Can we still advertise the Satoshi Client for noobs?

[paraipan]

...

i thought multibit would not need a special server?

post in the other thread so flatfly can fix it

opps, my bad, multibit is a standalone based on bitcoinj lib

FIX EDIT: the portability issue was already addressed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83768.msg923865#msg923865

[1715249193]

1715249193

[1715249193]

1715249193

[giszmo]

You seem to have those libs uptodate, hmm, are you using the "daemon" or the "qt" desktop version ?

I started bin/32/bitcoind -daemon. Anyway shouldn't if at all the daemon be faster than the X version and not the inverse? Here people seam to be talking of having a lightning fast 30 minutes wait for the qt version.

[Daily Anarchist]

I only suggest eWallets to noobs.

Which ewallet do you suggest?

[hazek]

I only suggest eWallets to noobs.

Which ewallet do you suggest?

I use and like blockchain the most so that's what I recommend.

[tvbcof]

When it becomes commonly accepted that transmission nodes in the Bitcoin network are feasibly mainly to those with dedicated or specialized hardware in environments where network connectivity significantly exceeds what joe-sixpack has access to, I doubt that it will bounce back (to 'users run nodes') no matter what the theory says is possible.

At that point Bitcoin is, to me, a much different solution than the one which initially appealed to me and one with a different set of dangers.  It will also be at that point that I will be on the lookout for a good point to bail.  That is, one which maximizes my profits (or limits my losses as the case may be), and that has not been the overriding factor in my interest in the solution to date.

There is not much to actually argue about here since this is just my opinion and mindset.  It also seems that I have a lonely position here which is not representative of the user-base.  But just in case, I state it in case it has an impact on development priorities.

[paraipan]

When it becomes commonly accepted that transmission nodes in the Bitcoin network are feasibly mainly to those with dedicated or specialized hardware in environments where network connectivity significantly exceeds what joe-sixpack has access to, I doubt that it will bounce back (to 'users run nodes') no matter what the theory says is possible.

At that point Bitcoin is, to me, a much different solution than the one which initially appealed to me and one with a different set of dangers.  It will also be at that point that I will be on the lookout for a good point to bail.  That is, one which maximizes my profits (or limits my losses as the case may be), and that has not been the overriding factor in my interest in the solution to date.

There is not much to actually argue about here since this is just my opinion and mindset.  It also seems that I have a lonely position here which is not representative of the user-base.  But just in case, I state it in case it has an impact on development priorities.

[tvbcof]

When it becomes commonly accepted that transmission nodes in the Bitcoin network are feasibly mainly to those with dedicated or specialized hardware in environments where network connectivity significantly exceeds what joe-sixpack has access to, I doubt that it will bounce back (to 'users run nodes') no matter what the theory says is possible.

At that point Bitcoin is, to me, a much different solution than the one which initially appealed to me and one with a different set of dangers.  It will also be at that point that I will be on the lookout for a good point to bail.  That is, one which maximizes my profits (or limits my losses as the case may be), and that has not been the overriding factor in my interest in the solution to date.

There is not much to actually argue about here since this is just my opinion and mindset.  It also seems that I have a lonely position here which is not representative of the user-base.  But just in case, I state it in case it has an impact on development priorities.

Ya, looking more than a few months ahead baffles and confuses a large majority of humans.  What can ya do?

[hazek]

The very first thing people do when they join Bitcoin is to try the satoshi client.

Can show some evidence to support this statement?

[paraipan]

your DB libs could be out of date, dunno just saying. I've tested it a few times on various ubuntu machines and it has completed the blockchain download in the same amount of time ~30-40 minutes.

Gracias @paraipan, voy a investigar como arreglar el asunto para Debian. Felicitaciones por tu nuevo cargo en el foro.
...

Vale, lo mismo das con la solucion antes que yo, mantenos informados tio, y gracias por el cumplido.

(Ok, you will probably find the solution before I do, keep us posted dude, and thanks for the compliment.)

[hazek]

I'm sorry, you did the positive statement, you bare the burden of proof.

Since you admit it's just speculation I'd like to let you know I do not share the same view as you and will ignore yours.

[TobyGoodwin]

I expect it to take more than 24h to download the blockchain.

I'm just testing this now, with the 64-bit Linux bitcoind client. To begin with, I get around 150 blocks per second, which would be consistent with reports from other users of around 20 - 30m to get the entire chain. But around block #120000 it starts to slow down dramatically. I'm down to about 3 blocks per second around #150000. Is this normal?

As far as I can see, bitcoind is not starved of CPU, memory, or disk I/O, so it must be the network that's slowing it down. This is a not particularly great ADSL line.

Toby.

[TobyGoodwin]

I'm just testing this now, with the 64-bit Linux bitcoind client. To begin with, I get around 150 blocks per second, which would be consistent with reports from other users of around 20 - 30m to get the entire chain. But around block #120000 it starts to slow down dramatically. I'm down to about 3 blocks per second around #150000. Is this normal?

So here are the full results.

http://static.paccrat.org/img/btc-ts.png

The slowdown between #100k and #120k is quite dramatic. I'm not (yet!) familiar enough with bitcoin internals to know if this is expected behaviour. Can anyone explain it?

Thanks,

Toby.

[bitfreak!]

I don't recommend eWallets for noobs because they aren't really as safe as using a desktop client.

But wouldn't it be better to recommend MultiBit or Electrum for noobs rather than the Satoshi Client?

It seems to me one doesn't really need to acquire the whole blockchain unless they have a real reason.

It's simply becoming too large too quickly imo. Let the heavy duty servers deal with it.

Not everyone needs to have the Satoshi Client and a full blockchain stored locally.

[bitfreak!]

The slowdown between #100k and #120k is quite dramatic. I'm not (yet!) familiar enough with bitcoin internals to know if this is expected behaviour. Can anyone explain it?

Yes I seem to be experiencing the same thing, as are many others, so I would like to know if it's normal.

[xDan]

> type "Bitcoin" into google
> bitcoin.org is first result
> Click first download link

This, I think, is reasonable speculation of how the "noob" will install his/her client, assuming they've only heard the word "bitcoin". Of course personal recommendations may be different, I guess that's the point of this thread.

On my PC the official client simply does not work with my specs (Both windows and Linux). The latest client.

1.6ghz cpu, 512 MB ram, slow HD, windows or linux = Block chain downloading is so slow it would never finish. (Think: weeks). And computer is unusable for other tasks while client is running.

Macbook with 2ghz cpu, 4 GB ram = completes in a few hours. [note, this is on the same internet connection as the other one, so it's not slow internet that's the issue here]

Average "noob" will probably not have the latest hardware either. Everyone I know that's a normal person (i.e. not a gamer or techie) has a several years old second hand or refurbished PC. (generally, the cast off from a gamer or techie)

So no, do not advertise the official client to them!

Personally, I use Electrum, but figuring out how to run a python app is also beyond any noob. And also average noob will not backup their wallet or any of their computer data.

So e-wallets is the best answer for usability! Though whether the e-wallets are reliable and secure enough, I don't know.

[bitfreak!]

Personally, I use Electrum, but figuring out how to run a python app is also beyond any noob.

There are window builds (exe's which I don't think require Python?)... but I think MultiBit might be a better choice because it still requires a blockchain (although much more compact).

[flatfly]

Personally, I use Electrum, but figuring out how to run a python app is also beyond any noob.

There are window builds (exe's which I don't think require Python?)... but I think MultiBit might be a better choice because it still requires a blockchain (although much more compact).

Indeed, no need to install Python when using the windows binary (An up-to-date compact version
of Python 2.7 is included, and is totally noob-friendly)  

[caveden]

The slowdown between #100k and #120k is quite dramatic. I'm not (yet!) familiar enough with bitcoin internals to know if this is expected behaviour. Can anyone explain it?

I can't explain it, but I suspect that the whole process is done in a synchronous way. Like:

• Download a block (bandwidth usage)
• Verify its validity (CPU intensive, plus indexed queries)
• Insert the block in the DB - indexation (IO intensive, and probably O(log) on the index size, or perhaps even O(n), don't know)
• Proceed to next block

If that's the case, there's probably room for some optimization by rendering this process asynchronous and making bulk inserts in the DB. A thread would go downloading blocks, in a torrent fashion. Another thread would go behind it verifying the blocks. And finally a third thread would insert the verified data in bulks on the database. Validated blocks should be kept in a memory index while they are not yet inserted, so that the verifying thread can query them too.

Well, this is all speculation of mine... can someone confirm how is the block download done?

[caveden]

have you tried 6.2? it downloaded all blocks for me in about 20/30 mins yesterday

Wow... that's the time my laptop takes to update like, a single week of blocks. And I'm using 6.2.

[flatfly]

have you tried 6.2? it downloaded all blocks for me in about 20/30 mins yesterday

Wow... that's the time my laptop takes to update like, a single week of blocks. And I'm using 6.2.

I'm not too sure about that, but wouldn't that kind of issue be helped by forwarding port 8333 (at router level)?