Sedangkan jika menggunakan sistem blockchain maka orang bisa melihat keuangan anda jika mengetahui alamat dompet rekening anda, tentu privacy anda menjadi kurang baik, tetapi bank pun tak bisa menggunakan uang anda untuk di pinjamkan ke nasabah lainnya karena anda akan tau kalo jumlah uang anda berkurang.
Sebagai catatan, hal ini hanya berlaku jika bank menggunakan public permissionless blockchain. Bank yang sifatnya tersentralisasi tentunya akan memilih private permissioned blockchain untuk memastikan mereka tetap memiliki kontrol dan menjaga privasi kustomer dari pihak lainnya (pihak selain bank dan pemerintah).  Source: https://velog.io/@dnjscksdn98/BlockChain-Public-Private-Permissionless-PermissionedJadi? manakah yang lebih baik?
Dari sisi customer, sistem konvensional dan sistem yang menggunakan private permissioned blockchain tidak terasa perbedaanya. |
|
|
|
And depending on the limitation, i would classify it as predatory behavior. For example, there are few ISP which advertise their internet with claim unlimited usage but also do one of these,
1. Very strict data caps/FUP[1] before your speed is slowed down significantly. In my country, i've seen few ISP which offer 50 Mbps with only 300GB monthly FUP. Even comcast (one of ISP in USA) has 1.2TB limit and then offer actual unlimited plan[2].
1.2 terabyte is alot for a single day. a DVD-R disc is about 5GB right? that's like downloading over 200 DVD movies or something in a single day. i'd say 99% of people don't have that type of need. shouldn't have that type of need and if they do then they're on the wrong plan. but if they do offer a truely unlimited plan as you say then that's what that is for i guess. As stated on news source i mentioned, it's 1.2TB per month. While it's still sufficient for many people or contribute to Bitcoin network by running full node while allowing incoming connection, it's definitely not true unlimited. And 1.2TB isn't a lot when it's used by family for zoom meeting and video streaming on almost daily basis with HD or higher resolution. For reference, since 2021 (when COVID happen and people work/study from home) there are 14% customer who use more than 1TB/month[1]. 2. Threaten to terminate their service for customer who use lots of data[3].
Homeboy downloaded about 18TB of data in one month and wonders why they threatened to cut him off. One mnth. 18 terabytes. you do the math. equals other people can't use their internet service because homeboy is downloading Linux ISO images like crazy. probably trying to sell them. Example i mentioned is definitely extreme case. But since we're talking about 18TB, i would speculate he just collect every Linux ISO which is exist on internet. And i've seen few people claim they receive similar threat when they exceed 2TB of internet usage. 3. Attempt to throttle VPN and Torrent[5] connection.
personal internet service is not really meant to do things like share torrents. lets say Joe tries to run bittorrent 24/7, then people all over the globe are going to be hitting him up for pieces of files. so what just happened is all those people became non-paying customers of Joe's ISP. they don't like that. I agree running bittorent 24/7 is a somehow extreme for home user. But those throttle also apply when you download files with bittorrent protocol. And as reminder, there's etiquette to have at least 1.0 or 1:1 ratio (e.g. if you download 1GB, you should also upload 1GB)[2], although some people say 0.5 ratio is acceptable. unlimited is only unlimited to the extent that you don't cause a problem with other paying customers or the ISP thinks you might be. then you're not on unlimited anymore.  Which IMO isn't true unlimited or isn't what customer expect when they see term "unlimited" on their advertising. It's not only about BRC-20 which is usually under 1kb, people are inscribing much bigger files ( https://www.ord.io/?contentType=video) at the moment for no apparent reason. I've almost never seen someone storing their NFT's collection files on Ethereum, but ORD community seems to encourage doing that on bitcoin and consider it innovative. Both of them could be stored elsewhere. But i'd say BRC-20 is worse since it create many TX and UTXO. I've seen one of the communities celebrate inscribing some of their used node_module packages on bitcoin a few hours ago.
Do you mind sharing the link?
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/02/internet-use-soared-throughout-2020-helping-isps-cash-in-on-data-caps/[2] https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-use-bittorrent |
|
|
|
Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate. They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.
Very interesting. Is there some technology under consideration to replace the traditional "initial blockchain download", or some concrete research on one? --snip-- I skimmed page you mentioned, but none of them mentioned UTXO commitment. I remember BCH community attempt to do that, but i never check whether they actually implement and use it. Although with new ~15 million UTXO due to BRC-20 hype, i wonder how well UTXO commitment works. Although people who don't care about verify whole blockchain or can trust certain person could just use download snapshot of pruned node from website such as https://prunednode.today/. In addition, ISP around the world would advertise their service with words such as "up to X Mbps". So if you get less than X, they couldn't be sued without very serious effort since they use term "up to" which is annoying.
well if you were an ISP you would do the exact same thing. You can't promise perfection. Another annoying thing these companies do is advertise their promo rates. They never want you to know what the price goes up to after that first 12 months is up. You have to probably call them and threaten to take them to court just to find out what their normal rate is... I get your point. But it's annoying when a customer only get less half or less of what ISP advertised most of the time. |
|
|
|
Say that Foundry USA, AntPool and F2Pool (which in total hold about 69% of the hash rate according to btc.com) cooperated to pretend there's network congestion, when there isn't. For example, say the median fee is 1 sat/vb. But, they don't like that, so they broadcast a thousand transactions paying 5-10 sat/vb, to encourage some of the users with 1 sat/vb to raise their fee rate. Pools' transactions don't cost them anything, because they don't include them into their candidate blocks. They just take advantage of the wallet software there exists which tells the user to pay more to have priority. If those pools doesn't include TX with high fee rate (which created by themselves) on their block, wouldn't people find it as odd/unusual behavior? For example, mempool.space have block audit[1] and block health[2] feature which can be used to check such behavior easily. Wouldn't the remaining 31% of the hash rate include those 10 sat/vb transactions in their blocks? They'd have less chance than the 69%. Also, the 69% could invalidate them at any time, and at a very low cost, just by making sure they use CPFP. For instance, a 10kb transaction paying 100 sat/vb, requires only a small transaction spending the parent, and invaliding the 10kb one. Another question, when or how should they decide to invalidate their transaction? [1] https://mempool.space/docs/faq#how-do-block-audits-work[2] https://mempool.space/docs/faq#what-is-block-health |
|
|
|
Has anyone faced this problem before?
Yes, but it also happens to few .onion domain i've visited. For reference, when you visit Bitcointalk.org on Tor Browser you actually visit .onion domain due to one of CloudFlare feature[1]. You can verify that by checking alt-svc header when you access any page on this forum. And as @PowerGlove said, i also use Ctrl+Shift+L to solve the problem. [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-onion-service/I've opened the Developer Tools window and searched in the Network tab but didn't find any mention of the alt-svc header. And it seems the issue that I was having is related to this service offered by Cloudfare as there is still discussing regarding how to display this routing per these tickets[1][2]: --snip-- Yeah, i also forget that Cloudflare's feature is buggy. Anyway, you should able to see alt-svc on response header. Here's an example  |
|
|
|
|
First of all, there's no thing such as "100% security" or "absolute security". But in general, hardware wallet (such as Trezor, ColdCard and Foundation Passport) are more secure than examples you've mentioned (online wallet, exchange and mobile wallet). Although if you're advanced user who don't mind some inconvenience, you can use airgapped computer/laptop which contain Bitcoin wallet software solely used to sign transaction.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone faced this problem before?
Yes, but it also happens to few .onion domain i've visited. For reference, when you visit Bitcointalk.org on Tor Browser you actually visit .onion domain due to one of CloudFlare feature[1]. You can verify that by checking alt-svc header when you access any page on this forum. And as @PowerGlove said, i also use Ctrl+Shift+L to solve the problem. [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-onion-service/ |
|
|
|
This shit can happen. How can this shit happen by mistake? You can't just "find out there's a timelock", you need to consciously specify it. How do you mean. I have an address to which people send money. I see money come in from my wallet, but at that moment i don't know if a timelock is on it, do I? If the wallet generate P2PK, P2PKH or P2WPKH address i can be 100% sure there's no timelock or other custom condition to spend it. On top of that, there are almost no Bitcoin wallet which support timelock feature. |
|
|
|
 For those who want to run a full node, the option of 500 GB is not available, given that we have reached 484 GB. Just curious guys is there any website or thread who predicting the full size of BTC block transaction when all bitcoin has been mined 21 million  . None, you'd have to make several assumption and make quick calculation. For example, i'll make prediction with these details 1. Each block will have average size 1.86MB[1] 2. Current block height is 793386 3. Current blockchain size is 486.89GB (498575.36 MB)[2] 4. Block height 6930000 is when mining has 0 mining reward[3] Total blocks will be mined = 6930000 - 793386 = 6136614 blocks
Blockchain size growth = 6136614 blocks * 1.86MB = 11414102.04 MB (11146.58 GB)
Blockchain size after 21M BTC mined = 486.89GB + 11146.58 GB = 11633.47 GB (11.36 TB)
But there's no way we won't see increase of maximum block size in a century. [1] https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000002/blocks?orgId=1&from=1675021380854&to=1686147220976&viewPanel=4[2] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply#Projected_Bitcoins_Long_Term |
|
|
|
--snip--
In the more extreme case, a TOR relay's proxy server could theoretically cache this information on a CDN such as Akamai, which would then transform the problem into a DDoS attack on said CDNs, which could cause them to sinkhole the IP addresses involved. Or perhaps the sinkholing can be done by the relays themselves with the proper network infrastructure, since I don't know if it's even practical for CDNs to get involved, even if it is in the very early stages before the bridges/guard nodes do anything else. I really hope people who run Tor hidden service wouldn't resort to 3rd party CDN. Even OnionBalance and Endgame which created for Tor hidden service isn't recommended by Tor project (as stated by article shared by OP). An out of the blue question:
I2P seems to be using hashcash as means of preventing email spamming and DDoS (back in the days by Adam Back, iirc)... I2P is way newer than Tor so why is Tor only now adopting a more effective way of dealing with DDoS?
