and it will get worse if/when we switch to 8MB blocks and we start getting them filled. Or maybe not Hard drive space will get bigger and cheaper... And when we have full 8MB blocks we will probably have most issues related to pruning solved |
|
|
|
Can someone post a link or explain the cons and pros of running a pruned node?
I have not found such information.
What are the implications in running a pruned node for the Bitcoin network?
tia
You can read about pruning here. Unfortunately there isn't much discussion about this, as far as I know (probably because not many people use pruning yet...). if there are some discussions about this new feature and it's future I'd also like to know! |
|
|
|
There are already two threads about this... One was made after this one was posted. I've seen the timestamps on the three threads... |
|
|
|
Can the developpers push the wallet mode (SPV ?) in pruning mode ... work ? I have a 46,5 Go blockchain folder ... and my limit is 50 Go for ... Bitcoin (1/3 of my SSD).  Pruning will probably be compatible with wallet features in near future. For now, it's not compatible. You can have Bitcoin Core on your SSD and you database on a HDD. You lose snappiness but you have more space for the ever growing blockchain |
|
|
|
There are already two threads about this... |
|
|
|
|
The fact that he never signed anything with his key is irrelevant. If it is really him, he must be aware by now that we all believe he is MIA and therefore must prove his identity. As people say on the internet, "tits or GTFO", this time is signature or GTFO
|
|
|
|
I don't think the p2p system has issues. As you said, problems aren't only limited to internet connection... They are mostly not caused by internet connection problems: the hardware is to blame. It's easier to have a 100+MB connection than a nicely equipped computer. If you browse the forums you can see feedback of people syncing the blockchain pretty quickly. Obviously not everyone has access to an 8+GB RAM computer, 256GB+ SSD and a fast processor. But what I mean is, the impact that a fast computer has on syncing a blockchain is much bigger than a faster connection. As for issues with Bitcoin-qt, I haven't had much in 2 years of using the software. Some problems are simply between the keyboard and the chair So how many connections are there nowadays? Maybe you are experienced enough to get connected to fast nodes then. While others, who didn't run the wallet since weeks or months, might only find slow nodes. Is there still the 8 nodes limit? If so then this sounds like a possible explaination that you get it downloaded and confirmed fast and others not. And CPU and harddisc? I somehow doubt that. Copying some GB on a harddisc is a matter of minutes and confirming the whole blockchain is the same. So someone would need to have a really bad computer to have to wait many hours or days. I am not very experienced. I have a home node that is connected whenever my computer is connected and I've setup full nodes for Bitcoin and alts. I don't exactly have a special config either, nor do I have a set of nodes I usually connect to. What I know is, as an example, my home computer is 6 years old and takes slightly more than a day to sync the blockchain and the handicap is clearly hardware. My connection is constantly idle while syncing. A day doesn't seem that much to setup something so resource demanding. The node limit still seems to be applied. My computer is far from fast downloading the blockcahin. That's why my copy of it is quite a few years old I just keep it in a separate drive in case I have to format, and when I update Bitcoin Core I point it to that folder. Syncing the blockchain isn't as simple as copying files. The files are just copied. The blockchain is downloaded and verified As I said I'm not an expert. I'm just replying based of what I know and experienced while setting up this kind of software As for 0.10+ being faster, I seriously don't know, and I'm not willing to test and go a whole day without having my Bitcoin Core not operational  But I've heard several reports of it being faster than downloading the bootstrap file. I still don't think the p2p interface is flawed. Maybe it's too 2009-ish, who knows? I'm not the right person to judge that. I don't think it's ill implemented. But there might be better ways now to make it, but that would probably require a rebuild of Bitcoin Core, and the changes that are usually made are more on the conservative side. |
|
|
|
I don't think the p2p system has issues. As you said, problems aren't only limited to internet connection... They are mostly not caused by internet connection problems: the hardware is to blame. It's easier to have a 100+MB connection than a nicely equipped computer. If you browse the forums you can see feedback of people syncing the blockchain pretty quickly. Obviously not everyone has access to an 8+GB RAM computer, 256GB+ SSD and a fast processor. But what I mean is, the impact that a fast computer has on syncing a blockchain is much bigger than a faster connection. As for issues with Bitcoin-qt, I haven't had much in 2 years of using the software. Some problems are simply between the keyboard and the chair |
|
|
|
|
If the issue is indeed in the wallet file and if you are simply running a full node, you can disable wallet support altogether, using the -disablewallet command
|
|
|
|
|
Armory cannot use a remote blockchain database. You can, however, connect to your Bitcoin node with bitcoind to download the blockchain faster.
If you're using bitcoind on a home computer with a HDD and 2-4GB ram, a day and a half is a pretty normal time for syncing. The problem isn't mainly on connections, it's on hardware, specially hard drives.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
