I've pretty much always had a full node since 2011. As well as talk about it everywhere heh. Grind the bitcoin cash for my friends who had no clue how.
I've been lazy lately but I'll make an effort.
Just went online with a full node on my Xeon 24/24 server hosting my company domain name, port forwarded obviously.
I'll copy the blockchain and have it run on a few other machine soonish as well. Using another IP and still port forwarded.
Topic: Do run a Bitcoin Core FULL NODE Now! - page 3. (Read 8539 times)
The whole spectrum of the game theory involving miners goes deeper. Miners can be bribed to act in a way that would seem irrational at first, without knowing that there is a bribe going on.
Case in point: An attacker (let's call this Government A) bribes miners into mining at a loss, the chain of a fork, in order to push this fork as "the real Bitcoin on all major exchanges, which are also bribed by Government A, such as Coinbase et al. These miners seem to be mining a less valuable coin, but they are making more money doing so by accepting the bribes.
This is an attack on bitcoin, and this will explain when you see any miners mining segwit2x at a loss in the following weeks.
It's important to not get overly complicated or confused.
Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage.
Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still.
Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address.
Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right.
Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain.
You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s).
Now build another wallet for incidental purchases.
It would be easy to maintain only 1 address in a cold storaged wallet, but this is very bad advice when it comes to maintaining privacy.
Ruling out Electrum, I would need to keep that 1-address wallet.dat file from Bitcoin Core. So everytime I send coins to my cold storage, they all would end up in a single address, which means it could be analized to find out how much BTC you own. You have to avoid this. You don't want a lot of BTC showing up on these "rich addresses" things (I don't have as much by any means, but it is still a mistake to do that privacy wise).
Also if you delete Bitcoin Core you couldn't test if your wallet.dat has been corrupted or not (files can corrupt over time).
In your cold storage wallet you may generate a thousand different addresses, and every time send Bitcoins to different ones. You may even generate as many whole wallets as you can safely keep. There are no privacy issues here at all.
...
The whole spectrum of the game theory involving miners goes deeper. Miners can be bribed to act in a way that would seem irrational at first, without knowing that there is a bribe going on.
Case in point: An attacker (let's call this Government A) bribes miners into mining at a loss, the chain of a fork, in order to push this fork as "the real Bitcoin on all major exchanges, which are also bribed by Government A, such as Coinbase et al. These miners seem to be mining a less valuable coin, but they are making more money doing so by accepting the bribes.
This is an attack on bitcoin, and this will explain when you see any miners mining segwit2x at a loss in the following weeks.
The whole spectrum of the game theory involving miners goes deeper. Miners can be bribed to act in a way that would seem irrational at first, without knowing that there is a bribe going on.
Case in point: An attacker (let's call this Government A) bribes miners into mining at a loss, the chain of a fork, in order to push this fork as "the real Bitcoin on all major exchanges, which are also bribed by Government A, such as Coinbase et al. These miners seem to be mining a less valuable coin, but they are making more money doing so by accepting the bribes.
This is an attack on bitcoin, and this will explain when you see any miners mining segwit2x at a loss in the following weeks.
Bribes - maybe, quite possible too (I live right near the Putin's Russia, and bribery is the main type of economic activity there...
Now seriously.
Lord, bless the Bitcoin, as it is the golden ray of Freedom in the realm of lies, fakes, inflation, selfishness, injustice and slavery.
.....
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
It's important to not get overly complicated or confused.
Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage.
Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still.
Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address.
Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right.
Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain.
You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s).
Now build another wallet for incidental purchases.
It would be easy to maintain only 1 address in a cold storaged wallet, but this is very bad advice when it comes to maintaining privacy.
Ruling out Electrum, I would need to keep that 1-address wallet.dat file from Bitcoin Core. So everytime I send coins to my cold storage, they all would end up in a single address, which means it could be analized to find out how much BTC you own. You have to avoid this. You don't want a lot of BTC showing up on these "rich addresses" things (I don't have as much by any means, but it is still a mistake to do that privacy wise).
Also if you delete Bitcoin Core you couldn't test if your wallet.dat has been corrupted or not (files can corrupt over time).
.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
Parasitize?
Miners mine for profit.
The whole spectrum of the game theory involving miners goes deeper. Miners can be bribed to act in a way that would seem irrational at first, without knowing that there is a bribe going on.