I don't know since when I2P add Hashcash. But PoW proposal for Tor has been around since 2020[1] and the idea itself seems to be few years older. And FYI, I2P isn't exactly new since it was created on 2003[2]. They did use anything else before now?
Yes, some of them mentioned on their documentation[3]. [1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-June/014381.html[2] https://www.geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2021/08/28/History-of-I2P[3] https://community.torproject.org/onion-services/advanced/dos/ |
|
|
|
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)
but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing. I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection? 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.
wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set. Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option. And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.
why not? nothing wrong with bare metal. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data. I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.
--Why leave the high fee pool?
Note bold question. The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term. My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.
I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top pools decide to do that. |
|
|
|
Fuck if I was a CEO of one of the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.
Time to fork bitcoin. I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first. Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.
far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to. 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=nowoh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain. If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.
I have to think they will try it.
They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this. But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly. |
|
|
|
And if you try it and it asks to have access to your contacts, camera, etc. Delete and run away fast - there is no reason a mining monitor app would or should need that. Info needed to connect to a miner(s) and establish any links should only be entered by YOU when you setup the app and tied only to that specific app.
Such permission isn't mentioned at all on Google Play page.  Anyway, i decide to try the application on Android emulator. But i don't see any permission request pop-up and when i open the application on "Apps & notification" from Android setting, it says "No permissions requested". |
|
|
|
P.S. this is repost since my previous post was deleted by mistake.
Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment.
i can see how block sizes bumped up in february for sure but it's not like an exponential increase in block size they are just pushing the theoretical maximum limit of 4MB per block more i guess. the blockchain can't grow more than X amount of data per day. no matter how people are using it. before segwit that max limit was 1MB per block. so if someone has an issue about blockchain bloat then i guess they need to go back and complain about segwit then because it allowed the increase to 4MB... Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer. why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?
I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing. This is untrue. 1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342. 2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type. 3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5340900.0. See above detailed response by @gmaxwell. |
|
|
|
You can see growth of the blockchain was relatively linear up until early February of this year, which is when the Ordinals fad really started to kick in, then it sped up since then: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size Zooming out, blockchain size growth takes on more of an exponential quality but this probably isn't a good reason to hasten it. that graph looks very linear to me even since february. yes the slope changed but only very small increase in slope of the line segment. so it doesn't appear to me that the blockchain is growing any faster than it was before ordinals came out. maybe a just a tiny bit more and i don't know why that would be but it doesn't seem out of control or anything. how could it be? bitcoin only allows X amount of data to be stored every 10 minutes or so...that hasn't changed ever i don't think. Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment. Although i would just show you chart of block size in last 1 year.  Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000002/blocks?viewPanel=4&orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now |
|
|
|
C is pretty much the father of programming languages; just think that the entire linux kernel is written in C.
Not entire linux kernel though, very small amount of linux kernel are also written with Assembly, C++ and Rust. Everyone knows that C++ was and is one of the most famous programming languages out there and many of the top software creators have mastered the language and have built applications specifically in that language. Some of those well known applications that have been built using C++ code are Adobe Photoshop, Google chrome, Git, Dropbox, and many others. The most of the AAA titles use that language for creating those high graphics games. Even the operating systems are mainly codded with C++ programming language.
In 2008 the best language for programmers was C++ and there were many guides, and tutorials available for that language. Other languages weren't as efficient and as useful for creating high quality software piece in those times, the best programmers of the era chose C++ for their projects and most of those applications are still based on the same code with fixed bugs and added features.
While C++ indeed is great programming language, i can't help but think your statement is just very biased towards C++. 1. C++ is far from most famous programming language based on https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/. 2. Linux is almost entirely written with C, while Windows and Mac also use C. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/580300. 3. There's no such thing such as best programming language. |
|
|
|
I couldn't buy 1TB Samsung SSD so I've used Silicon Power A55 it's the cheapest SLC 2.5 SSD I've found.
FYI, your SSD actually only use SLC for it's cache. The memory flash type to store your data use TLC[2]. If you're looking for SSD which actually use SLC to store your data permanently, i expect it would be very expensive. Although there's nothing wrong with your SSD since it's fast enough to handle Bitcoin Core. --snip--
I mean after reading the OP, I am shocked as they were also stuck at some point even after utilizing SSD with 1 TB of storage. Having core size more and more day by day could be concerning as an individual. Do I need to replace entire SSD if someday blockchain goes beyond that space?
At very least, it shouldn't be caused by the SSD though. For reference, i use 3.5" HDD to run 3 instance of Bitcoin Core (mainnet, testnet and signet) without noticeable performance issue. [1] https://www.silicon-power.com/web/product-ace_a55[2] https://www.techpowerup.com/ssd-specs/silicon-power-ace-a55-1-tb.d1272 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
