Topic: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users - page 4. (Read 228658 times)

I am thinking I don't want to rely on the say-so of companies that are already in bed with the USG. I am thinking that if a small group of USG-friendly companies has a monopoly on the full node market, they will eventually start rewriting history to airdrop free bitcoin into government coffers. These are the kinds of conclusions a thinking person can arrive at; what is it you're doing? You call it thinking?

---

Google Chrome isn't responsible for the world's money supply.. But I get what you're trying to suggest -- that bitcoin to FIAT exchanges must have only the best intentions.. Pay no mind that they are FIAT companies; not bitcoin companiesⁱ! Does the block chain demand KYC compliance? Nope; that's a FIAT requirement. These companies will do what it takes to remain in the good graces of their FIAT overlords, and I "definitely" don't trust them to keep an unaltered block chain if left alone with the task.

---

i : Actual Bitcoin corporations (ABCs) versus fiat-based frauds trying to masquerade as Bitcoin companies (while masquerading as companies in the first place) on the solid theory that the general public is too stupid to make any difference, this one included, and on the flimsy theory that the general public matters in Bitcoin (FBF-TTMABC-WMACITFP-OTSTTTGPITSTMAD-TOI-AOTFTTTGPMIBs, alphabets for short).

Then NSA may have a copy, especially if it had once resided on a mobile device.  So, become a fairly high positioned person in that organization or someone who they classify as a 'customer' and you may be able to retrieve it.  Don't worry if this process takes a while...lots of the data collected, and especially data of this nature, wouldn't be worth gathering in the first place if it were not to be retained indefinitely.

Does "Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users" sounds like a good place to ask how do you get back a lost wallet? Ask yourself that with loud voice.

Now...What does a lost wallet mean? Are we supposed to guess whatever happened with your wallet? Provide more details maybe...

How I can get back a lost wallet? Somebodey can help me plss??

Got it, thanks, things get lost in these long threads.  I agree with your take, lots of people are not going to run full nodes for a variety of reasons and there's nothing wrong with that (and they are still using bitcoin).

Since this is a consensus network used by everyone (big companies along with random private individuals) I think it is obvious to say that the small private user can get along with the consensus trust derived from the fact that those that have a bigger stake into blockchain will not allow history to be re-written. This is how we get to the whitelisted/blacklisted nodes.

I am thinking that BitPay or Coinbase is able to setup various full nodes all over the globe and the small users can whitelist their nodes so that they shouldn't worry that much about the blockchain being altered! In the Bitcoin ecosystem the security is the same for the big companies and for the small individual and a change in the blockchain history would affect both in the same time. The big companies will focus more on the blockchain security since they have much more to lose while the small guys can just leech the blockchain history from them.

I find this to be a very logic and productive way of working with this issue this instead of being a retard and simply banning those that can't afford to run a full node like your boss MP wants to do.

As previously said if you trust Google servers to host your Google Chrome copy then you will definitely trust Exchangers and Payment Processors to have an unaltered blockchain at everyone's disposal.


Pay attention to the full context/discussion please.

I know that there is no "full node requirement", but our friend here danielpbarron who is just Mircea Popescu's obedient dog is saying that anyone that isn't running a full node shouldn't use bitcoin which is utterly stupid and retarded and it will never happen. Here is where the discussion started:


He is afraid that the US Government will seize "the whole thing" like he saw in the movies...

I would really like to see Russian nodes being seized by the US Gov. That would be something new.

Uhhh, there is no "full node requirement", there already exist a multitude of lightweight wallets that do not require you to d/l the block chain and there are thousands of trusted places these wallets look to, they're called full nodes; I think you're missing the point.

If you're gonna just go trusting people, then why do you need your transaction on the block chain? The block chain is for when you don't trust anyone. You are arguing in favor of what amounts to security theater. People are worse off if they think simply having a private key is what makes their funds safe. Instead of them trusting a node to relay their petty transactions, they can just as well trust a bitcoin denominated bank to make a promise on their behalf. The banks can then settle balance differences in large chunks on a daily basis, thereby keeping the size of the block chain minimal. In this way, anybody can verify the process with an inexpensive node plugged into their home router. Whereas with your proposal, only a few wealthy people can verify the process despite everyone having access.

You have conceded that the common man will have to trust someone. Please stop with this nonsense that we must also make the block chain impossible for the common man to verify. It is not necessary to have both these results; only one is needed.

In 10 years I think we'll have a working combination of zero knowledge proofs plus committed UTXO sets that make syncing all the way back to the genesis block unnecessary.

If we can have trusted places where we can download software without the fear of them being infected with viruses/malware then we can have trusted operators/nodes so that some users can use only a lightweight client without burdening them with a full node requirement. You sound like this is something impossible, but it's far from being impossible. What's the use of every user running a full node if they can't trust the place where they download the Bitcoin Core software?

There are many different providers of hosted files and some are trusted (Firefox, Google, Bitcoin.org etc) and some are untrusted. A random invented example would be www.OptimizeMyPC.com that promises to speed up your computer if you download their tool which is filled with malware/trojans.

We can have this with Bitcoin nodes too. This is just another business opportunity and this is very easily doable.

Again nothing constructive from your posts. Just the usual MP quotes and the usual and useless "limiting stuff is better". You have a very limited and pessimistic vision about this whole ecosystem.

the average user will have a pruned version or lite client by then
most people wont need to have the last 16 years of transaction history so i think its a non issue

Imagine in 10 years's time, it wont take a week to sinc, but a generation.

only the pool is the miner - not you running some hardware
(except for p2pool or eligius with getblocktemplate (not sure if its still supported though)

I don't think either of those statements are true at all.  You can mine without a node installed on your computer.  A miner is not validating and propagating the block chain, it's looking for a solution for the current block.  Multiple miners can point to a pool, the pool only needs one node to support thousands of miners.  I'm pretty sure there are way, way more people mining than are running full nodes.

Well, a node isn't "connectible" if it isn't turned on and caught up.

As to making more nodes, we're working on it.

---

A miner is necessarily a full node; there must always be more full nodes than there are miners. And it's not just "in support of the network;" it's in support of yourself. The only way to really know if you have funds or not is to check the full transaction history.

How does the number of active nodes compare with the number of active miners?  I'm guess there are way more miners than there are people running full nodes.  I do both in support of the network.

true

No; security should be the #1 priority of the network. The "ease of use" side should be provided off the block chain. Those who favor easy over secure can have their cup of punch without there being a turd in the bowl.

---

Those people can use whatever they currently use but with bitcoin backing it instead of FIAT. They can use their local node to confirm that the money supply is not being debased. And do not use the raspberry pi; it sucks.

---

Even if that "6k" figure were accurateⁱ, it should still be a great concern; that is a shockingly low number! It isn't going to get larger by making the cost to run one greater. The government I am talking about is the U.S. Government; the one currently in control of the world's reserve currency; the one that stands to lose a lot when bitcoin takes over. How do they do it? It's too late for them to kill it via the hashing route, and shorting it hasn't worked. They seem to think they can kill it by breaking it from within. People like you, whether on their payroll or just stupid, are helping them by pushing this bad idea that the rules need to change. I don't trust the technology? You're the one who wants to change it!

---

i : it isn't

The system should be crafted around a mix of security and easy of use. How would you feel if Adobe would require you to host a server and to keep the current Flash installer hosted there? The same can apply Firefox or Chrome or any other file that you need to download. It would be a very stupid thing just like your imaginary fact

Also by your logic you just denied Bitcoin to AT LEAST 2 bil people who can't afford to keep a rPi plugged in all the time. There are TONS of people in Africa or in the Jungle or in China who could use Bitcoin with a very cheap Android smartphone (internet usage) or a cheap Nokia for SMS usage. People in Africa will not be able to host a node. Look at Australia's Internet speed. They are in the stone age there. It will take a lot of time to get those speeds in Africa, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to use Bitcoin. They should use Bitcoin and we already have ways to do it. Why exclude them? Just because you want it? What about we exclude you from this forum because you don't have a scuba diving suit or because you don't have a proper server which can feed the contents of the forum? Sounds retard? Well it's the same with your brilliant idea.


Last that I've checked there were mode than 6k nodes all spread all over the world. Which government are you talking about? And how do they plan to do it? Just as they did with torrents? You don't seem to trust the technology that is behind Bitcoin or you simply don't understand it.

It's not about who "owns" the gold; it's about whether the gold is actually there or not. Obviously bearers of a gold certificate are considered to be "owners" of the corresponding bar, but that is not a guarantee that the gold actually exists. Your multibit wallet has to get transaction data from a full node, and if that full node says your address has funds when it actually doesn't, you may be tricked into making a bad deal. This isn't about having an insecure private key; it's about nodes falsifying transaction history. I don't need your private key in order to create a transaction that appears to send you funds; if you don't have a full copy of the transaction history to verify it, you won't be able to tell a bogus transaction from a legitimate one. If everyone comes to rely on the few "trusted nodes" like bc.i, and a malicious state takes over these nodes, they can create whatever transaction history they like and people like you will not be able to recognize the difference.