Now we understand why full-nodes are as important as hash rate

[mindrust]

If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.

Full Node Power = Hash Power

That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.

And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.

As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.

Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.

[hv_]

So cool. So the scaling is done on those Rasp PIs then?

How this will play out? Say your Pi will do up to 4MB equivalent block size,good.


What is in these blocks insome years? Only high fee tx, big size settlements, none of yours.

So the scaling nodes have to be 2nd layer nodes for 20k$ each and they do the big business?

Will they route through your Pi?

Say bye to your Pi... or stay nichy alt.

[mindrust]

So cool. So the scaling is done on those Rasp PIs then?

How this will play out? Say your Pi will do up to 4MB equivalent block size,good.


What is in these blocks insome years? Only high fee tx, big size settlements, none of yours.

So the scaling nodes have to be 2nd layer nodes for 20k$ each and they do the big business?

Will they route through your Pi?

Say bye to your Pi... or stay nichy alt.

By your logic (and Craig W.), Cheap can't be legit.

Cheap can be legit. In fact it is the only way to be legit. Expensive means it can be purchased by the elites only. Miners are expensive. Their distribution/stocks are limited and only a few can get their hands on.

Nodes are cheap, available to everybody.

And that's not going to change. This community lost the ability to mine to the big companies and I am very angry at the devs who let this happen. But full-nodes will stay with the people.

Here is a "satoshi's true vision" for you.

[hv_]

So cool. So the scaling is done on those Rasp PIs then?

How this will play out? Say your Pi will do up to 4MB equivalent block size,good.


What is in these blocks insome years? Only high fee tx, big size settlements, none of yours.

So the scaling nodes have to be 2nd layer nodes for 20k$ each and they do the big business?

Will they route through your Pi?

Say bye to your Pi... or stay nichy alt.

By your logic (and Craig W.), Cheap can't be legit.

Cheap can be legit. In fact it is the only way to be legit. Expensive means it can be purchased by the elites only. Miners are expensive. Their distribution/stocks are limited and only a few can get their hands on.

Nodes are cheap, available to everybody.

And that's not going to change. This community lost the ability to mine to the big companies and I am very angry at the devs who let this happen. But full-nodes will stay with the people.

Here is a "satoshi's true vision" for you.

The true Satoshi vision is also that the early adopters and investors become the new elite.

What are e.g. miners?

[mindrust]

If you want to see bitcoin network handle more transaction, i think bitcoiner should forget use Raspberry PI or any mini-PC with slow CPU/small RAM.
Running full nodes don't have to expensive, but use Raspberry PI won't be practical in few years.

You don't have to use Raspberry's. It just shows us how cheap it can be.

I recently tried to run my UASF node and succeeded it but I needed to set up an external battery for my pi to protect it against power cuts/database corruptions and that was a lot of work so I let my 5 year old netbook handle the job. It is probably as worthless as a Rpi3 now.  

The true Satoshi vision is also that the early adopters and investors become the new elite.

What are e.g. miners?

Rekt.

Any real arguments? If not, back to my ignore list.

***Wait wait! Call fyookball before you leave. I'd like to hear his ideas about satoshi's tr00 vision.

[hv_]

If you want to see bitcoin network handle more transaction, i think bitcoiner should forget use Raspberry PI or any mini-PC with slow CPU/small RAM.
Running full nodes don't have to expensive, but use Raspberry PI won't be practical in few years.

You don't have to use Raspberry's. It just shows us how cheap it can be.

I recently tried to run my UASF node and succeeded it but I needed to set up an external battery for my pi to protect it against power cuts/database corruptions and that was a lot of work so I let my 5 year old netbook handle the job.

Have you ever heard about BCM = business continuity management ?

You see, no one will ever route a Billion$ Business through some waky shaky nodes. Forget it..

[Andre_Goldman]

bitcoin as computer ...
miners got the processor, users got the storage

[hv_]

bitcoin as computer ...
miners got the processor, users got the storage

Yep

And who buys the shit?

Consumers!

Who are the most Computer (Bitcoin) 'users' in the end?

Average Joe Consumers!

Do you decide, how the thing is built inside?  Not at all, it just need to work for your needs.

Masses should not care about ICs, rails, storage... This is getting cheaper all day.
But for Bitcoin high end processors you would not buy low budget shit storage ?

[williamuk]

If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.

Full Node Power = Hash Power

That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.

And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.

As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.

Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.

Running a full node does not mean supporting Core's actions.

As it stands I run a full node but have very little confidence in Core. I suspect a lot of node users are the same, using the free software but with no intention to equate that usage into support for what Core is doing

[cellard]

If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.

Full Node Power = Hash Power

That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.

And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.

As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.

Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.

We have seen the power of full validating nodes in action with BIP148/UASF. Is anyone delusional enough to think miners would be signaling 95%+ for segwit if we didn't press them against the edge with BIP148?

BIP148 won, big blockers got blown the fuck off. Now that we have segwit in, let's see how it works for a year, THEN we can plan a 2MB increase, not when some fucking retarded morons think want to in a stupid retarded way. If you don't agree, then fork off and create your altcoin, enjoy the dump.

[franky1]

We have seen the power of full validating nodes in action with BIP148/UASF. Is anyone delusional enough to think miners would be signaling 95%+ for segwit if we didn't press them against the edge with BIP148?

BIP148 won, big blockers got blown the fuck off. Now that we have segwit in, let's see how it works for a year, THEN we can plan a 2MB increase, not when some fucking retarded morons think want to in a stupid retarded way. If you don't agree, then fork off and create your altcoin, enjoy the dump.

core will never do it.

they have had segwit code for over a year. you sgwit fanboys have been playing the segwit script of "its been well tested for X years".. so core have had plenty of time to look beyond segwit and start innovating the next block template plan (dynamics) but instead they have given up and just resorted to either waiting around. buying all inclusive weekends for pools. or throwing out propaganda about how LN is the savior.

so dont expect dynamics to be part of cores roadmap.

you can try and call anything not core "moronic" all you like. but it seems the majority of segwit/LN supporters cannot even explain how segwit actually functions all you wish to do is promote the activation dates thinking thats the end of your troubles.

goodluck on your reliance of devs and your mindless thinking that your ass kissing of certain devs will last you a lifetime.. but here is something to wake you up

devs are human
devs get old/bored and move onto different projects
devs will not hold your hand in the future

we need to concentrate on bitcoin being a decentralised system thats not reliant on certain 'favorite' devs.
if you only trust code because of a dev, without you even bothering to learn how the code works or if it will run as suggested, then you have already lost the battle for a decentralised payment system and you might aswell just use paypal 2.0 aka LN or just go back to fiat.

some of you have gone one step too far in your dev worship and stopped thinking about code/logic/security and only thinking about faith and trust

[cellard]

We have seen the power of full validating nodes in action with BIP148/UASF. Is anyone delusional enough to think miners would be signaling 95%+ for segwit if we didn't press them against the edge with BIP148?

BIP148 won, big blockers got blown the fuck off. Now that we have segwit in, let's see how it works for a year, THEN we can plan a 2MB increase, not when some fucking retarded morons think want to in a stupid retarded way. If you don't agree, then fork off and create your altcoin, enjoy the dump.

core will never do it.

they have had segwit code for over a year. you sgwit fanboys have been playing the segwit script of "its been well tested for X years".. so core have had plenty of time to look beyond segwit and start innovating the next block template plan (dynamics) but instead they have given up and just resorted to either waiting around. buying all inclusive weekends for pools. or throwing out propaganda about how LN is the savior.

so dont expect dynamics to be part of cores roadmap.

you can try and call anything not core "moronic" all you like. but it seems the majority of segwit/LN supporters cannot even explain how segwit actually functions all you wish to do is promote the activation dates thinking thats the end of your troubles.

goodluck on your reliance of devs and your mindless thinking that your ass kissing of certain devs will last you a lifetime.. but here is something to wake you up

devs are human
devs get old/bored and move onto different projects
devs will not hold your hand in the future

we need to concentrate on bitcoin being a decentralised system thats not reliant on certain 'favorite' devs.
if you only trust code because of a dev, without you even bothering to learn how the code works or if it will run as suggested, then you have already lost the battle for a decentralised payment system and you might aswell just use paypal 2.0 aka LN or just go back to fiat

So now that segwit is going in, will you finally leave or will you stay here shitposting waiting for segwit to crash until the end of time?

Or maybe you will continue in the altcoin section shilling the latest Roger Ver hardfork?

What's the plan now for big blockers?

Or since you are smarter than all Core devs, maybe you can come up with your own bitcoin killer? Yeah, that I would like to see.

[Chicago]

Hello,

    I think this topic is an important one.
    Earlier this week, when BIP91 information was becoming a common topic of conversation around the office, I didn't quite appreciate the subtlety in which Bitcoin software would be the most beneficial "right now".

    Since I do want the BIP91 enforced chain which leads to BIP141 activation and enforcement to be the more robust network, I am doing the following.

       

• running one segsignal full-node to promote the desired block verification and propagation
• holding coin on Bitcoin Core v0.14.2

    The way I figure it, by 3AM or so tomorrow, the segsignal node will help the network by only relaying blocks which have version bit 4 enabled.
    I want this behavior so BIP141 activates on time.

   

   

Miners Right Now

    Its too early to tell what the next logical step will be if the majority of the hashing power leaves the Main network before BIP141 activates.
    Nonetheless, given the chance to ensure the Best Chain is the one with version bit 4 enforcement, I think the more people who run a full-node on segsignal "right now", the better it will be towards leading to BIP141 enforcement.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

[franky1]

So now that segwit is going in, will you finally leave or

will you finally take just 2 hours to understand segwit after having so long waiting for it. or do you only care about the dev control

Or maybe you will continue

have you even checked the effect of segwit on litecoin.
yep POOLS are not even using segwit keys ..
litecoin explorers havnt even updated their GUI site code to make segwit tx's visually displayable
the fixes are not fixed(malleation/quadratics). people can still spam and quadratic attack litecoin should they choose to

in the altcoin section shilling the latest Roger Ver hardfork?
will you stay here shitposting waiting for segwit to crash until the end of time?

1. i dont use the altcoin section for years, unless some core loving censorship loving sheep decides to move topics to altcoin section that dont deserve to be there,

2. its not shit posting, its just posting the details beyond the utopian dream your dev gods have been preaching.

3. simply you using the words "shilling" and "rogr ver hardfork" shows you know nothing about the reality of whats actually going on..

4.you need to spend less time reading reddit.

What's the plan now for big blockers?
Or since you are smarter than all Core devs, maybe you can come up with your own bitcoin killer? Yeah, that I would like to see.

lol you have no clue, your a sheep. please spend more time researching the code and reality, and stay away from reddit..

go on go check out litecoins utility of segwit. go look at all the pools that supported segwit, and see their coinbase tx's are not even using segwit keypairs. yep, the pools do not trust their block rewards to be held on segwit keypairs.

have a nice day.

[franky1]

   

   

Miners Right Now

seems chicago has the best understanding of the reality of whats happening with all the drama right now.

that gif explains easily.
now people just need to get passed the drama and actually look at the future REALITY of ACTUAL growth expectations and solutions

[error08]

If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.

Full Node Power = Hash Power

That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.

And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.

As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.

Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.

In other words, everyone could participate to increase full node power? without increase block size limit? Which lead to transactions be confirmed faster and low fees are acceptable?

You don't have to use Raspberry's. It just shows us how cheap it can be.

I recently tried to run my UASF node and succeeded it but I needed to set up an external battery for my pi to protect it against power cuts/database corruptions and that was a lot of work so I let my 5 year old netbook handle the job. It is probably as worthless as a Rpi3 now. 

If I purchase Rpi3 or others hardware to mining, could I run my UASF node? What is that mean "run my UASF node"?
Could I process my bitcoin transaction into the blockchain or let pools do it for us?
thank you.

[Yakamoto]

If you want to see bitcoin network handle more transaction, i think bitcoiner should forget use Raspberry PI or any mini-PC with slow CPU/small RAM.
Running full nodes don't have to expensive, but use Raspberry PI won't be practical in few years.

This is probably something that should be kept in mind for the entirety of the community and all of the moving parts that we see. While everything seems to work fine now and we don't need more powerful hardware, there are going to be requirements for better hardware in the future regardless of whether or not we want it now. And technology is likely going to get better and cheaper, so I personally won't worry about scaling up in the coming years because everything will get better over time. It will get cheaper and everything should be able to catch up.

[hv_]

If you want to see bitcoin network handle more transaction, i think bitcoiner should forget use Raspberry PI or any mini-PC with slow CPU/small RAM.
Running full nodes don't have to expensive, but use Raspberry PI won't be practical in few years.

This is probably something that should be kept in mind for the entirety of the community and all of the moving parts that we see. While everything seems to work fine now and we don't need more powerful hardware, there are going to be requirements for better hardware in the future regardless of whether or not we want it now. And technology is likely going to get better and cheaper, so I personally won't worry about scaling up in the coming years because everything will get better over time. It will get cheaper and everything should be able to catch up.

^+1

And this is exactly why we should not fear onchain scaling at all, just let the hardware blokes do their job.

[dinofelis]

If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.

Full Node Power = Hash Power

That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.

And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.

As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.

I fail to see where your "proof" is.  Everything that recently happened, were miner pool decisions.  The few miner pools decided to flip bits on the blocks THEY assembled.  In total, maybe 20 people have taken the recent decisions, and at no single point, any non-mining full node intervened in that process.  Everything has been decided by hash rate. 

I think that if the recent events show anything, it is exactly that which is already obvious from the principles of bitcoin's working: decisions are taken on the basis of proof of work ; not on any form of node count (which is so easily Sybilled that Satoshi invented proof of work as a decision scheme).

Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.

And how exactly did that raspberry flip the bits ?

[dinofelis]

We have seen the power of full validating nodes in action with BIP148/UASF. Is anyone delusional enough to think miners would be signaling 95%+ for segwit if we didn't press them against the edge with BIP148?

UASF was NOT a full node thing, it was ALSO a miner thing.  It is simply a misleading name for MINERS making a fork.  Whatever you do with your non-mining full node wouldn't have contributed zilch to "U" ASF, because you needed MINERS to make a new chain.  
UASF is as much "user" as the Deutsche Democratische Republik was democratic.  It is not because it's in the name, that it is true.

However, all this propaganda is needed to keep people away from the real problem of bitcoin and to keep them believe that bitcoin is decentralized (it isn't) and will provide "cheap and fluid transactions for the masses" (it can't).  I explained elsewhere why.

The ONLY "user activated HARD fork" that is possible in bitcoin, and only operated by full nodes, is a switch to proof of stake.  As long as bitcoin is proof of work consensus, as the name says, the decisions - all the decisions - are taking by those providing proof of work.  (all decisions except of course market price).