yep, still it's a message that in few minutes arrives at the top of Reddit, just before being censured 
Yes, at 6:51AM Eastern Time, certainly that has nothing to do with vote-brigading or bots heh
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 110. (Read 379002 times)
Yes, at 6:51AM Eastern Time, certainly that has nothing to do with vote-brigading or bots heh
What a disingenuous little prick of a whiner this guy is
The whole thing reeks of desperation.
Looks like it might be time to take the gloves off with this guy, he has become toxic.
yep, still it's a message that in few minutes arrives at the top of Reddit, just before being censured
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
What a disingenuous little prick of a whiner this guy is
The whole thing reeks of desperation.
Neither the thread itself nor Veritas's post history show that quote bolded by brg44. Veritas did not say that.
he did said this tho:
I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
BIP101 does allow the majority of people in the developed world to continue running full nodes, some people will not be able to, I have never denied that.
so one got to admit brg's awesome anticipati0n skillz. ^^
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
and anyway i'm starting to think that this thread is veritassapere favourite post farm because he writes one of each posts for each one from everyone (he didn't even noticed that i provoked he to think to long lime effects of the increased block but he went around it)
Neither the thread itself nor Veritas's post history show that quote bolded by brg44. Veritas did not say that.
he did said this tho:
I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
BIP101 does allow the majority of people in the developed world to continue running full nodes, some people will not be able to, I have never denied that.
so one got to admit brg's awesome anticipati0n skillz. ^^
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
Neither the thread itself nor Veritas's post history show that quote bolded by brg44. Veritas did not say that.
Of course he didn't. He is much too politically correct to say such things
Neither the thread itself nor Veritas's post history show that quote bolded by brg44. Veritas did not say that.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
dude stop playing the victim, i saw that post on the thread posted under your name, for once admit you just wrote something and anyway you know thay you are the only one posting more then the others?
Let's not get carried away here.
It was indeed me who imagined these lines and stuck them under one of his posts' header so as to present what I thought would be his likely answer to a certain argument.
Of course subsequent posts from him proved my prescience and was the source of quite some lulz
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
dude stop playing the victim, i saw that post on the thread posted under your name, for once admit you just wrote something and anyway you know thay you are the only one posting more then the others?
The highlighted quote was not made by me. Brg444 has unethically and falsely used my name in a quote which I am not responsible for, it was most likely written by him. To do this is wrong, it is fraud, libel and slander. I have requested that he ceases to falsely quote me yet he continues to do so.
The quote wasn't made by you, but it very accurately predicted things you were to say later.
The fact that you are lucky enough to be able to afford to run a full node has no bearing on the discussion. Lots of people are unable to run a full node already, and certainly wouldn't be able to keep up with XT's plan of doubling the blocksize limit every 2 years until it is 8192 times bigger than the current limit.
Bu..buut buttt the majority of the very privileged, global minority, of users in the developed world can run a node!! Screw the other guys, they don't need to run full nodes, they can just use SPV right, right !? I mean, if me & my friends can run a node from the comfort of our european metropolis that should be enough decentralization?
At least I think so... and if you don't agree well man it's just like.. your opinion, yaknow?
The highlighted quote was not made by me. Brg444 has unethically and falsely used my name in a quote which I am not responsible for, it was most likely written by him. To do this is wrong, it is fraud, libel and slander. I have requested that he ceases to falsely quote me yet he continues to do so.
The quote wasn't made by you, but it very accurately predicted things you were to say later.
The fact that you are lucky enough to be able to afford to run a full node has no bearing on the discussion. Lots of people are unable to run a full node already, and certainly wouldn't be able to keep up with XT's plan of doubling the blocksize limit every 2 years until it is 8192 times bigger than the current limit.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
It is ridiculous to maintain that everybody should be able to continue running a full node, surely there should be a lower bound to this requirement.
And this reveals the dishonesty of your position (as ever).It was only a few weeks ago you that and the rest of the XT cheerleaders were claiming that the BIP101 schedule was more than adequate to allow the majority of ordinary users to run full nodes.
Now, we see that you are subtly shifting your position towards the SPV-for-all end of the spectrum. If you wish to continue shouting about sophistry and conceited arguments, remember that you're already shouting as such all too frequently.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
My personal preference would be keeping the limit as low as possible, even if it means 'Fidelity problem' persists. My anecdotal evidence tells that a couple days ago I had to stop running a full node. The amount of resources it comsumes has become unacceptable to me. The last straw was the power outage that resulted in a corrupted database. The reindexing takes ages, while you can't even comfortably watch Youtube. As the time goes, resources being consumed to do initial-sync only increase. And this is a guaranteed increase, unlike increases in hardware performance. I would personally want optimizations first, and then a limit bump, not the other way around.
Sorry you had a bitcoin database crash. You have learned a basic lesson about running a bitcoin node. A bitcoin node is a database server. It is inappropriate to run a database server on a machine that is not dedicated to running a limited number of servers and has been configured to provide adequate performance for these uses. In the case of data base machines where crash recovery is lengthy, this means it is inappropriate to run it on a machine that lacks reliable (e.g. battery backedup) power and stable software. It is also inappropriate to run a server on a machine that is used to surf the web, or otherwise provide a huge attack surface to the network. It is also inappropriate to run it if the operator doesn't know this, something that you have apparently learned. I learned this a while back pretty much the way you did. As a result I purchased, assembled and configured a dedicated computer to serve as my bitcoin node. This machine resides in my "home office data center".
Most people lack the knowledge and inclination to run their own servers in a reasonable "data center" environment. Until the arrival of SPV clients this was the only alternative for people wishing to use bitcoin. With SPV clients this is no longer necessary, and the truth is that most people would be ill advised to run a full bitcoin node even if they had unlimited network bandwidth and money to spend on a dedicated server. They lack the necessary skills.
Even with a dedicated machine, unless one has excess network bandwidth one may observe degradation of activities on other computers (e.g. watching You-Tube videos) due to interference. With suitable configuration of one's router it is possible to eliminate this interference by limiting the amount of bandwidth used by the bitcoin node. However, doing this requires additional skills, namely knowledge of how to manage and tune computer networks.
Regardless of block size limit, it will be impractical or impossible for the majority of bitcoin users to run full nodes, unless bitcoin regresses to be a hobbyist and/or "science project" operation.
What I tried to show is not how it's bad, but how it's getting worse as time goes on and tx rates rise. Especially the initial-sync part.And you have only proven my point. The cost of running a full node is increasing. The cost to possess monetary sovereignty is increasing. I'm concerned with that trend. That's it.
Node centralization is a legitimate concern which is why I would favor either BIP100 or BIP103 when implemented. Just to side with caution and make consensus easier. I can agree with you on this point at least RoadTrain.
It is ridiculous to maintain that everybody should be able to continue running a full node, surely there should be a lower bound to this requirement.
And this reveals the dishonesty of your position (as ever).It was only a few weeks ago you that and the rest of the XT cheerleaders were claiming that the BIP101 schedule was more than adequate to allow the majority of ordinary users to run full nodes.
Now, we see that you are subtly shifting your position towards the SPV-for-all end of the spectrum. If you wish to continue shouting about sophistry and conceited arguments, remember that you're already shouting as such all too frequently.
My personal preference would be keeping the limit as low as possible, even if it means 'Fidelity problem' persists. My anecdotal evidence tells that a couple days ago I had to stop running a full node. The amount of resources it comsumes has become unacceptable to me. The last straw was the power outage that resulted in a corrupted database. The reindexing takes ages, while you can't even comfortably watch Youtube. As the time goes, resources being consumed to do initial-sync only increase. And this is a guaranteed increase, unlike increases in hardware performance. I would personally want optimizations first, and then a limit bump, not the other way around.
Sorry you had a bitcoin database crash. You have learned a basic lesson about running a bitcoin node. A bitcoin node is a database server. It is inappropriate to run a database server on a machine that is not dedicated to running a limited number of servers and has been configured to provide adequate performance for these uses. In the case of data base machines where crash recovery is lengthy, this means it is inappropriate to run it on a machine that lacks reliable (e.g. battery backedup) power and stable software. It is also inappropriate to run a server on a machine that is used to surf the web, or otherwise provide a huge attack surface to the network. It is also inappropriate to run it if the operator doesn't know this, something that you have apparently learned. I learned this a while back pretty much the way you did. As a result I purchased, assembled and configured a dedicated computer to serve as my bitcoin node. This machine resides in my "home office data center".
Most people lack the knowledge and inclination to run their own servers in a reasonable "data center" environment. Until the arrival of SPV clients this was the only alternative for people wishing to use bitcoin. With SPV clients this is no longer necessary, and the truth is that most people would be ill advised to run a full bitcoin node even if they had unlimited network bandwidth and money to spend on a dedicated server. They lack the necessary skills.
Even with a dedicated machine, unless one has excess network bandwidth one may observe degradation of activities on other computers (e.g. watching You-Tube videos) due to interference. With suitable configuration of one's router it is possible to eliminate this interference by limiting the amount of bandwidth used by the bitcoin node. However, doing this requires additional skills, namely knowledge of how to manage and tune computer networks.
Regardless of block size limit, it will be impractical or impossible for the majority of bitcoin users to run full nodes, unless bitcoin regresses to be a hobbyist and/or "science project" operation.
What I tried to show is not how it's bad, but how it's getting worse as time goes on and tx rates rise. Especially the initial-sync part.And you have only proven my point. The cost of running a full node is increasing. The cost to possess monetary sovereignty is increasing. I'm concerned with that trend. That's it.
trade offs & greed.
My personal preference would be keeping the limit as low as possible, even if it means 'Fidelity problem' persists. My anecdotal evidence tells that a couple days ago I had to stop running a full node. The amount of resources it comsumes has become unacceptable to me. The last straw was the power outage that resulted in a corrupted database. The reindexing takes ages, while you can't even comfortably watch Youtube. As the time goes, resources being consumed to do initial-sync only increase. And this is a guaranteed increase, unlike increases in hardware performance. I would personally want optimizations first, and then a limit bump, not the other way around.
Sorry you had a bitcoin database crash. You have learned a basic lesson about running a bitcoin node. A bitcoin node is a database server. It is inappropriate to run a database server on a machine that is not dedicated to running a limited number of servers and has been configured to provide adequate performance for these uses. In the case of data base machines where crash recovery is lengthy, this means it is inappropriate to run it on a machine that lacks reliable (e.g. battery backedup) power and stable software. It is also inappropriate to run a server on a machine that is used to surf the web, or otherwise provide a huge attack surface to the network. It is also inappropriate to run it if the operator doesn't know this, something that you have apparently learned. I learned this a while back pretty much the way you did. As a result I purchased, assembled and configured a dedicated computer to serve as my bitcoin node. This machine resides in my "home office data center".
Most people lack the knowledge and inclination to run their own servers in a reasonable "data center" environment. Until the arrival of SPV clients this was the only alternative for people wishing to use bitcoin. With SPV clients this is no longer necessary, and the truth is that most people would be ill advised to run a full bitcoin node even if they had unlimited network bandwidth and money to spend on a dedicated server. They lack the necessary skills.
Even with a dedicated machine, unless one has excess network bandwidth one may observe degradation of activities on other computers (e.g. watching You-Tube videos) due to interference. With suitable configuration of one's router it is possible to eliminate this interference by limiting the amount of bandwidth used by the bitcoin node. However, doing this requires additional skills, namely knowledge of how to manage and tune computer networks.
Regardless of block size limit, it will be impractical or impossible for the majority of bitcoin users to run full nodes, unless bitcoin regresses to be a hobbyist and/or "science project" operation.
What I tried to show is not how it's bad, but how it's getting worse as time goes on and tx rates rise. Especially the initial-sync part.And you have only proven my point. The cost of running a full node is increasing. The cost to possess monetary sovereignty is increasing. I'm concerned with that trend. That's it.
In regards to the new feature just added to XT, I would think it is rather useful since surely it is better to throttle a full node as opposed to just shutting it down if you are in a location where there is limited bandwidth.
Actually no, this will just introduce latency in the network if a significant number of nodes did it (thankfully no danger of that happening just yet).
Jump to: