Topic: What does it take to run a full node? (Read 871 times)

Christmas is very real my friend. CHRIST is real.

you are nuts

point one:
there was a fork... you know it so dont sniff gas and pretend im the one messing with your head.. just stop sniffing your own gas

i never claimed bch was bitcoin. soo stop listening to doomad as its him putting words in your head about what he thinks i am saying thus confusing you when i then correct your dialogue of what you believe was said

here is a little tip.. take a few month break away from the buddy group/. spend some time doing some proper research independently and sort out your head becasue if you are crying that you are suffering mental issues. go sort them out

i keep telling you to do your own research away from anything i or doomad have to say.. that way you can actually learn and not be spoonfed and then you cant cry about your gas indued mental issues

So go research

point two:
you want to make a point of a chart that after waiting weeks after a congestion event you then present there is no congestion..
the congestion was in november.. and it did happen

your attempts of deception is like me saying its christmas week and christmas is this weekend.. so you wait until january 5th jsut to say:
"its not christmas week' there was no christmas, christmas is a myth, stop gaslighting me about christmas. i dont see any santa or christmas trees or tinsil. so christmas isnt real"

Technically, yes. I was merely making a point that, most of the time, if we pay for 1 to 3 sats per vByte, we do find out transactions within 5 blocks, don't we not? Network is not congested like what the troll-gaslighter makes us believe.


Unethical? Didn't you claim that Bitcoin "bilaterally split into two" and also tried to disinform and gaslight everyone into believing that BCash = "also Bitcoin". You are so ethical, franky1.

Social drama? Segwit is done/implemented, and BCash has done their hard fork to become an altcoin. You should accept  that. It's you who's the drama queen by forcing the issue, spreading tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that the Core developers are conspiring with Barry Silbert to keep the blocks small.

windfury yet again you miss many points and you are truly unethical crap you say and social drama insults on bitcoiners and the network has not gone unnoticed.

but lets stick with things you dont understand(or pretend not to)
the "weight unit" is not actual REAL BYTES

but under the cludgy code rules.. that chart of light blue wall with a few white cracks in it..

ALOT/most of the chart is highly blue right to the top with the occasional white gap

i know you(windy) are not good at hard data and numbers, so just be honest with yourself and YOUR EYES

would u call that chart a white empty chart with occasional blue spikes of utility.. would u call it 50:50 of white and blue.. or would you say it is a mostly blue wall with some white cracks of inactivity

if you want to be stupid and pretend there is no mostly hitting the limit.. count the pixels at the top line of blue vs white chart.. or actually check the hard data behind the chart. and do the math.. it will surprise you that its mostly hits the limit

and thats without congestion from just ONE service. imagine if all services decided they wanted to use the network properly daily. instead of forced to throttle down daily utility and avoid congesting the network

its not that there is no demand its that the limit has made people not want to use bitcoin daily to a true currency state of utility

the strangling and choking has already persuaded people down from using bitcoin. not due to a persons lack of desire not to. but due to lack of scaling to allow them freedom of use without concern

you know this and you love this because you think its proof that your altnetwork is taking up the slack and daily utility that people are not doing now due to the limitation.

if there was no demand the chart would not be topping the limit

but even toping the limit its not actually utilising the limit to allow more transactions than 2017

oh that reminds me
you are too obsessed about megabytes (blocksize) but you are not actually counting correctly. just like the cludgy code doesnt

it treats a normal legacy as larger than it is in weight units compared to segwit..

if the code actually bothered to be a true 4mb real byte limit and all transaction formats were counted as real tx bytes. and also not have a cludgy code of only allowing witness to use the 3of4 part of weight.

meaning any and all transactions can fully utilise a true 4mb space which core devs have deemed network safe..
then we can actually get true capability of more tx capacity to allow more frequent use rather than the throttled down use forced on users and services due to the cludge

but i do laugh how you subtly suggest "bitcoin is not used much by that many people" yea i see your subtle crap of calling bitcoin useless and unwanted you scummy altnet adorer

just remember about the congestion
if ONE service of ONE days full use, caused congestion that lasted a week.. imagine if there was 2 services, 4 20 services or just 52 services..

then you will maybe(but doubt) start to think that the throttling because of the limit has choked them 50 services down to not use it.. rather that natural lack of demand

You're supposed to show chart of average block size rather than chart of mempool size. Here are few example,


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000002/blocks?viewPanel=5&orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now


Source: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-weight

Maximum block size (in weight unit) is 4 million, so it's better proof block isn't full most of the time. Where average block weight is only 3.14 million weight.

That's simply not true because actually MOST OF THE TIME, it's not, and we can pay 1 to 3 sats per vByte and find our transactions within the next three blocks.

Mempool for one year.



Plus the congestion caused by Binance's deposit-reserve shuffle/consolidation of UTXOs was gone within the week. I believe the miners were very happy to do their jobs.

the blocks are FULL most of the time. if you think there is no demand. then you are wrong
take the congestion recently due to the binance deposit-reserve shuffle

the reason the blocks tx count "full" but are not filling to 4mb of data is not a lack of demand issue.. its a cludgy code issue that keeps data around the 1.4mb amount due to bad practice miscounting and crap
which then limits the amount of transactions per block to not be 4x the old 1mb limit pre 2017

atleast try and learn this stuff.. do some research and actually start to understand how bitcoin works!!
really do try to think before you speak and try to back up your assumptions with code and data and more importantly understanding how things work. stop replying with silly comments you heard your buddies say

try doing research for once, learn something

The data that you gave, asking where was the capacity "promised" by Segwit. If there's not enough demand, then what do we need bigger blocks for then, franky1? A hard fork to bigger blocks would only make the Bitcoin network go through all the risks, with little benefit to the network.

Do you actually believe the disapproval of the Core developers for big blocks is "because politics"? Or is that what you want everyone to believe? Stop the social drama. Roger Ver, and your community have your big blocks with BCash. You should be happy and promote that, to prove that bigger blocks actually are needed. Not the social drama that you have been posting, attacking the Core developers.

windfury i gave the data so how was i ignoring the debate..
all of the topic creators questions have been asked and answered.
the end of that debate is the topic creator now knows they can afford the hardware.

as for your silly antics..

also when it comes to the 4mb "weight" everyone was not asking for more bloat for the sake of bloat. they wanted 4mb of UTILITY of ability to fit more transactions.. they even compromised to atleast 2mb of utility.
but the bitcoin network as of today is still constrained to about 1.4mb average and that is not even giving a 40% tx count growth

they were not just saying "bigger blocks" of useless bloat data(you pretend that was being requested)
they were saying more transactions per block, which means blocks size needs to increase. yet the tx count has not increased thus the problem was not solved

please do your research there is a massive difference
oh and when you look at your buddy groups "events per month" on your favoured subnet. non of them are showing event number per month that even come close to bitcoins payments per block, so dont even pretend that LN is routing more payments than bitcoin is relaying (as your false claim that LN took on that excess congestion utility to not need bitcoin to need more utility)

the core roadmap camp of segwit adoration brigade wanted segwit purely for malleability fix to then offer subnetwork value conversion with out doublespends. but outside that subnetwork adoration brigade everyone else wanted more transactions per block on the bitcoin network.

the debate about scaling bitcoin and more transactions has thousands of users and many many many topics of such.
even this topic had someone that wants to be a full node and your rants are pretending its impossible to be a full node becasue of your silly 17yo reasons of old hardware

those wanting lightning are a small social drama queen army of idiots that dont care about a secure payment network, they just want to say that bitcoin cant cope and they feel bitcoin shouldnt cope with usage. just so they can scam people over to their subnetwork
you guys are worse then custodians with your asset grabbing desires.

you are a shameful example of that plot to say bitcoin cant grow and people cant be full nodes with lame 2015 arguments about pretending everyone uses 2005 technology and cant upgrade their hardware thats now 17 years old

if you dont upgrade your hardware in the time it takes you to have a kid to be born and let it grow up and sent away to university.. its you and you alone thats stuck in the past

its now time you grow up and get a education stop being the baby that wants to stay a baby

While the troll ignores the debate based on the hard data shown by him, and forces the issue that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks. He questioned where was the extra capacity "promised by Segwit", and he wants a hard fork to bigger blocks?

1. Segwit didn't promise more capacity, it was a fix for transaction malleability and had other upgrades for the network.
2. If average capacity is low, then why the need for bigger blocks?

BCash and BCash SV, which both claim to be the "Real Bitcoin", have bigger blocks. Where is the extra capacity they claimed that "their Bitcoin" needed?

Plus social drama? There is no social drama, franky1. It's the people like Roger Ver, and trolls like you that made social drama. You're merely gaslighting. Read the red trust rating given to you by gmaxwell and achow.

hmm winfury avoids looking for hard data outside the storybook narrative of his buddies to see if bitcoin can scale or not..

shame he didnt spend the day actually researching to realise hard drives and internet plans of 2022 are better usage and better priced compared to 2017 and 2013

---

as for windfuries social drama reply that contains no data

a. so since 2017 winfury thinks less people want to use bitcoin...
(facepalm) funny how windfury tries to make bitcoin sound like a dying network that is not fit for use and shouldnt grow even if it was fit for use.. hmm i wonder why he is against bitcoin but over promotes and over promises another network and thinks the other network "is bitcoin"

b. i used their word a few times and then went back to calling it a hard fork
yep they wanted to call it anything but a hard or mandatory fork. they wanted to pretend it was soft. and mutually agreed.. and al that crap

a true soft fork is where there would be true majority acceptance to not need to do any large scale orphaning/reject process prior to activation(to cause an activation)
a hard fork, contentious fork, mandatory fork.. is the opposite of soft

certain people would not even want to discuss the fork unless i called it by a name they decided to call it. so i used that name they wanted just to progress their avoidance of discussion into actually getting them to discuss it

and as for you pretending it was not a hard/mandatory fork or contentious. where you pretend it was all smooth and non event..
you are ignoring all available facts.
even the blockdata which is immutable proves you wrong.
go check the facts.. not the narrative your buddy story told to you at night to ease you to sleep

That's because of actual average usage/demand. If that's your debate, then WHY do we actually need a hard fork to bigger block sizes?

Was it probably all a red herring to hard fork the protocol away from the Core developers? The debate for bigger blocks did start from Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, which Mike Hearn FUD that if Bitcoin didn't hard fork to bigger a block size "Bitcoin will die".


ok you wanna poke some social drama rather then discuss the "resource" debate at hand in this topic

-Snipped gaslight about Segwit-