Bitcoin for bandwidth limited users

[johnjacksonbtc]

I recently had a discussion with new bitcoin user and he asked how to get started with bitcoin. I directed him to Bitcoin Core download page and explained about disk usage and bandwidth requirements. Disk requirements could be lowered with pruning but his monthly bandwidth limit does not allow to download blockchain in reasonable time and using bitcoin client for him does not seem to be an option. I was unhappy to do it but I directed him to some online wallet sites. He might not feel importance of bitcoin private keys and he would treat bitcoin as an digital cash without any difference from website that says 'you have won thousand bucks'. 'And where is cryptography?'

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet. Closest data to private keys that would be transmitted would be public address. Adding watch only address from his would work in same way. It would be less safe than usual full node but safer that online wallet website when you need to guess where your private keys are hanging around and with who. This would need additional both side identification with preshared public keys to prevent host abuse.

[longbob72]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

[CryptoDatabase]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

Of the two Electrum would be the best to get. It syncs light years ahead of the other clients and takes up minuscule amounts of space and bandwidth but there is a risk involved with using it as has already happened with the Doge electrum wallet.

If the BTC electrum servers get taken down or offline or whatever then those who use it run the risk of losing their coins unless they have their private keys saved for their coins.

[ranochigo]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

If the BTC electrum servers get taken down or offline or whatever then those who use it run the risk of losing their coins unless they have their private keys saved for their coins.

Anyone can run an Electrum severs[1] alongside their Bitcoin Core. The issue with doge electrum wallet was the lack of servers which is definitely not a problem with Bitcoin Electrum. People can set up their own nodes to connect to. You can also export the keys on Electrum if you need to; Wallet>Private Keys>Export.

[1] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server

[CryptoDatabase]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

If the BTC electrum servers get taken down or offline or whatever then those who use it run the risk of losing their coins unless they have their private keys saved for their coins.

Anyone can run an Electrum severs[1] alongside their Bitcoin Core. The issue with doge electrum wallet was the lack of servers which is definitely not a problem with Bitcoin Electrum. People can set up their own nodes to connect to. You can also export the keys on Electrum if you need to; Wallet>Private Keys>Export.

[1] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server

Just because people can set up their own don't mean they will. I'll reference the Doge electrum again for this instance. Users could have set up their own and kept it going but that wasn't the case and those that were counting on that were mistaken.

[maokoto]

Yes those kind of wallets can be a solution. I use microwallet HD and it works fine too, not being very costly in resources.

[Jet Cash]

He can still use core. Find someone he can trust, and get a copy of the blockchain on a usb stick. Then he can use free WiFi to sync his wallet. A pruning node with no signature info ( when SegWit arrives) will save on disk space.

[tobacco123]

A full node will be good to support the network but that is not required of general users who just use bitcoin without the need to understand bitcoins in details.

Mobile wallets will be a good start without worry about bandwidth...

[johnjacksonbtc]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

If the BTC electrum servers get taken down or offline or whatever then those who use it run the risk of losing their coins unless they have their private keys saved for their coins.

Anyone can run an Electrum severs[1] alongside their Bitcoin Core. The issue with doge electrum wallet was the lack of servers which is definitely not a problem with Bitcoin Electrum. People can set up their own nodes to connect to. You can also export the keys on Electrum if you need to; Wallet>Private Keys>Export.

[1] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server

Just because people can set up their own don't mean they will. I'll reference the Doge electrum again for this instance. Users could have set up their own and kept it going but that wasn't the case and those that were counting on that were mistaken.

It seems these servers are not quite stable or secure. I found Bitcoin-QT solid, stable and secure and easy to use. I believe if these features would be implemented in Bitcoin Core it would remain easy setup & run and secure. If there is any possibility losing funds because of not users fault, there is certainly more than one copy of private keys online and I would not recommend using it.

He can still use core. Find someone he can trust, and get a copy of the blockchain on a usb stick. Then he can use free WiFi to sync his wallet. A pruning node with no signature info ( when SegWit arrives) will save on disk space.

Transmitting more than 10GB of data is certainly not an option. I am trying to provide 100% complete support to reach a goal and redirecting users with half-done things to others isn't in my style, it simply does not works. If he had found someone he can trust about bitcoins then he would not ask me for support.