Case in point: An attacker (let's call this Government A) bribes miners into mining at a loss, the chain of a fork, in order to push this fork as "the real Bitcoin on all major exchanges, which are also bribed by Government A, such as Coinbase et al. These miners seem to be mining a less valuable coin, but they are making more money doing so by accepting the bribes.
This is an attack on bitcoin, and this will explain when you see any miners mining segwit2x at a loss in the following weeks.
You may be right, I looked into the wrong page, I should have looked into https://coin.dance/blocks.
Yes, you seem to have 83% miners yet. OK, maybe. We'll see.
There is no distortion in what I've said. If currently stated intentions prove to be accurate, you'll still have roughly 15% of the current network's hashrate with which to continue building the blockchain and prove that your vision of Bitcoin provides the greatest incentive for all participants. You might get even more than 15% as crunch time draws near and some miners reconsider their stance. None of this is set in stone. You will absolutely, 100% guaranteed have the option of continuing to use Bitcoin as it presently exists in it's 1mb base and 3mb witness space ruleset. There is undeniable freedom of choice in that. Having "no freedom of choice" is entirely a product of your imagination.
If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong. They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.
It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies. That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.
The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin. They don't. No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.
If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong. They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.
It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies. That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.
The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin. They don't. No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.
Fortunately, I think you are deliberately, or unintentionally, lying.
It is you who have roughly 20% of the current network's hashrate, as https://coin.dance/poli is showing now for example if I understand it right (I looked not into the right page, sorry, see my next post)
More and more sane miners prefer staying away from 2x and your Garzik's false, fake btc1 software.
I see no reason to continue arguing with you. You might be working for the mad, insolent 2x miners, while I'm just spending my free time on you.
2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!
.. It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing. No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with. See it for what it actually is. The people you disagree with are possibly leaving. That's not a forceful imposition. That's them leaving you alone to do what you want. If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.
So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it. There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead. You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.
Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether. You could do that job yourself and start mining. After all, you did just say:
You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself. Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. All you have to do is run your preferred code.
They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it. You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs. Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks. So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you. Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon. What's with the constant bitching about it?
You have a very crafty position.
You keep distorting the facts all the time, portraying free will where there is really absolutely no freedom of choice.
For example, personally, I would very much like to be an independent miner, but I just cannot afford to buy the necessary equipment.
Therefore, although formally you are supposedly right, but in reality - no, in no case.
All participants in bitcoin have just enough control and freedom of choice, so that no one entity is in overall control.
There is no distortion in what I've said. If currently stated intentions prove to be accurate, you'll still have roughly 15% of the current network's hashrate with which to continue building the blockchain and prove that your vision of Bitcoin provides the greatest incentive for all participants. You might get even more than 15% as crunch time draws near and some miners reconsider their stance. None of this is set in stone. You will absolutely, 100% guaranteed have the option of continuing to use Bitcoin as it presently exists in it's 1mb base and 3mb witness space ruleset. There is undeniable freedom of choice in that. Having "no freedom of choice" is entirely a product of your imagination.
If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong. They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.
It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies. That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.
The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin. They don't. No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.
2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!
.. It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing. No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with. See it for what it actually is. The people you disagree with are possibly leaving. That's not a forceful imposition. That's them leaving you alone to do what you want. If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.
So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it. There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead. You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.
Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether. You could do that job yourself and start mining. After all, you did just say:
You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself. Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. All you have to do is run your preferred code.
They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it. You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs. Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks. So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you. Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon. What's with the constant bitching about it?
You have a very crafty position.
You keep distorting the facts all the time, portraying free will where there is really absolutely no freedom of choice.
For example, personally, I would very much like to be an independent miner, but I just cannot afford to buy the necessary equipment.
Therefore, although formally you are supposedly right, but in reality - no, in no case.
2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!
Loving the self-entitled privilege demonstrated there and pretty much everywhere on these forums lately.
It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing. No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with. See it for what it actually is. The people you disagree with are possibly leaving. That's not a forceful imposition. That's them leaving you alone to do what you want. If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.
So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it. There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead. You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.
Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether. You could do that job yourself and start mining. After all, you did just say:
You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself. Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. All you have to do is run your preferred code.
They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it. You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs. Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks. So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you. Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon. What's with the constant bitching about it?
I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.
