Electrum Personal Server 0.2.0 Released

[Baofeng]

https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server/releases/tag/eps-v0.2.0

Released notes:

# Release v0.2.0 (5th December 2019)

New release, thanks to code contributions by suvayu, andrewtoth and Sosthene00
And thanks to everyone else who contributed via discussion and donations

* Implemented tor broadcasting of transactions, which happens by default if tor
  is running on the same machine.
* Also check that the last address of each master public key has been imported,
  along with the first three.
* Add bandwidth usage per day and blockchain size to the server banner
* Support using `vsize` instead of `size` for the mempool calculation, which is
  the correct behaviour for Bitcoin Core 0.19
* Allow rescan date to also be passed via CLI args. Wait for any rescanning to
  finish on startup. This allows Electrum Personal Server to be more easily
  used with scripting.
* Various other bugfixes

https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server/blob/master/release-notes

[1713895526]

1713895526

[1713895526]

1713895526

[1713895526]

1713895526

[1713895526]

1713895526

[1713895526]

1713895526

[DireWolfM14]

Wootwoot! 

I don't run a server, but I have a feeling this is to prepare for releasing their lightning compatible client software, which I am very excited about.

[DaveF]

And here I was planning on not doing much tonight. Guess I now have to play with this.

Do you know how much more overhead it puts on the machine running it? The PC I have running core at home is stressed as it is.

-Dave

[Baofeng]

Wootwoot! 

I don't run a server, but I have a feeling this is to prepare for releasing their lightning compatible client software, which I am very excited about.

Exactly, we don't know yet the release of the new Electrum but I'm sure LN support is going to be included.

@DaveF - I'm sorry, I can't answer your question. But I do hope that some 'expert' can chime in.

[DaveF]

@DaveF - I'm sorry, I can't answer your question. But I do hope that some 'expert' can chime in.

The answer is a lot. Sort of.
The node is a 3rd gen i3 with 8GB ram and an intel 460GB ssd running Windows 10 Pro.
Outside of the remote control software on it there is nothing else on there but bitcoin.
Then I installed the electrum personal server, then I installed electrum.
Then it felt like it was a single core Pentium running a 1 gb of ram and an old 5400 rpm drive.

Since it was late at that point I went to sleep. I'll check over the weekend to see if it just pushed it over some thing. (RAM, stressed CPU, etc.)
Could just be it's old at this point. As I said in my 1st comment it was kind of stressed as it was due to it's age.

If I can figure it out I'll post about it.

-Dave

[HCP]

Interesting... I have "electrs" running under Ubuntu via "Windows Subsystem for Linux" on a i5-3570K with only 8Gig of RAM... whilst I basically do everything else in Windows 10 (In addition to Bitcoin Core GUI running, QBittorent and Brave Browser, there is a shitload of useless stuff running like discord, steam and teamviewer and other bits and pieces) etc...

And this is the memory usage for it:


I'd be interested to see if you could get WSL, Ubuntu and electrs running on that machine and see how it compares to EPS.

[DaveF]

Looking at it I think it's a CPU when there are a lot of transactions (1100+)in the wallet or at least related to it. It's a 2 core 4 thread CPU.
Sitting idle it's fine. Once I open electrum to talk to the server BOTH threads 1 for electrum and one for the server spike and stay there.
If I load in an account with less transactions (150+) it seems fine.

With that being said it could also be something with the wallet itself, some odd transaction that is giving it a headache.
If I walk away and wait it's fine after a while, not sure how long. I was not paying attention and I was not recording process monitor.

Does someone else have a wallet with more then 1100 transactions they could test?
I'll post an issue on github when I am in the office next week.

-Dave

[Chikito]

Exactly, we don't know yet the release of the new Electrum but I'm sure LN support is going to be included.

When I see on electrum twitter, Someone Already running electrum LN with node

[DaveF]

So I never posted to github, that's on me. I keep forgetting when I am at work and it's tied to the office email.

Anyway, it's definitely not happy with larger wallets. I just dumped in another one with 1000s of transactions and again it's just sitting there with 2 threads maxed out.

Anyone else seeing this with bigger wallets. I'm assuming its just searching through an un-optimized database.

-Dave

[alomar]

https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server/releases/tag/eps-v0.2.0

Released notes:

# Release v0.2.0 (5th December 2019)

New release, thanks to code contributions by suvayu, andrewtoth and Sosthene00
And thanks to everyone else who contributed via discussion and donations

* Implemented tor broadcasting of transactions, which happens by default if tor
  is running on the same machine.
* Also check that the last address of each master public key has been imported,
  along with the first three.
* Add bandwidth usage per day and blockchain size to the server banner
* Support using `vsize` instead of `size` for the mempool calculation, which is
  the correct behaviour for Bitcoin Core 0.19
* Allow rescan date to also be passed via CLI args. Wait for any rescanning to
  finish on startup. This allows Electrum Personal Server to be more easily
  used with scripting.
* Various other bugfixes

https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server/blob/master/release-notes

user@user~/Downloads$ gpg --verify eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc
gpg: Signature made Thu 05 Dec 2019 01:51:58 AM PST
gpg:                using RSA key 0xEF734EA677F31129
gpg: BAD signature from "Chris Belcher <false@email.com>" [unknown]

[HCP]

user@user~/Downloads$ gpg --verify eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc

You're not verifying what you think you're verifying... You're trying to verify one .asc file, using another .asc file!!?!

You need to verify the matching binary file that goes with the .asc (ie. the ".tar.gz" or the ".zip")...

Try:

Code:

gpg --verify eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc  electrum-personal-server-eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz

or

Code:

gpg --verify electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip

Theoretically, you could just use "gpg --verify the_binary_filename.asc"... but ONLY if the .asc file has exactly the same name as the .zip file... so, it'd work with the windows_release .zip...

"electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc" == "electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip" + .asc
So, this works:

Code:

gpg --verify electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc

user@user~/Downloads$ gpg --verify electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in 'electrum-personal-server-windows-release-v0.2.0.zip'
gpg: Signature made Thu Dec  5 23:57:57 2019 NZDT
gpg:                using RSA key EF734EA677F31129
gpg: Good signature from "Chris Belcher <false@email.com>" [unknown]

But, it won't work with the .tar.gz as it has a different name to the .asc
"eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc" =/= "electrum-personal-server-eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz" +.asc

user@user~/Downloads$  gpg --verify eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc
gpg: no signed data
gpg: can't hash datafile: No data

You could also just rename the "tar.gz.asc" from "eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc" to "electrum-personal-server-eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc" and then the command would work:

user@user~/Downloads$  gpg --verify electrum-personal-server-eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in 'electrum-personal-server-eps-v0.2.0.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Thu Dec  5 22:51:58 2019 NZDT
gpg:                using RSA key EF734EA677F31129
gpg: Good signature from "Chris Belcher <false@email.com>" [unknown]

[Artemis3]

@DaveF - I'm sorry, I can't answer your question. But I do hope that some 'expert' can chime in.

The answer is a lot. Sort of.
The node is a 3rd gen i3 with 8GB ram and an intel 460GB ssd running Windows 10 Pro.
Outside of the remote control software on it there is nothing else on there but bitcoin.
Then I installed the electrum personal server, then I installed electrum.
Then it felt like it was a single core Pentium running a 1 gb of ram and an old 5400 rpm drive.

Since it was late at that point I went to sleep. I'll check over the weekend to see if it just pushed it over some thing. (RAM, stressed CPU, etc.)
Could just be it's old at this point. As I said in my 1st comment it was kind of stressed as it was due to it's age.

If I can figure it out I'll post about it.

-Dave

Why in the name of God are you even running a node on windows? Windows alone is a huge waste of resources, AND privacy and security nightmare. There is no reason you should not stick to a tiny linux server, that only takes a few hundred megs to install.

I have used this software before, it is very light and easy to run (on Linux, obviously). The largest strain comes from the Bitcoin node itself (i have zero idea about LN). You could run it in your Linux desktop and never notice its there (Electrum + personal server feels the same as running core).

I applaud the Tor integration, thanks for this release!

[alomar]

does eps work with BCH or BSV?

[50 Cent]

does eps work with BCH or BSV?

You should read https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server#how-to

download and install Bitcoin Core version 0.17 or higher

It means you have to use Bitcoin Blockchain. So it doesn't work for BCH and BSV.

[alomar]

does eps work with BCH or BSV?

You should read https://github.com/chris-belcher/electrum-personal-server#how-to

download and install Bitcoin Core version 0.17 or higher

It means you have to use Bitcoin Blockchain. So it doesn't work for BCH and BSV.

is it possible to run electrumX, electron cash, electrum SV, with BCH and BSV on the same OS as one running Bitcoin Core, electrum, and eps?

[HCP]

Is it possible to run electrumX, electron cash, electrum SV, with BCH and BSV on the same OS as one running Bitcoin Core, electrum, and eps?

I know you can run "Electrum", "Electron Cash" and "Electrum SV" at the same time... they all use different data directories and wallets. In addition, you can run Bitcoin Core alongside all of these without issue.

The problem you'll have is trying to use "Electron Cash" and "Electrum SV" with your own local "EPS", as I believe that "EPS" is only designed to work with Bitcoin Core and BTC... it will not work properly with forks like BCH and BSV.

"ElectrumX" however does support forks... and quite a lot of them... so you could theoretically run ElectrumX against a BCH or BSV full node client and then connect to it with "Electron Cash" or "Electrum SV". You would need a separate instance of "ElectrumX" for each coin/fork that you wanted to access.

So, something like this:

ElectrumX #1 -> Bitcoin Core
ElectrumX #2 -> Bitcoin ABC (or whatever the bch full node is called these days)
ElectrumX #3 -> BitcoinSV Core

You could then use:

Electrum -> ElectrumX #1
ElectronCash -> ElectrumX #2
ElectrumSV -> ElectrumX #3

[alomar]

Is it possible to run electrumX, electron cash, electrum SV, with BCH and BSV on the same OS as one running Bitcoin Core, electrum, and eps?

I know you can run "Electrum", "Electron Cash" and "Electrum SV" at the same time... they all use different data directories and wallets. In addition, you can run Bitcoin Core alongside all of these without issue.

The problem you'll have is trying to use "Electron Cash" and "Electrum SV" with your own local "EPS", as I believe that "EPS" is only designed to work with Bitcoin Core and BTC... it will not work properly with forks like BCH and BSV.

"ElectrumX" however does support forks... and quite a lot of them... so you could theoretically run ElectrumX against a BCH or BSV full node client and then connect to it with "Electron Cash" or "Electrum SV". You would need a separate instance of "ElectrumX" for each coin/fork that you wanted to access.

So, something like this:

ElectrumX #1 -> Bitcoin Core
ElectrumX #2 -> Bitcoin ABC (or whatever the bch full node is called these days)
ElectrumX #3 -> BitcoinSV Core

You could then use:

Electrum -> ElectrumX #1
ElectronCash -> ElectrumX #2
ElectrumSV -> ElectrumX #3

thanks.  that's a helpful framework.  but how would you run BCH/BSV full nodes in the presence of a BTC full node?  their -datadir directories overlap, do they not?  isn't there also intersection in commands, like ./bitcoind or ./bitcoin-qt, etc?

[HCP]

Not as far as I'm aware... BTC, BCH and BSV should all be using different datadirs...

It's possible that the ABC node is still being stupid and attempting to hijack existing BTC datadirs, like it did when the fork first happened... But as far as I'm aware, they stopped doing that.

I've successfully run BTC, BCH, BTG and other full nodes on the same machine at the same time.

[alomar]

Not as far as I'm aware... BTC, BCH and BSV should all be using different datadirs...

It's possible that the ABC node is still being stupid and attempting to hijack existing BTC datadirs, like it did when the fork first happened... But as far as I'm aware, they stopped doing that.

I've successfully run BTC, BCH, BTG and other full nodes on the same machine at the same time.

hmm, note that Core opens instead:

Code:

user@user:~/Downloads/bitcoin-sv-1.0.0.beta/src$ bitcoind
Bitcoin Core starting

[HCP]

try:

Code:

which bitcoind

Code:

echo $PATH

You'll probably find that it's picking up the bitcoind from /usr/local/bin instead of running the "bitcoind" in the local directory. If you want to override the "path"... use ./ notation to indicate you wish to run from the local dir (or provide the full path to the executable)...

For instance, from your "~/Downloads/bitcoin-sv-1.0.0.beta/src" directory

Code:

./bitcoind

or, from anywhere

Code:

~/Downloads/bitcoin-sv-1.0.0.beta/src/bitcoind

Assuming there is actually a "bitcoind" in your "~/Downloads/bitcoin-sv-1.0.0.beta/src/" directory