I will have a look at these wallets but currently looks client-to-website solution is best if full or pruned bitcoin node approach fails.

[Cuidler]

He can still use core. Find someone he can trust, and get a copy of the blockchain on a usb stick. Then he can use free WiFi to sync his wallet. A pruning node with no signature info ( when SegWit arrives) will save on disk space.

Maybe he cant even afford 5 GB monthly, so he simply cannot use full node. But thats fine, full node cannot be guaranteed to work for everyone, there are even people who just have available few hundred MB monthly bandwidth!

[aso118]

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet.

that's what SPV clients, like electrum and multibit, does. they don't need you to download 70GB~ of data.

Electrum would be the ideal wallet to use, if you don't want to use up bandwidth.
There are a lot of web based wallets too, which can be tried to get acquainted with bitcoin.

[ebliever]

I used to be limited to 4 GB/month when I was GPU mining altcoins in 2014, and I'm still at 10 GB/month now using DISH here in the boondocks. I use Electrum, and have a Multi-bit wallet. No problems with either regarding bandwidth. As someone else mentioned, even if Electrum's servers went down you could still just export the private key and use it with any other wallet that can import keys. So don't scare people with some notion that they can lose their bitcoin due to a future failure of Electrum's network. That's not the case - bitcoin exists in the blockchain, and so long as you have your keys and the blockchain is out there, you're fine.

[Jasad]

I recently had a discussion with new bitcoin user and he asked how to get started with bitcoin. I directed him to Bitcoin Core download page and explained about disk usage and bandwidth requirements. Disk requirements could be lowered with pruning but his monthly bandwidth limit does not allow to download blockchain in reasonable time and using bitcoin client for him does not seem to be an option. I was unhappy to do it but I directed him to some online wallet sites. He might not feel importance of bitcoin private keys and he would treat bitcoin as an digital cash without any difference from website that says 'you have won thousand bucks'. 'And where is cryptography?'

Use of bitcoin client would be easier for him if all data expensive operations are done by third party client (for example my client) and his client would be able to verify found transactions and and them to his wallet. Closest data to private keys that would be transmitted would be public address. Adding watch only address from his would work in same way. It would be less safe than usual full node but safer that online wallet website when you need to guess where your private keys are hanging around and with who. This would need additional both side identification with preshared public keys to prevent host abuse.

simple,teach your mate to use online wallet and dont tell him about bitcoin mining or bitcoin core wallet,its too weight for bandwith.
started with bitcoin should not start with mining or other work related with bitcoin,just tell them about bitcoin concept and faucet.

[ebliever]

simple,teach your mate to use online wallet and dont tell him about bitcoin mining or bitcoin core wallet,its too weight for bandwith.
started with bitcoin should not start with mining or other work related with bitcoin,just tell them about bitcoin concept and faucet.

But if you do this, explain that he is not controlling his own wallet and is trusting that the online wallet provider is both trustworthy and competent against hackers. Experience has shown that trusting online wallets is risky.

On the flip side, any lite client wallet (such as Electrum) MUST have properly secured backups prior to use. Otherwise he risks losing his bitcoin in a hardware crash or similar event (such as a house fire - in which case there should be a remote backup). Teach new bitcoiners now, so it's not something they learn the hard way.

And for goodness sake, make sure he understands that "p#ssword", "123123123" etc. are not good passwords for his wallet, whatever he chooses.

[CryptoDatabase]

even if Electrum's servers went down you could still just export the private key and use it with any other wallet that can import keys. So don't scare people with some notion that they can lose their bitcoin due to a future failure of Electrum's network.

Ignoring the fact that you can lose your BTC if the electrum network fails isn't a very wise thing to do. Just because you ignore a problem doesn't make it go away.

It doesn't matter if it is likely to happen or not, that risk will always be there and just like the Dogecoin electrum failure a lot of people will lose their coins.

It could have been prevented though, by people posting comments like the one I posted above informing people of the dangers of using the electrum network to receive and send coins. Helping spread awareness is the best defense. You posting saying not to 'scare' someone is completely foolish. You should be explaining to them the dangers as well as the benefits, not just that everything is ok and that it is the safest thing to use.

Even BTC Core isn't safe, what happens when the miners stop mining and blocks cannot be confirmed? It can happen as it has happened hundreds of times before to other coins.

[ebliever]

even if Electrum's servers went down you could still just export the private key and use it with any other wallet that can import keys. So don't scare people with some notion that they can lose their bitcoin due to a future failure of Electrum's network.

Ignoring the fact that you can lose your BTC if the electrum network fails isn't a very wise thing to do. Just because you ignore a problem doesn't make it go away.

It doesn't matter if it is likely to happen or not, that risk will always be there and just like the Dogecoin electrum failure a lot of people will lose their coins.

It could have been prevented though, by people posting comments like the one I posted above informing people of the dangers of using the electrum network to receive and send coins. Helping spread awareness is the best defense. You posting saying not to 'scare' someone is completely foolish. You should be explaining to them the dangers as well as the benefits, not just that everything is ok and that it is the safest thing to use.

Even BTC Core isn't safe, what happens when the miners stop mining and blocks cannot be confirmed? It can happen as it has happened hundreds of times before to other coins.

Please explain how the Electrum network going down would cause data in the blockchain (or private keys in a wallet file) to disappear?

[CryptoDatabase]

even if Electrum's servers went down you could still just export the private key and use it with any other wallet that can import keys. So don't scare people with some notion that they can lose their bitcoin due to a future failure of Electrum's network.

Ignoring the fact that you can lose your BTC if the electrum network fails isn't a very wise thing to do. Just because you ignore a problem doesn't make it go away.

It doesn't matter if it is likely to happen or not, that risk will always be there and just like the Dogecoin electrum failure a lot of people will lose their coins.

It could have been prevented though, by people posting comments like the one I posted above informing people of the dangers of using the electrum network to receive and send coins. Helping spread awareness is the best defense. You posting saying not to 'scare' someone is completely foolish. You should be explaining to them the dangers as well as the benefits, not just that everything is ok and that it is the safest thing to use.

Even BTC Core isn't safe, what happens when the miners stop mining and blocks cannot be confirmed? It can happen as it has happened hundreds of times before to other coins.

Please explain how the Electrum network going down would cause data in the blockchain (or private keys in a wallet file) to disappear?

Well for one nowhere did I say that data or keys would disappear. I specifically said they would lose their coins if they didn't have their private keys.

Actually doing research and not posting misinformation, I found many people who were unable to retrieve their Dogecoins from their electrum wallets after it went down. Not because the blockchain disappeared, which is absurd, but because they didn't know how to export private keys and manually create a new transaction to import them.

The client starts up but needs at least one working server to verify transactions/balances, since Electrum doesn't download the entire blockchain like the Qt wallet does. The keys are locally stored, but converting the exported keys from one wallet program to another is not straightforward, as they all use different import/export file formats.

If you don't know how to do this then odds are you've lost your coins.

I don't know about you, but I actually research into things before I use them. Knowing the risks beforehand will help prevent losses later on down the road. You trying to portray it as completely safe is a lie. Nothing is completely safe.

EDIT - Ironically this thread just popped up, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462886

[franky1]

He can still use core. Find someone he can trust, and get a copy of the blockchain on a usb stick. Then he can use free WiFi to sync his wallet. A pruning node with no signature info ( when SegWit arrives) will save on disk space.

but then you are no longer a full node. so you might aswell just use electrum

[Kakmakr]

He can still use core. Find someone he can trust, and get a copy of the blockchain on a usb stick. Then he can use free WiFi to sync his wallet. A pruning node with no signature info ( when SegWit arrives) will save on disk space.

but then you are no longer a full node. so you might aswell just use electrum

Not everyone needs to run a full node, Yes it would be better for the decentralization of the network, but should only be an option when the user can afford the disk space and the bandwidth required to run a full node. A new user should start with the basics and work their way up to the more technical stuff.

We want people to jump in at the deep end of the pool, but they have not learned how to swim yet.   

[mkc]

I agree electrum or multibit. They don't have full data.

Actually, show you friend to use a paper wallet, running Electrum without private key, that way it will be quite safe.