Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users - page 7.

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: Borisz on February 17, 2015, 02:18:36 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 17, 2015, 01:30:40 PM

Quote from: Borisz on February 17, 2015, 01:18:26 PM

I think I'll move my coins to blockchain.info, I cannot/ do not really want to run a core node consuming 30+ GB of HDD space.

That is a terrible idea.

Quote from: BingoBoingo

On their blog, Blockchain.info has disclosed that a routine update left them serving insecure code to customers using their wallet between 12:00 AM and 2:30 AM GMT today. All customers who used the Blockchain.info web wallet to interface to create wallets, generate addresses, or send transactions are reported to be affected. The problem given the scope appears to be that Blockchain.info was serving weak pseudo-random number generating software.

Based on the description this doesn't affect me. I guess there are plenty of people who are happy with their service overall.

Of course it effects you, unless it's possible to keep your own copy of the javascript and never let them serve you another (a practice I doubt you were employing). Every time you open up that site in your browser you're hoping that someone doesn't give you malicious javascript. It doesn't have to be on their end; if someone is able to compromise your communications channel they can serve you any code they want. And by 'they' I mean USG.

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 17, 2015, 01:30:40 PM

Quote from: Borisz on February 17, 2015, 01:18:26 PM

I think I'll move my coins to blockchain.info, I cannot/ do not really want to run a core node consuming 30+ GB of HDD space.

That is a terrible idea.

Quote from: BingoBoingo

On their blog, Blockchain.info has disclosed that a routine update left them serving insecure code to customers using their wallet between 12:00 AM and 2:30 AM GMT today. All customers who used the Blockchain.info web wallet to interface to create wallets, generate addresses, or send transactions are reported to be affected. The problem given the scope appears to be that Blockchain.info was serving weak pseudo-random number generating software.

Based on the description this doesn't affect me. I guess there are plenty of people who are happy with their service overall.

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: Borisz on February 17, 2015, 01:18:26 PM

I think I'll move my coins to blockchain.info, I cannot/ do not really want to run a core node consuming 30+ GB of HDD space.

That is a terrible idea.

Quote from: BingoBoingo

On their blog, Blockchain.info has disclosed that a routine update left them serving insecure code to customers using their wallet between 12:00 AM and 2:30 AM GMT today. All customers who used the Blockchain.info web wallet to interface to create wallets, generate addresses, or send transactions are reported to be affected. The problem given the scope appears to be that Blockchain.info was serving weak pseudo-random number generating software.

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

I think I'll move my coins to blockchain.info, I cannot/ do not really want to run a core node consuming 30+ GB of HDD space.

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: ?? on ??

Thank you for upgrading

Yeah it's a lot easier to sync with the network when you don't bother getting all the data anymore. Kinda like how it's a lot easier to transport gold bars when you hollow them all out before-hand.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 506

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 12:48:09 PM

Uh.. we're the ones who actually care about bitcoin; you're the ones trying to make a new one with your gavincoin hard fork nonsense. What do you think a hard fork is? It's a new chain! An altcoin! And it's already been proven that there's no such thing as cryptocurrencies.

I am not for 20 mb fork^[1] even theymos has told in a neutral way. But... what you told about Satoshi made me to say that but no offence.

[1] It needs more investigation and some improvements.

-MZ

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 14, 2015, 12:37:57 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 12:17:29 PM

Quote from: ranochigo on February 14, 2015, 11:55:57 AM

Why would you say it's of questionable quality and security? It has been verified by lots of people and the lead developer of Bitcoin. It would obviously be a good choice to use 0.9.3 as it is the most stable currently. You would just be wasting your time trying to make changes.

Uh.. so let me get this straight. 0.9.3 is the best version because its authors said so? Did you "verify" the code? I happen to know that real people have taken a look, and it's not pretty.

real people like who ?

http://therealbitcoin.org/mailman/listinfo/btc-dev

dont see any names .......

Scroll to the bottom of this document for the GPG key fingerprints. I'll go ahead and do your work for you:

See: signed code.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on February 14, 2015, 12:47:13 PM

Or I suggest you to tell your REAL PEOPLE to create new Bitcoin.

Uh.. we're the ones who actually care about bitcoin; you're the ones trying to make a new one with your gavincoin hard fork nonsense. What do you think a hard fork is? It's a new chain! An altcoin! And it's already been proven that there's no such thing as cryptocurrencies.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 506

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 12:17:29 PM

Uh.. so let me get this straight. 0.9.3 is the best version because its authors said so? Did you "verify" the code? I happen to know that real people have taken a look, and it's not pretty. Satoshi wasn't a very good programmer, and the stooges that you call "lead developers" are even worse -- not because they lack expertise, but because they are good enough to actually do serious damage.

Take your "obviously"s and shove them up your USG hole.

Now you are telling Satoshi wasn't a good programmer! Cheesy

I am liking you more. I suggest you to quit BITCOIN because it wasn't made by a good programmer and it isn't good. Or I suggest you to tell your REAL PEOPLE to create new Bitcoin.

-MZ

CoinCidental

legendary

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1000

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 12:17:29 PM

Quote from: ranochigo on February 14, 2015, 11:55:57 AM

Why would you say it's of questionable quality and security? It has been verified by lots of people and the lead developer of Bitcoin. It would obviously be a good choice to use 0.9.3 as it is the most stable currently. You would just be wasting your time trying to make changes.

Uh.. so let me get this straight. 0.9.3 is the best version because its authors said so? Did you "verify" the code? I happen to know that real people have taken a look, and it's not pretty.

real people like who ?

http://therealbitcoin.org/mailman/listinfo/btc-dev

dont see any names .......

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on February 14, 2015, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 11:36:55 AM

I would strongly advise against using that codebase; it is of questionable quality and security. The Bitcoin Foundation recommends starting at version 0.5.3 and from there, applying some patches to remove some of the more obvious malicious bits of code.

That site isn't really Bitcoin Foundation's. Need solid news and proof.

-MZ

Here ya go.

Quote from: thestringpuller

Vessenes's Bitcoin Foundation maintains a notoriety for many questionable actions and behaviors. There is even a candidate running for the foundation's board on the platform of dissolution. Due to the oversights of Vessenes's Bitcoin Foundation, #bitcoin-assets recently formed its own foundation for the preservation of the Bitcoin reference implementation.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 506

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 11:36:55 AM

I would strongly advise against using that codebase; it is of questionable quality and security. The Bitcoin Foundation recommends starting at version 0.5.3 and from there, applying some patches to remove some of the more obvious malicious bits of code.

That site isn't really Bitcoin Foundation's. Need solid news and proof.

-MZ

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: ranochigo on February 14, 2015, 11:55:57 AM

Why would you say it's of questionable quality and security? It has been verified by lots of people and the lead developer of Bitcoin. It would obviously be a good choice to use 0.9.3 as it is the most stable currently. You would just be wasting your time trying to make changes.

Uh.. so let me get this straight. 0.9.3 is the best version because its authors said so? Did you "verify" the code? I happen to know that real people have taken a look, and it's not pretty. Satoshi wasn't a very good programmer, and the stooges that you call "lead developers" are even worse -- not because they lack expertise, but because they are good enough to actually do serious damage.

Take your "obviously"s and shove them up your USG hole.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 14, 2015, 11:36:55 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on February 14, 2015, 07:36:35 AM

It has been solved with the current Beta release of Bitcoin core 0.10.

I would strongly advise against using that codebase; it is of questionable quality and security. The Bitcoin Foundation recommends starting at version 0.5.3 and from there, applying some patches to remove some of the more obvious malicious bits of code.

Review the code and build it yourself then. Why would you say it's of questionable quality and security? It has been verified by lots of people and the lead developer of Bitcoin. It would obviously be a good choice to use 0.9.3 as it is the most stable currently. You would just be wasting your time trying to make changes.

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on February 14, 2015, 07:36:35 AM

It has been solved with the current Beta release of Bitcoin core 0.10.

I would strongly advise against using that codebase; it is of questionable quality and security. The Bitcoin Foundation recommends starting at version 0.5.3 and from there, applying some patches to remove some of the more obvious malicious bits of code.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 506

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gumara on February 11, 2015, 01:47:29 PM

My blockchain very slow and spend a lot memory, i want to know how to the solution of matter said?

im also like that, any solution??

It has been solved with the current Beta release of Bitcoin core 0.10.

-MZ

zvs

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1000

https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com

Quote from: ranochigo on February 12, 2015, 06:36:17 PM

Quote from: rfcdejong on February 12, 2015, 05:31:59 PM

I think there will be less nodes when the blockchain is getting bigger and bigger, resulting into centralization...

6615 nodes now

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

There are nodes which have the max amount of connections and it won't be able to count those nodes. Also, it doesn't cost much to get a hard disk with at least 40gb of space, it is fairly cheap. There are people running nodes on servers which is recommended since they are reliable nodes which hardly ever goes down. Most home computers goes down every night. The network need more reliable nodes than unreliable ones.

I think the #of nodes with max connections are probably more than offset by 'useless' nodes... you know, I could have my home connection appear on that list, but since I have 768kbps upstream, it would benefit the network by doing two things, jack and shit.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: rfcdejong on February 12, 2015, 05:31:59 PM

I think there will be less nodes when the blockchain is getting bigger and bigger, resulting into centralization...

6615 nodes now

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

There are nodes which have the max amount of connections and it won't be able to count those nodes. Also, it doesn't cost much to get a hard disk with at least 40gb of space, it is fairly cheap. There are people running nodes on servers which is recommended since they are reliable nodes which hardly ever goes down. Most home computers goes down every night. The network need more reliable nodes than unreliable ones.

rfcdejong

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

I think there will be less nodes when the blockchain is getting bigger and bigger, resulting into centralization...

6615 nodes now

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 506

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: Gumara on February 11, 2015, 04:01:57 PM

But in between the wallet that you mention what there is had the feature private keys like blockchain?

I didn't understood what you asked correctly. Yes, it has all features of Blockchain.info.

Quote from: Arnab biswas on February 11, 2015, 04:16:54 PM

for all of these problems I hqve selected a online wallet

I hope you won't lose any BTC.

-MZ

Arnab biswas

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

for all of these problems I hqve selected a online wallet

Topic: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users - page 7. (Read 228612 times)