As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion
hmmm...well since both clients are open source, how much can they hide? If they suddenly close source Parity, I'll switch to something else since I use the one from github.
You're right of course. That may be just from my personal hard experience, I know too well what that Putin and his current Russia are, as I live less than 50 km near the Russian border, I am in many crypto currencies' Russian speaking Telegram channels, and I know that, for example, just soon after that "morally flexible" Vitalik met Putin, the Russian authorities have begun constantly attacking, regulating, etc. (actually forbidding) the Bitcoin and other cryptos. Because they realized that they cannot control (actually steal) Cryptocurrencies from their citizens, as they constantly do with the usual fiat currencies!
I have the right for my personal opinion, so I'll repeat, I am very much cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik, his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them.
I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.
As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion
hmmm...well since both clients are open source, how much can they hide? If they suddenly close source Parity, I'll switch to something else since I use the one from github.
I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.
As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion
I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.
.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
Parasitize?
Miners mine for profit.
First of all, it was about users' lightweight wallets.
As for miners, naturally, miners get profit, but unfortunately, now few can afford to be independent miners (who can be signaling NO2x for example
.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
Parasitize?
Miners mine for profit.
...
That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."
Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.
That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."
Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.
I cannot abstain from quoting myself
(as the topic is quite long and people may have missed my answer to the claim) :...
Anyway, every smart and responsible Bitcoin holder, fan and enthusiast should:
1. Run his/her own full (maybe pruned) node.
2. Even much better if he is also a miner (now also signaling NO2x).
Anyway, every smart and responsible Bitcoin holder, fan and enthusiast should:
1. Run his/her own full (maybe pruned) node.
2. Even much better if he is also a miner (now also signaling NO2x).
The general idea is simple, and the truth is always simple.
You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
....
As I understand it, according to the original plan, ALL of the wallets were supposed to be full nodes, so naturally there was not provided any reward only for that. Moreover! All of the nodes (wallets) were supposed to be MINERS as well! And as miners they would have gained the reward! .....
As I understand it, according to the original plan, ALL of the wallets were supposed to be full nodes, so naturally there was not provided any reward only for that. Moreover! All of the nodes (wallets) were supposed to be MINERS as well! And as miners they would have gained the reward! .....
That does not sound like what Satoshi wrote. At all.
Do you think so? Please, read Bitcoin whitepaper more attentively. Here is it:
https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795
// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree,
// and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work
// requirements. When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
// to everyone and the block is added to the block chain. The first transaction
// in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator
// of the block.
That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."
Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.
.....
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
It's important to not get overly complicated or confused.
Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage.
Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still.
Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address.
Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right.
Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain.
You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s).
Now build another wallet for incidental purchases.
Anyone knows if the different Ubuntu flavors (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu...) are maintained at the same speed as the original Ubuntu LTS?
I have seen Lubuntu, it's really cool and lightweight, would be perfect to run a node. Xubuntu is also lightweight, but with better GUI, a good compromise between lightweight and minimalist GUI. Then there's Trisquel, which also looks easy to use and is FSF approved, but im not sure if it's easy to install like Ubuntu, and if it will get updates constantly.
Are updates automatic or manual?
I think im close now to deciding one, and I think I will stick to running the wallet as a node and only fire up the Linux partition everyday for a while to keep the node updated so when I need to transact I don't need to wait hours for it to catch up. If you open your node just 20 minutes a day or something, you can keep it synced on the daily. I don't think this will pose a realistic risk. I will not be even opening the internet browser on there. I can still browse with windows since my windows partition contains nothing of value anyway.
I have seen Lubuntu, it's really cool and lightweight, would be perfect to run a node. Xubuntu is also lightweight, but with better GUI, a good compromise between lightweight and minimalist GUI. Then there's Trisquel, which also looks easy to use and is FSF approved, but im not sure if it's easy to install like Ubuntu, and if it will get updates constantly.
Are updates automatic or manual?
I think im close now to deciding one, and I think I will stick to running the wallet as a node and only fire up the Linux partition everyday for a while to keep the node updated so when I need to transact I don't need to wait hours for it to catch up. If you open your node just 20 minutes a day or something, you can keep it synced on the daily. I don't think this will pose a realistic risk. I will not be even opening the internet browser on there. I can still browse with windows since my windows partition contains nothing of value anyway.
Jump to: