RAM

murkforgian

> any advantage to an SSH setup over a GUI install Less RAM is used, allowing a higher value for *dbcache*

CommercialEmu2342

I am actually doing the same today! I found one of my old drives with a few wallet.dat's, bitsquare.wallet, and a couple multibit.wallet's. so far only about 520 BTC but not bad for adding to my collection of other wallets i have stored from the old days. Crazy to think i found the BTC mining tut in 09 on a hacking forum and took a gamble back then. I think my old laptop had backtrack and like 4GB RAM.

Tego_Urbs_840

I've heard great things about Umbrel, super user-friendly and easy to set up. That Pi5 with 8GB RAM and 2TB SSD will handle it like a breeze. Let us know how it goes!

MrHonkiHonkson

Bad thing is if the brain is without oxygen it is like the RAM is wiped forever. If he will be unfreezed in the future he will have no memory or personality.

Ilovekittens345

>A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.

LiveDirtyEatClean

I did a pi4 -4 GB with 2 tb SSD and its going great. I am not using lightning channels to the 4GB RAM is totally fine.

Ajax_ZQN

I got a pi 5 w/ 8GB RAM and a 2TB SSD running umbrel recently. Fun to put together as a father-son project and it works like a champ.

castorfromtheva

Umbrel is good. It's easy to run and runs really stable! I compared it to a lot of other implementations and so far Umbrel works best compared to others! I recommend running it on a real x86 pc rather than on pi. Much more power while still being very energy efficient! Look for things like (used!) Lenovo Tiny mini pc with at least a generate 6 CPU (i3 6100t or above) and 8 gigs of RAM. On top get a 2Tbyte SSD and you're good to go for the next 5 years. Won't cost you more than approx. 200 bucks plus around 1 to 3 bucks per month for energy (in case you run it 24/7/365 as usually recommended, because quick availability).

seed-cat

If you don't have any of the addresses / XPUB then you can download a list of every on-chain address with a balance (could be limited from 2017-2018) and either load them into a hashset in memory or a bloom filter (if you don't have enough RAM).

akhtarg

Run a flux node - cost is 1000 flux locked, and stays in your wallet, until you delete the node and unlock. 1000 flux is approx $900 and APR is approx 16% Spec is Cores 2 Threads 4 EPS 240 RAM 8 GB Storage 220 GB Disk Write Speed 180 MB/s Internet Speed 25 Mbps Public IP 1 Max nodes per IP 8 Ubuntu 20.04 Linux runonflux.io for more info

Grancino

A Raspberry Pi 4 with 4 GB RAM 100 GB SSD would do it (with everything you need <US$100). Power consumption <5W.

macjonalt

I’ve never seen someone hate paragraphing so hard while getting high on semi colons. This reads like someone kicked ChatGPT really hard in the RAM.

Frogolocalypse

Yes. EDIT: In one of my past lives I was an electronics designer. I know what I could do with the tech of the day, and it was pretty awesome. But the types of [microcontrollers](https://dronebotworkshop.com/esp32-2024/) available today is mind blowing. Multiple cores, wifi, bluetooth, RAM... > Here is Espressif’s list of features for the ESP32-S3 Series: > > Xtensa® 32-bit LX7 dual-core processor that operates at up to 240 MHz > > 512 KB of SRAM and 384 KB of ROM on the chip, and SPI, Dual SPI, Quad SPI, Octal SPI, QPI, and OPI interfaces that allow connection to flash and external RAM > > Additional support for vector instructions in the MCU, which provides acceleration for neural network computing and signal processing workloads > > Peripherals include 45 programmable GPIOs, SPI, I2S, I2C, PWM, RMT, ADC and UART, SD/MMC host and TWAITM > > Reliable security features are ensured by RSA-based secure boot, AES-XTS-based flash encryption, the innovative digital signature, and the HMAC peripheral, “World Controller.”

ske66

Quantum safety is on the roadmap for Ethereum. But the reason why it’s not common is because it’s very expensive to simulate quantum computers. To spin an emulator up to run Microsoft’s Q# you need 16GB of RAM. That’s just to simulate 8 Qbits. The technology to test and develop quantum crypto currencies does not exist at scale yet. Additionally, consumers will likely not be using quantum computers ever. We may interface with them via an API, but we might not ever have a quantum computer in our home because it is not a 1-1 replacement to a classic computer. It is used for different types of work that requires no real human interface

HeroicHeron

You were likely mining shitcoins on Nicehash which was paying you in BTC. As Amber\_Sam suggested, the best way to utilize those GPUs would be to sell them and buy BTC directly. Buying an ASIC is probably not going to be worth it for you if the electricity costs are not extremely low where you live. Running a node is great, but you won't be making money that way. You don't need GPUs either (an integrated one would do) . Mainly you just need a decently sized and fast SSD, some RAM and a basic CPU. Anyway. good luck to you.

Positive-Might1506

Raspberry pi's are a little outdated now, I wouldn't reccomend them as the UTXO set is over 8gigs and will be committed to RAM if you have slow USB storage (which the pi 4 uses) which will cause it to slow down overtime. It would be better to get a cheap/ used mini PC with 8/16 gigs of RAM and atleast 2tb of NVME storage and install on there (or you could get a plug and play model). The cost shouldnt be over 350ish bucks for either option. I personally prefer start9 as when there is any issue you need to troublehsoot you dont need to have much technical knowledge to get things up and running whereas on umbrel you basically have to SSH into the device. Also start9 has more features like https and in my opinion a more dedicated community.

Ilovekittens345

Fun fact: Satoshi never designed Bitcoin to store every tx for all eternity as that would be completely bonkers. > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before > it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, > transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. > Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do > not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are > generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems > typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of > 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in > memory. Because Satoshi designed it to work with only storing 4.2 MB year (for all eternity) he said: **storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory** So trilema .... or professionally sabotaged by the powers that be that could not neutralize the network because it was so strong and in turn just fucked with your mind. You tell me, but the original whitepaper says that the design is to remove transaction after a while, and only save 4.2 MB of block headers permanently. But go a head and tell me how you know better than Satoshi.

Real-Technician831

Hardware wallets are safe from this particular attack, as the private key/seed is in the hardware token, and doesn’t ever touch Mac RAM memory.

Ilovekittens345

A couple of years after the Bitcoin whitepaper was released there was a disagreement about point 7 in the whitepaper. > 7. Reclaiming Disk Space > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before > it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, > transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. > Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do > not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are > generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems > typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of > 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in > memory. Some Bitcoin devs where convinced that Satoshi made a mistake here, that this was not possible. That for Bitcoin to work you need to store every transaction forever, even a 1000 years in to the future. These devs said: because we have to store every transaction even a 1000 years in to the future, we need to keep the blocks as small as possible. Other Bitcoin devs where concinved that what Satoshi proposed could really work. That you could remove transaction after a number of years and just only store the blockheaders. In that case you only need to store an extra 4.2 MB per year. So after a 1000 years you are still only storing 42 0000 MB. Which seems doable. So there was a fight for what direction to go. Both groups wanted to claim the BTC ticker and price as their own. The first group one, and they said: we will keep blocks as small as possible and keep storing every tx for ever. They ended up with the BTC ticker and price. The second group lost that battle, but they said: we will allow blocks to grow as big as block want to grow because we won't store the tx forever. That group ended up with the BTC ticker., The network split in two. Some hashrate went with BCH and most stayed with BTC because the BTC price on the market was much higher. Everybody that held Bitcoin now also held BCH on the other chain. So now there is two chains. BTC and BCH, that share a history before august 2017 where they diversed.

moonstone4759

> Mr. Nakamoto writes about a hash in the center of the UML diagram for a transaction In cryptography a hash is used as a digest, not a lookup table I assume you know the meaning of "digest" in this context, or can easily look it up A cryptographic signature signs a message using a private key. The private key is paired with a public key. The signature, public key and message are used to prove two things * the signature was created with the private key associated with the public key * the message has not been altered after it was signed For mathematical reasons, in asymmetric cryptography it is safer to sign a small message than a large one. For this purpose, the message is hashed, and the private key is used to sign the hash In the diagram, the transaction being spent and the new transaction's recipient public key comprise the message being hashed, and the spender's private key is signing the hash That's not precisely how Bitcoin works, but as an illustration it is accurate enough > people who know the answers to these questions I recall that I wanted to know the details of what message is being signed in a Bitcoin transaction input. A search led to some discussions at bitcoin.stackexchange.com. Newer discussions are better. Between them, Murch, Peter Wuille and A Chow provide accurate answers > confirmations A misleading terminology, but it has stuck ... It is a measure of how many blocks have been mined since a transaction was confirmed - how deep the transaction's block is in the chain A new block contains a few thousand transactions, and has been added to the blockchains of all the nodes in the Bitcoin network. Those transactions have one confirmation When the next block arrives, all the transactions in the previous block have two confirmations. The current block is at height 837050. So all the transactions in block 837000 have 51 confirmations > capacity > index > value vs. "value today" Not fields in a block, probably specific to a context you're seeing > height A number which increments each time a block is mined > weight Byte count of a transaction, adjusted by a weighting which penalizes some parts of a transaction. Some bytes are 4x heavier than others. This is a method of measuring a transaction's size which recognizes that some parts use less RAM > depth Discussed under "confirmations" > witness tx's Shorthand for "segregated witness" transactions, in which the parts of a transaction input not required to be cached in RAM are stored at the end of the transaction data. The witness bytes have a 0.25x weight bias in the earlier context - weight > outputs > inputs Bitcoin is a cash system, not a balance of account A Bitcoin transaction has one or more inputs and one or more outputs. Each output is a coin. Each input spends exactly one coin (output) from an older transaction. A coin can only be spent once, completely. Bitcoin has no partial spends An output is an address and an amount An input is a backwards pointer to an old output, a pubkey and a signature A transaction can be described as consuming one or more existing coins and creating one or more new coins > fees kb > fees kWU Fees per kb is calculated by dividing the fee amount by the kb amount. The kb amount is the block size divided by 1000 > fees Input amounts subtracted from output amounts > value vs. "value today" Not part of a block, not relevant to Bitcoin > fee range Lowest and highest per vbyte fee rates paid by transactions One vbyte is 4WU A block can not carry more than 4 million WU, 1 million vbytes. Users calculate fee rates per vbyte. Miners usually choose to fill the 1 million vbytes with transactions paying more per vbyte, to maximize fee revenue > average fee > median fee Calculations, not part of the block Elementary school arithmetic, where "average" is the mean, and median average may or may not be more useful than mean average > bits The mining target. Bitcoin mining is a guessing game. A Bitcoin block's header hash must be smaller than the current target. Periodically, the target is automatically adjusted smaller or larger to make mining harder or easier, so that the average block interval is always targeted to 10 minutes > size Count the bytes. This is only a curiosity - how many bytes can we squeeze out of the 4 million WU limit? > book or online documentation There's a 98% accurate on-line text book, with a printed version available from Amazon [Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain](https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook) See chapter 8 for signatures (re your first question), and chapters 6 and 7 for a deeper treatment of transactions See chapter 12 for blocks and mining

ImageJPEG

A Raspberry Pi 4 can do gigabyte blocks without swapping out of RAM on the BCH scalenet.

UvozenSukenc

Could be, or he could just be naive and saw this type of page for the first time. I'm not falling for it, my scam and ad filters are at level 99999+ after using Internet since 56k modems on 486 66 MHz PCs with 4 MB RAM.

moonstone4759

> How does a transaction that I want to make get to a block/get to miners? When you send a transaction from your wallet app, it goes to a node (or your own node). Each node is connected to either 8 or 126 other nodes. After 3 or 4 hops, your transaction has been stored in the 70,000 mempools of all the nodes, including the mempools of the mining pools' nodes > how do miners agree which exact transactions belong to a block? They do not agree. They do not need to. All 2 or 3 million miners might be hashing millions of different blocks. Only one miner wins the guessing competition. His block is added to the blockchain > Does the effort to verify whether Anders owns the 25$ he wants to send to someone else keep growing as the blockchain gets longer, because you always have to loop over the entire block chain to know his balance? Not really, but in a way. A TXO is valid to spend * if it exists on an older transaction, and * if it has not already been spent To avoid the O(n) problem when processing a block, Bitcoin nodes have a database of all 80 million or so unspent TXOs. The existence of a TXO in this database proves both of the above conditions. The lookup of this database is instant - so no O(n) problem there A new transaction has one or more TXOs. They all get added to the UTXO db. A transaction spends one or more existing UTXOs (each txinput spends exactly one UTXO from an older transaction). The TXO linked to each txinput is deleted from the UTXO db The O(n) problem exists in the initialization process for a new node. It has to read every transaction beginning from Bitcoin launch, add its outputs to the UTXO db and delete from the UTXO db, the UTXOs spent by its inputs. This process is the main contributor to the slow time for initializing a Bitcoin node. The initialization time is roughly proportional to the number of TXOs in the blockchain. It is I/O heavy, faster if the UTXO db (about 7GB) is on SSD, faster if the blocks are on SSD, faster if UTXO db and blocks are on separate devices, and faster still if there is a lot of RAM for caching UTXOs during the build > How are miners rewarded? Do they simply add a transaction to the block they mine that they get like 50 sat out of thin air? The first transaction in every block is reserved for paying the reward and the fees. It is called "coinbase". Like all transactions it has inputs and outputs. Unlike other transactions, it has only one input, and that input does not spend a UTXO. The node network (every node) checks the validity of each new block, including all transactions, including coinbase. There are specific rules for coinbase - the txinput does not spend a UTXO, the txoutput amount is the current reward (5 billion sats divided by the halving number raised to the power of 2) plus sum of the fee amounts of all the transactions Other miners don't get to disagree. Each block is linked to the previous block by a hash in the block header. The chain can only be extended if the new block's header contains the previous block's header hash

Ilovekittens345

Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree , with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.

MaximumStudent1839

>Crypto at it’s core is a network of people coalescing around a set of ideas. You are right that crypto is very much a social movement. Much of this tech is built around to serve certain social preferences of a group. >The EVM probably, Ossifying around the EVM is more a dev "lazy behavior", than really social consensus/value. It is much like, I am raised to use a QWERTY keyboard so everyone should use a QWERTY keyboard. When I am mean not a social consensus, most ETH users can barely tell the VM running behind it. If MetaMask was compatible with StarkNet from the get go, would users notice they aren't running EVM? Honestly, I don't think ossifying around a programming language is a good thing. IRL, languages do change rapidly from gen to gen, in large part due to differential needs for different gens and computing hardware acceleration. For example, when RAM was scarce, ppl use dinosaurs like SAS for data work. Nowadays, it is completely bewildering for data analysts to comprehend why you want to train models off your hard drives instead of using your RAM. But yeah, lazy deviness, when faced with no competition, is omnipresent. If you go to old banking systems, a lot of them still use the dinosaur SAS. It is not about "lindy effect", it is just those in position are too lazy to learn new stuff and aren't compelled to upgrade. > The more this happens the more lindy effect the chain has and the more it can be relied upon to continue working as it is. I think the space overrates the value of "continue working as it is" over "working toward what is intended". The former values inertia and complacency above everything else. The latter values product delivery and differentiation above everything else. Usually, it is the latter that has more value than the former, because value is created from meeting market demand, not from complacency. It is expected to ossify towards the latter, being jack-of-all-trades is often not a winning product characteristic. Ossifying towards the former is really writing your own doom. To me Bitcoin has ossified towards the latter while ETH has ossified towards the former. It is utterly bizarre to me that ETH is dead set on a L2 road map but it offloads so much of the responsibility for this to work to third parties. I mistakenly thought L2s were a temporary solution, exactly because I saw all ETH L2 public goods problem being solved by other L2s or VC projects. In my mind, I thought how can this be ETH's long-term road map when all these functions should be enshrined on main net. If stuff like decentralized sequencers etc. got enshrined on main net, it would have a lot more coherent narrative. Now what you have is one big speculative galore of infinite infrastructure ETH tokens to solve ETH problems. Each token has its own censorship and centralization issues, and ETH relying on them makes it confusing asf on what exactly ETH value as social product.

serg06

We as a society shouldn't have to worry that our *sandboxed browser tab* has access to *everything in our RAM*. yet here we are

sudomatrix

You couldn't even be bothered to google anything before boldly mocking op with a wrong opinion? Crystals: Kyber and Dillithium are encryption protocols. Every single crypto wallet that isn't connected to a hardware device (like Trezor or Ledger) stores keys digitally, and at least for a moment has them in RAM.

AsbestosDude

Proof of stake is very efficient what are you talking about, in no way is that a weak argument. Do you want to see the computation requirements to run a Cardano node? OS - Linux 64-bit (Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, 20.04 LTS; Mint 19.3, 20; Debian 10.3) 2 vCPU - 2GHz or faster ( recommended 4vCPUs) 24 GB of RAM. 200 GB of disk space Are you really going to argue that this node is inefficient compared to the cost of harvest, transportation, production of paper, ink, security, design, verification. &#x200B; Sure yes once the bill is printed it's out in circulation, however the cost to keep a single manufacturing plant's lights on is way more than it costs to run hundreds of nodes.

Consistent-Set-913

“I wrote a Python script to iterate through the BIP39 wordlist with 2048 words, one missing seed word and one known BTC address created early in the wallet’s lifetime. It took me approx. 7 hours and 30 minutes to try every possible iteration (2048 words) and generate a BTC address that matched what I gave the program. I ran the script offline (no internet access) with 6GB RAM laptop and 8-core CPU. I must note that I couldn’t use my laptop for other tasks and the 7hrs 30mins landmark doesn’t include the frequent times the laptop crashed but at the end, it was really worth it” Found this post. What’s going on here???

riscten

>I thought the hardware wallet doesn't store your bitcoin or private keys? It depends. *Stateless* HW wallets don't store your private keys *persistently*, meaning that they only store it in volatile memory (RAM) for the duration of a session, and when you reboot the device, they're gone and you have to type them back in. Stateful HW wallets (like Coldcard) store your private keys persistently in a secure element. You can think of the secure element as a tiny, isolated computer within the device, that has its own storage very limited processing power, and is tamper resistant. When you reboot a Coldcard, you don't need to re-enter your seed (although it can be configured to be stateless too and clear the seed on every shutdown) So really, all wallets store private keys. What varies is when they clear them from memory. The fundamental feature of a HW wallet is to isolate the keys from wider networks (like a LAN or the Internet). The job of a hardware wallet is to sign transactions without ever exposing the private keys to the outside world. A phone or desktop wallet cannot do this because the software is running on a general purpose OS that's exposed (or will be exposed) to various networks. If you run Electrum on macOS, you can have malware watching what the wallet is doing, or a keylogger waiting for you to type in a seed, or a plethora of other attack vectors. Even if you disconnect from the Internet, it can save the data and beam it to the mothership the moment you're back online. A well designed hardware wallet will have no networking features and be completely airgapped. The fact that they are simpler and separate devices also makes it easier to control what's running on there. You will (hopefully) never be tempted to install a YouTube downloader extension that comes packaged with malware on a hardware wallet. You just type in your seed, generate a transaction on a hot wallet, send the transaction to the cold (hw) wallet via QR codes or an SD card, have the cold wallet sign the transaction using your private key, then transfer the signed transaction back to the hot wallet, which will broadcast it to the network.

riscten

10 years is on the low end, but still, if your hw wallet ever fails, you carefully remove the battery, pulverize the PCB, paying particular attention to the NAND, RAM and secure elements, then you get another hw wallet and restore your seed phrase on it.

Loose_Screw_

>Companies have financial statements and management to go off of Hah...hahaha. Ever heard of Enron? Ever heard of RAM price fixing scandals. Heard of the multiple energy fixing scandals in the UK. Heard of BHS in the UK where employees pensions got nuked by PFI deals that drained all equity out of the company before discarding the empty husk? Regulation is fine. It's nice to be able to read a maybe accurate high level picture of companies accounts at the end of each year. It's not a panacea though, and with Blockchain you can view the code and transactions for how the entire thing works if you so desire. I don't see Apple or Google open sourcing their code bases. Crypto and Stocks are different, you're right in that much. Both have benefits, but viewing crypto as inherently riskier is so myopic it's almost blind.

user_name_checks_out

> About half that still gets you a ranch house with granite countertops, a blacked out 2019 RAM rebel Well you can't buy taste

WarmMillerLite4-2

It’s somewhat in perspective and location for sure. 100k/yr is still nothing to sneeze at in my world. About half that still gets you a ranch house with granite countertops, a blacked out 2019 RAM rebel with 30,000 miles on it and still keeps the fridge full for the wife and kid with at least 1 vacation a year. Definitely not functional in major cities I know but it can still be pretty comfortable

Ilovekittens345

Have you ever read what Satoshi wrote in the bitcoin whitepaper? > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before > it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, > transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. > Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do > not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are > generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems > typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of > 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in > memory Could you explain why Satoshi says that storage is not a problem since the growth is only 4.2 MB per year? It does not seem like Bitcoin was ever designed to store all transactions for all eternity, cause like you said: that would be ridiculous.

Ilovekittens345

He is also completely wrong. Satoshi wrote in the original bitcoin whitepaper, the paper that started everything: Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree , with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systemstypically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, **storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory**

MinimalGravitas

> If these were separate L1's and they got popular enough for it to matter, they would still easily attain sufficient security through a large number of miners or validators. Rollups have a couple of big advantages here. Firstly and most obviously, alternative L1s have to pay for their own security, which they do through issuance to validators (or miners) - https://moneyprinter.info/ - inflating away the value accrual of their asset. The amount being paid out is the security budget, and it is in effect the protocol paying for people to stake and therefore secure the network from attackers. For a rollup, you don't need to bootstrap your own set of validators for security, you can get that from Ethereum and all you have to pay in return is a portion of the gas fees collected by users. There is no way that an Alt-L1 can compete with this proposition in term of value for money security. Secondly, by splitting up the Ethereum ecosystem into different layers, each part only requires low powered hardware to run. You can run an Ethereum node (or validator) on a cheap (~$400) computer with a regular internet connection. You can also run nodes for the major L2s with the same type of requirements - https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html. Contrast this with an alternative chain that is trying to do everything on L1, such as Solana. Solana requires a machine with 256GB of RAM (4x more than the PC I use for VR gaming) and a 1 GB/s up & down internet connection - which is basically unavailable however much you are willing to spend almost anywhere on Earth. Not being able to run a node means that you cannot interact with the chain directly, whether to post transactions or even to check your balance. If you just have to trust a random 3rd party and can't verify anything yourself then you've given up the one advantage crypto has over the traditional financial system - you may as well just stick to banks and Paypal.

GrandmasGiantGaper

you are objectively wrong though lol. People are still on 2x DDR3 4GB sticks. Plenty of people have double DDR4 8GB. It's probably the most common setup these days. RAM is cheap.

proof-of-conzept

Addition: computer with 3.5GHz, your 12 words need little to no memory. Most Computers have 30 something registers, so all words will be in registers. You basically only have copy/store instructions to assemble all combinations and on most machines you can issue 1 store every clock cycle into L1 RAM. Lets add log2(12)+1=4 increments (1 cycle), comparisons (1 cycle) and branches (2 cycles) for each loop iteration to calculate the selected words/registers to copy from + 500mil loop branches (2 cycles). That will be roughly: 500mil *2 + 500mil * 4 * 4 ~ 9G 3.5GHz/9G ~ 3sec So in a rough estimation your computer takes 3 seconds to generate all possible combinations. It will probably take a little longer, so see this as a lower bound of what is theoretically possible. It will take some seconds. But you don't have to wait minutes or hours.

m0x0n

Blocks have memory equal to their size. It's not RAM or temporary storage, but it's the documentation of their ledger. My post points to the fact that it doesn't matter if the size is 2MB or 2000MB, it's still too small to host any meaningful fraction of the transaction history of a society. This limits its value. And lightning is off-chain for all intents and purposes. How can you argue that there's an immutable history when only a tiny fraction of the payment processed are written into the chain? Defeats the entire point of Bitcoin as a better substitute for mainstream currency.

Revolutionary-Ebb-26

Most of the money doesn't get allocated to properly engineering a truly fault tolerant system. A lot of factors are at play here it's not just web traffic as you are thinking of it. consider for instance that for almost everyday of the year for years, their production systems are not under the load that peak hype brings. They likely are running on serverless compute meaning they pay a cloud provider like AWS or GCP for server space. The cost for a large scale production operation is enormous. So to keep costs down, they likely have burst scale thresholds meaning that as load capacity thresholds are reached more infrastructure is provisioned on the fly to handle it. This alone can account for some instability as you can imagine that too sudden a spike of users could outpace the time it takes to provision the needed extra servers. Beyond that there is also the limits of the algorithms themselves and the glue and pipes so to speak that run their trade systems.. we are talking about a massive engine generating logs, eating more, storing and retrieving data in the backend databases, processing data and attempting to update the system as close to realtime as possible. You not only have users but the scripts and algorithmic trading bots using the API to interact with the system placing orders at speeds and magnitudes a human could never match. All of this taking up RAM and compute somewhere... Data structures fill, queues form.. I can see how easy it would be for a massive spike of usage to cause some problems. Granted you are right, they are a massive company and they could put more engineering effort into smoothing out the experience on days like this. It wouldn't be easy but they could make an improvement I'm sure many Coinbase engineers would attest to all the room for improvements they probably think about all the time but can do little to change.

gwillen

At these scales, you sell through an OTC broker. They will wire the funds directly to you. You probably still have to send the coins first. Maybe not if you're a big name billionaire or something. I am a little surprised someone would sell 1000 in a block under those circumstances -- it always reduces risk to spread it out. In the past, when I had to move much smaller amounts than that, I still had a policy of splitting larger transactions into individual spends that it wouldn't kill me to lose. God forbid, somehow the destination address gets a bit flipped in RAM by a solar flare during signing, or substituted for another one by malware, or who even knows. Better to check that the first amount went through okay before sending the next, you know?

CreepyParsnip342

Even if they don’t read it from your email, your system could be compromised and they could read it when you watch it from your email or when you type it there. A good malware has access to your RAM, keys, or even the screen, so nothing is safe online. Need to learn and wise up, nothing else you can do. And word of caution, if you have used your device irresponsibly, you could even have a rootkit on it, even though unlikely, so formatting your computer may not even be enough to clean the system.

Underwelmed_

I run two nodes. I’m not skilled but I’ve learned a lot. It is definitely worth it in educational value. I don’t know what you should expect for download/upload speed but also consider that Bitcoin started in 09 and people ran nodes worldwide. Granted the block sizes are much bigger now still you should be able to keep up with a 2mb every 10 minutes once you get the blockchain downloaded. Two things to consider. - make sure you get a good rewrite speed on you disk - go big on RAM This may not be feasible anymore on a raspberry. You can pick up a good mini computer on Amazon that has good RAM and won’t break the bank and then add a 1tb SSD to it. Last, don’t run Bitcoin Core. Use Bitcoin Knots. It has filters to slow the spread of spam on the blockchain.

TissueUnflawed

> Bitcoin Standard This isn't possible because Bitcoin is designed to be resistant to regulatory interference by being decentralized. Decentralization is effective because there is a large and diverse network of volunteer-operated nodes For the nodes to stay synchronized, transactions are collected into blocks and delayed by 10 minutes For the nodes to stay affordable, and by being affordable the node network remains sufficiently large and diverse, hardware costs (RAM most importantly) are limited by limiting the maximum Bitcoin block size to 1 million vbytes (4 million weight units) These two numbers - 10 minutes and 4 million weight units - create a limit to Bitcoin's capacity to process transactions. This capacity is many, many levels below the "Bitcoin Standard" fantasy advocated by money revolution fanatics here Governments will always be able to raise funds to deal with future pandemics and other catastrophes. Bitcoin has no role at this level

TissueUnflawed

> bandwidth speeds, prices, disk space and computing power will be much greater by the time it's needed All those things are already cheap, but where is RAM in your big block proposal? As it played out, after Satoshi was long retired, development emphasis shifted to strategic use of RAM caching to reduce the processing speed for verifying all the transactions in a block Many claim the block size is easy to increase without cost to the node operator, just as you have. And just as you do, they claim it's all about A, B, C and D, and completely ignore RAM costs The no-context quote in the OP pre-dates the block size limit. It pre-dates the RAM caching strategy by several years But go ahead, increase the block size, centralize the node network, make the ECB bloggers correct > The Bitcoin network has a governance structure in which roles are assigned to identified individuals. Authorities could decide that these should be prosecuted in view of the large scale of illegal payments using Bitcoin. Decentralised finance can be regulated as forcefully as the legislator considers necessary https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2024/html/ecb.blog20240222%7E0929f86e23.en.html Maybe they're not lying at all. They're predicting that Bitcoin will follow BCashSV to centralization of the node network

CointestMod

#Avalanche Pro-Arguments Below is a Avalanche pro-argument written by ExchangeEnough7821. > AVAX Pros: (similar to my previous Avax post from the January round) > > What is Avalanche? > > Avalanche is a cryptocurrency that uses smart contracts in order to host a large number of blockchain projects. It is one of the many coins that potentially could rival Ethereum. The two main priorities and focuses of the AVAX project are the speed of transactions of this coin, and the scalability of this coin and its infrastructure. Finally, the avalanche is completely open source, so all users can add to or just look at the code that makes up AVAX. > > What are the pros of Avalanche? > > Most notably, Avalanche has a very quick transaction processing speed, So far, AVAX can handle 4,500 transactions per second, a large increase compared to Ethereum’s 15 per second - seemingly tiny in comparison. Therefore, Avalanche has a greater ability to scale large amounts – it can handle large demand and interaction that comes with a popular network. > > One of the things most valued by those using the AVAX blockchain and invested in the avalanche coin is the rewards given for processing AVAX transactions. This reward structure is so attractive particularly due to its low system requirements- only 4GB RAM and a 2GHz CPU are needed, making this reward structure accessible to everyone, in turn making the user base of AVAX larger. By rewarding participation, it encourages users to get involved with the avalanche network. > > Finally, Avalanche uses 3 compatible and interoperable blockchains that, when used together, can overcome issues faced by other blockchains. The first of these is the X-Chain, which is responsible for creating and exchanging the AVAX assets and of course coins. Secondly, there is the C-Chain (the contract chain) which is for hosting the decentralised applications and smart contracts. Finally, the P-Chain keeps track of active subnets, and easily creates new ones. When all of these are combined, the AVAX blockchain is well rounded and with few flaws. > > In conclusion, the main pros of the Avalanche network is its incredibly fast processing speed, rewards scheme and the interoperable blockchains that overcome issues faced by many other ones. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

wjean

The original MSDOS maxed out at 640KB of RAM because noone could imagine needing more than that.

Randomd0g

Damn I bet you must need a whole megabyte of RAM to power that beast?

Ok-Study3863

The bare minimum specs required to even send a request to read data. Try 1 index, 2 index and attempt to send a TX 🤣 Looking at 512gb RAM minimum and 24 cores. Also your cost and "gaming system" analogy is so wrong its beyond laughable. $10k minimum hardware if you want a node actually capable of performing work. In fact you can not only buy a gaming system but TV and surround sound system cheaper than 1 month of a quality RPC rental. Hahahahahahaha Barely 2k nodes on the network says it all. Thanks for the easy laughs today!

TissueUnflawed

The Bitcoin Standard is nonsense from start to finish Bitcoin's purpose is cash-like on-line transactions. This is implemented using a decentralized network of independently operated nodes. The Bitcoin node software enables the node network to process the transactions, without interference from regulators and other censors. But, without the network being large and diverse, Bitcoin would be vulnerable #10 To ensure the network remains synchronized - all nodes converge to the same transaction history - transactions are collected into blocks, and each block is delayed 10 minutes #4,000,000 To ensure it remains affordable for ordinary people to join the node network, and keep nodes in the network, Bitcoin node technical requirements are low. In the current commodity PC market, RAM is the most significant cost. To keep a Bitcoin node's RAM footprint low, the maximum block size is limited to 4,000,000 weight units (usually referred to as 1 million vbytes) These two limits constrain Bitcoin's daily transaction capacity, to a level many steps below "Bitcoin standard" or "world reserve currency" or any of the other money revolution slogans popular in this forum. Bitcoin will always be a decentralized network providing cash-like on-line transactions. Bitcoin will never be those other things

tvanborm

yeah, these requirements are insane, it would cost almost $1000 to set up a system like this. the average user spends more on their gaming system. The specific system requirements will depend on the use of the node (and these can be tuned quite a bit for custom cases), but here are some rough starting guidelines: 12-core CPU with 2.8GHz clock speed minimum 128/256GB of RAM (RPC nodes might require more for custom database indices) 2-4 NVME drives of at least 1TB 10 Gbps Network Note that there are multiple validator software rewrites in process that aim to get more performance out of lesser hardware, Firedancer being the most prominent one

Ok-Employ-1029

Is the size of a blockchain important though? Don't Solana nodes hold the entire global state in RAM, or something like that? I don't understand the technicals enough to know when the history is important.... it would appear that validators can't really verify the entire history given the size? Or can they?

Ok-Study3863

Until solana nodes are available to the average user like every other blockchain, it'll always just be a scam to make money selling data credits, rent servers, and rpc services. Selling RPC services makes more than staking by a long shot, funny how that's so intentionally designed while claiming "Moores law" nonsense while updating to multiple indexes and requiring more and more RAM. Again all designed intentionally to funnel people to their RPC service for rent. Hahahahaha.

sy7ar

I'll give you a simple explanation. Imagine a giant computer, a world computer, that's run on crypto/blockchain technology. That means it's a computer that can't be shut down by a CEO, a government, or any central authority. This computer can only be changed, upgraded by a group of people (usually token holders), via proposals. What can this computer do? It can be accessed by anyone to build apps on it, and it can act as a server to serve these apps. No, ETH is not the same. It can only run some simple scripts and store tiny amount of data, and it takes a while to achieve consensus. This Internet Computer can run much more complex programs because it has much more RAM, storage space and, achieve consensus in a much more efficient manner. So why not build apps on the AWS or Google computer? That computer can be shut down or changed by a single person or central authority, and it's less secure. Is the Internet Computer is going to be the next big thing? It's hard to say but a lot of innovations are gonna come out of it because of its unique capabilities that other blockchains don't have. It's definitely one of the most innovated tech in the crypto space because it's a new architecture whereas most other chains are ETH copycats with minor tweaks.

castorfromtheva

You can run Umbrel on any pc with e. g. Ubuntu Server as OS that then runs 24/7 as a server. Those mini-pcs outthere are quite recommendable and installation is also quite easy. You could also go with a Raspi4. But it's not that powerful as an "normal" pc. Just keep in mind to equip it with (at least) 8 gigs of RAM and preferably a 2Tbyte SSD.

-johoe

>How much RAM is it using? The reported size for mempool was around 2 GB at peak, now it's back to 1.3GB. The bitcoin process takes 8.5GB, but that includes database caches, like for block indices and UTXO database.

TissueUnflawed

> I have set eviction time to five years on my mempool, just to be sure How much RAM is it using? > Be amazed to find your long forgotten transaction from three months ago be suddenly confirmed, because some nodes still had it and are rebroadcast it I could be wrong, but I don't think Core automatically rebroadcasts. As the person who has the whole collection, you could rebroadcast them. It might be an interesting experiment

TheEpiczzz

Anyone on here done some Crypto mining through Salad? Just had an advertisement come by and it sparked a little interest, yet so many questions. I've seen crypto mining on your own PC come by for years, yet it keeps sounding fishy. I always wonder if it really does make such a difference and make you money. Your PC will slowly deteriorate. Faster than it does while just gaming for a few hours a week. Electricity bill will go up, so more monthly costs etc. Does it really weigh up against those costs? I mean I barely have time to use my PC at home and it has a AMD Ryzen 5, 3600X - 16GB RAM - AMD 4750XT. So quite good specs, just not as high end as some. Anyone did any crypto mining who can give me some insights in wether it's worth it or not?

MinimalGravitas

> I do stake directly in Solana Aren't the hardware requirements pretty hefty? The docs suggest 256GB of RAM (my VR gaming rig only has 64GB!) and a 1GB/s internet connection.

alineali

Depends of your IT skills. If you can do it - than pretty much any Linux machine with at least a 4 of GB of RAM will be able to run something like Electrum - provided, of course, that you can put recent Linux distribution on it. and keep it updated. You do not really need to have it fully air-gapped, but it should be a dedicated PC which I would keep turned off most of the time.

Buzzergoes_Ovenoff

Ah, sorry. [Bookworm is Debian 12](https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/). As I understand it, your primary bottleneck is likely the processing power and database cache on the host. If it's a dedicated node (which, in my opinion, it should be) then bump up the database cache setting to between 50% and 75% of your total RAM. I tried 85% (with small swap) and it it [OOMed](https://neo4j.com/developer/kb/linux-out-of-memory-killer/), hence my recommendation to go with reasonable cache of under 75%.

MinimalGravitas

> L2s can't even compete with Solana rn (in terms of volume), i doubt changing in fees will make a big different. Volume is a very fakeable metric on a chain with low fees. You can just send assets backwards and forwards. In fact just by picking random transactions in random blocks you'll find loads of examples of transaction that don't seem 'organic'... As an example I pulled up a couple of weeks ago, this account made hundreds of simple send SOL transactions 18 days ago, but all of them are sending 0 SOL: https://solscan.io/account/7RYFGr4NAWfocY8DLA9zqSH6UjoCtUVh31tczqHK6y9Y#solTransfers They aren't interacting with a smart contract or sending tokens or whatever, just paying a transaction fee to send 0 SOL to another account: e.g. https://solscan.io/tx/3Rhjk7RkvmX6dFYpvMg1kNSKtE2cSL6BDVm78fAYtXLv19CtTEGh22S9F9VXmTxUp7Ddf6FQJmqJcsNQY46axszH But this is nothing new, we have known that bots are responsible for the huge majority of Solana transactions for years: https://twitter.com/Davyegld/status/1653070957014052865 And the idea that they would intentionally fake volume to make their metrics look more impressive fits perfectly well with the time that they faked their DeFi TVL and developer numbers: https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/08/04/master-of-anons-how-a-crypto-developer-faked-a-defi-ecosystem/ Talking of those stats. Today there are more devs working in Arbitrum than in Solana: https://www.developerreport.com/ And just Arbitrum's DeFi ecosystem has about 2x the TVL of Solana, and about 4x the number of dApps deployed on it: https://defillama.com/chains Also, you can verify data on Arbitrum yourself as it's possible to run a node at home on cheap hardware, giving direct access to onchain data: https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html#id2 With Solana, if you don't have a 1GB/s connection and a computer with 256GB of RAM then you just have to trust... and they would never lie... right: https://medium.com/cyber-capital/a-solana-critique-lies-fraud-dangerous-trade-offs-76885dbe1ea0

MinimalGravitas

> For way too long I focused on RAM and CPU, rather than bandwidth (and latency). Yea, me too, until recently I had only ever run nodes for Bitcoin and Ethereum and so never really considered the connection requirements. We've got fiber, but not 1GB/s!

SporeDruidBray

Nah very fair, I just wanted a soapbox to differentiate between node OpEx and node CapEx. For way too long I focused on RAM and CPU, rather than bandwidth (and latency).

MinimalGravitas

> I also am not a fan of having millions of L2 chains to fix what's broke on the main L1 ETH chain. It's adds unecessary complexity not just technical but financial as well. If gas becomes so expensive and only huge corporations can use ETH while the plebs are forced onto Polygon, Arbritum, Optimism, etc. Why not just use an L1 that already has those features? I think you're missing the point of why Bitcoin and Ethereum are slow and expensive. It isn't that they are broken, it's that they have prioritized users actually being able to access the chain to post transactions, check balances etc. With the higher throughput L1s the hardware to run a full node and the connection required is much higher as well. For example, to run a Solana node you need at least 1GB/s internet and a computer with 256GB of RAM. Many places can't even get that kind of connection, and that amount of RAM alone would cost around $800. For comparison my entire Ethereum node, including SSD and everything was about $400. If you can't run a node then you are forced to use 3rd party RPCs to send transactions for you, and trust that they don't sell too much of your private data to too many people. You also can't check balances or smart contracts or anything directly, you just have to hope that the 3rd party blockchain explorers are honest. Where L2s come in is that you can keep the L1 slow and easy to run, while at the same time getting the benefits of fast, cheap transactions. And because the L2s are only processing execution and have offloaded consensus to the L1, they can be run on low powered hardware as well [https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html]. Ultimately no regular users will have any need to use L1, you can already onboard directly from most major exchanged, and there are more dApps and liquidity on the big L2s like Arbitrum than almost any alternative L1 [https://defillama.com/chains]. Ultimately I don't think that alt-L1s will be able to compete with L2s, if you play out perfect optimizations of both types of architecture the fact that L2s don't have to pay for their own security seems to me like it is an unsurmountable advantage. On the other hand though, we're pretty far from anything being perfectly optimized yet! All L1s and L2s have got long roadmaps ahead of them and so ultimately we will just have to wait and see how it plays out. And I guess, place out bets according to our best predictions.

TissueUnflawed

If it's not in your own node's mempool, you didn't send it. Increasing the RAM to your VM will not fix that

OppositeOfOxymoron

Any idea why my transactions aren't getting to the mempool? Does it have anything to do with the fact that there's something silly like 1.7GB of transactions waiting according to Mempool.space? Should I increase the RAM to my VM to be able to contain the entire mempool?

towelheadass

you can write a script that will search your laptop for 12 or 24 word text files, just plug in an external keyboard if the laptop keyboard is busted. "in need of repairs" how, it probably just needs the dust blown out & the drive formatted, maybe some more RAM.

Strong_Stranger_3339

roughly 600GB of ssd storage, 4gb RAM and an internet connection.

TissueUnflawed

> it can cross reference every single possible address for a potential balance It can not, does not need to The present popular implementation of deterministic wallets creates several branches of subchains of keys. In these chains, there is one public key per private key, one address per public key. Numerically, each chain has 2^31 possible keys/addresses (about 2 billion). Practically, the limit is lower. With more and more addresses, a wallet uses more and more RAM and takes longer to process each new block. But (except for a few heavy users) we do not see people complaining that their wallet has slowed down because of too many addresses A wallet app typically generates 50 keys pairs and 50 addresses to begin. When the first 50 addresses have all been allocated, it allocates 50 more. The wallet only needs to look for incoming transactions for the addresses its user knows about. When you select "Receive", it displays the next unused address If you've never seen and shared an address, your wallet doesn't need to scan blocks for transactions paying to that address

Ilovekittens345

Sure, here are everything BCH does different from BTC. First of BCH can work by increasing the size of the blockchain by only 4.2 MB a year. > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before > it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, > transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. > Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do > not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are > generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems > typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of > 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in > memory. Second high orphan rates cause by big blocks that take a long time to spread through the network are solved by compressing the blocks. Bitcoin Cash compresses them with [Xthinner](https://news.bitcoin.com/xthinner-protocol-tested-on-bch-mainnet-shows-99-block-compression/) and [Graphene.](https://cryptoeconomics.cs.umass.edu/graphene/) Thirdly validating transaction was sped up by forcing a canonical transaction ordering ([CTOR](https://news.bitcoin.com/op-ed-the-case-for-adding-ctor-to-bitcoin-cash-in-november/)), this allows the validation of them to be multi threathed unlike Bitcoin Core where it's still all single threat. Fourthly new full nodes taking a long time to sync from genesis was fixed by fast sync. [BCHD can sync a new desktop or laptop in just a couple of hours.](https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-node-bchd-syncs-in-just-over-an-hour-with-fast-mode/) Fithly [UTXO commitments](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/chip-2021-07-utxo-fastsync/502), this is still a work in progress but when finished will allow new nodes to sync up without having to download the entire blockchain and crunching the numbers back to genesis. When BCH did a scaling test it showed that orphans did not show up till the block became bigger then 20 MB. This was years ago. In test enviroment it's currenlty shown that orphans won't show up till about 200 MB blocks. The current consensus is that with current technology and the code written, once utxo commitment are active it won't be a problem to have 1 GB blocks. That might seem a lot but don't forget that the entire BTC network is arbitrary limited to process only 3kb/s Having that network process 2 megabytes per second, does that really sound so crazy in 2024? Satoshi Nakamoto never though that was crazy. Look what he wrote in an email to Mike Hearn. > Hi Mike, > > I’m glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper. > > There is only one global chain. > > The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you’re interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size. > > By Moore’s Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions. > > I don’t anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they’ll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don’t. **The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.** > > Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it’s nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it’ll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we’ll transition to that. > > A key aspect of Bitcoin is that the security of the network grows as the size of the network and the amount of value that needs to be protected grows. The down side is that it’s vulnerable at the beginning when it’s small, although the value that could be stolen should always be smaller than the amount of effort required to steal it. If someone has other motives to prove a point, they’ll just be proving a point I already concede. > > My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it’s locked in and we’re stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that’s very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it’ll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there’s only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There’s plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it’s now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1. > > Ripple is interesting in that it’s the only other system that does something with trust besides concentrate it into a central server. > > Satoshi

Ilovekittens345

>with that huge blockchain size BCH can work with just a 4.2 MB increase in the blockchain per year. >Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree , with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. BCH is not designed to store the purchase of a cup of coffee forever on the blockchain, that would be insane.

_monolite

I am probably projecting my own experiences onto the entire world, but I think in reality people buy what they want when they want it with the highest quality they can afford with regards to expected usage and benefits it'd bring. Otherwise there wouldn't be lines of people when a new iphone comes out. And it is much cheaper to get a used car than it is to get one right out of the dealership, yet people still buy new cars, even though they surely know that in 3 years their car would be worth half of what they'd paid. My point is that I think we already live in the deflationary world, things of the same quality do get cheaper over time, but we're still being robbed by inflation. And that $3/GB that you paid is at most $2.50 in terms of 2016 dollars, and the RAM you bought in 2023 is probably faster (like DDR5 maybe?)

Peach-555

Ideal for encouraging people to choose the products or services that they personally want, for example high quality long lasting. It would be good if everything got cheaper over time in real terms overall, but it would not be good for encouraging long lasting products. If a kettle that lasts a lifetime cost $1000, and a kettle that last 5 years costs $500, it makes economic sense to buy the 5 year kettle if the price of kettles falls by 20% per year. PC parts are a good example, people are keeping their hardware for longer now compared to the past, as the performance increase per dollar per generation is slowing down. I would prefer if hardware doubled in performance per dollar every year, but it would encourage people to switch computer parts more often. This is more of a personal ramble, but it's funny you mentioned RAM as an example. I bought 2x8GB ram for $50 in 2016, \~$3 per GB. I also paid about \~$3 per GB for the RAM I bought 2023. Prices of RAM went up and came back down again.

_monolite

But why would the currency not gain value over time in the ideal world you are describing? People progress, the production cost of a thing comes down with new efficient ways of production (think RAM costs over time), so the price of the thing should fall over time because it costs less to manufacture it en masse, shouldn't it?

Ilovekittens345

People keep saying things like: "Bitcoin can't scale because you have to store the purchase of a cup of coffee on the chain for all eternity" while in the white paper it said >Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. People keep saying that if you use a SPV wallet instead of running a full node you are not secure while the whitepaper said: >t is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it. As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification. People keep saying that a 51% attack will cause you to lose your coins while the whitepaper said: >We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker This is why I am all in on Bitcoin Cash. Because I see everybody else trade on believing lies.

MinimalGravitas

> other chains have a lot more room to grow without the technical headache of actually scaling properly. I think this obviously comes down to the definition of 'properly'. In my opinion two of the most fundamentally important aspects of cryptocurrencies are: * Permissionlessness - any users can interact directly with whoever and whatever they like, and; * Trustlessness - users do not need to rely on the entities they interact with to be honest. The only way to achieve this is for users to be able to run nodes if they wish. Full nodes give you the ability to connect to the network yourself, check balances without relying on 3rd party explorers, post transactions without relying on 3rd party RPC providers etc. For most of the chains that claim to have solved scaling, they do this by making transactions faster in one way or another. This means the clients that run the network have higher hardware and connection requirements, which makes running a full node unrealistic for regular users. As an example, to run a node that would let you check your balance or post a transaction on Solana requires at minimum a 1GB/s internet connection and 256 GB of RAM. For comparison, the PC I use for playing DCS in VR has 64 GB. On the other hand, I'm running an Ethereum node and an Optimism L2 node on $200 Rock 5b single board computers (~ $450 when you factor in SSDs, cases, fans, power supplies etc). So yea, some chains have scaled to offer much cheaper transactions, but the tradeoff that their marketing never mentions is that no normal users will ever be able to actually post a transaction themseves or verify any balanced... which in my opinion means you may as well just use the traditional banking system!

TheDumbInvesto

Cost, I think it is my country specific then. A decent samsung phone (with minimum RAM/ROM) costs 6-7k INR, but wallets in the range of 10k (ledger/trezor) to 19k (coldcard). I can get a jade for 7300 but it is unavailable. And yes, if we lose the phone, we lose the coins. True that.

Itslittlealexhorn

>I’ve little belief in them to go in that direction as past choices have demonstrated they prefer to reward early investors Ugh... The reason why gas limits aren't raised willy nilly isn't because of investors or some conspiracy to raise transaction costs. It's because larger blocks place higher demand on the hardware of validators. It's important for Ethereum (and no, not some secret cabal of "early investors", but the actual project and community) that the threshold for becoming a validator is not too high, so that everyone can participate. We absolutely do not want staking to only be feasible for large providers. Currently you already need a relatively current ~quad-core CPU, 16GB of RAM and about 2TB of *good* dedicated SSD storage, in addition to a stable broadband internet connection without a data cap to run an execution and consensus client. Those requirements are not trivial at all and for most people it means buying a dedicated machine at around ~$300-500 at minimum. If those requirements change, you will break the setup of some people. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but you gotta be mindful.

Aussiehash

You can run a full node on a Pi4b with 4GB RAM (8GB needed of you want an indexer like fulcrum or electrs)

qfourTom

Can you please rate this for me?: 97.27 % - 10 peers connected over clearnet - Hashrate 408 EH/s +/- 50 - Blockchain Size 592 GB It took 3.5 days for reaching 95% and now it feels like getting exponentially slower... My Setup: Raspberry Pi 4 - 8GB RAM Swap increased to 1G SSD connected via USB 3.0 should have min. 300 MB/sec. Internet connection not that good (50Mbit down, 10 Mbit up)

shadowdax

Solana RAM needs have been massively cut down since 1.16 (see: [https://twitter.com/7LayerMagik/status/1695888030291099814](https://twitter.com/7layermagik/status/1695888030291099814) ). They've started caching accounts on-disk or something. You'll have to retarget your FUD - the correct one to use is the bandwidth requirements. Not many people have 1GBps+ up and down yet. RAM is dirt cheap anyway, while connection costs are monthly and ongoing. It was always a silly angle.

MinimalGravitas

Sure, you I guess you can theoretically run a Solana node... if you have a machine with 256 GB of RAM (4x more than my VR rig), but that isn't really an accesable option for pretty much any normal users. For Hedera they suggest running 'mirror nodes' on a hosting service where the *monthly* running cost is more than the total hardware costs of a node for something like Cosmos, Cardano, Ethereum, Bitcoin, or L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism. > Based on these specifications, the total estimated monthly cost to run a Hedera Mirror Node is USD 514.64. If it costs over $500 per month, then I'd argue that's functionally equivalent to not being possible for the vast majority of people.

castorfromtheva

I am running different fullnodes of which one is on Umbrel. Umbrel runs on a "Lenovo tiny" mini pc with an Intel I3-6100T and 8 gigs of RAM on top of an Ubuntu Server. This machine has much more performance than a Raspi4 and everything runs smooth and responsive. Nevertheless when it comes to connecting wallets to the machine it's also a bit slow sometimes. I guess the reason is tor network sometimes being a bit slow and unresponsive. But once a connection is established the wallets operate relatively flawlessly. So...in short: It's a tor issue.

TissueUnflawed

Before the Pi4 was released, hundreds of people ran Bitcoin Core on Pi3 It takes many weeks to initialize, so it makes sense to initialize on a PC and copy the files. Some people struggle to reliably copy files from disk to disk If you choose to initialize on a Pi3, plugging in a storage device to the USB2 port will cause the initialization to fail part-way through, due to I/O timeouts built into Core > I read online that a RPi4 is recommended Two reasons * recommended minimum RAM is 2GB. Pi3 has 1GB. It will work, if you do not use the Pi X-Window GUI, and use bitcoind, not Bitcoin-QT * Pi3 takes about 6 weeks to initialize. Pi4 about 4 days, because the CPU is faster, and (for the 8GB RAM Pi4) using more RAM for dbcache speeds up the initial load > capable of downloading 1MB every 10 minutes Definitely > and to run the ECDSA algorithm to verify the validity of the block The validity of every transaction. SHA256 is used to validate the block Block by block, the Pi3 has no problem with this processing load Initialization requires the node to process almost one billion transactions. With the default config, it skips the ECDSA for most of them, but it is very slow to build the UTXO database, one TXO at a time

Aussiehash

You need a Pi4b with preferably 8GB RAM, otherwise you're not going to be able to index Fulcrum

caramida_plutitoare

I'm pretty sure the amount of RAM is what matters when comes to running a btc node.

castorfromtheva

All pre-built fullnode suites outthere recommend using a Raspi4. That's something that would get me thinking. Nevertheless feel free to try your luck using an older model to accomplish your mission. My guess would be the processing power below model 4 would be too low. At least if you plan using any other application like electrum server or anything lightning related on top. Much CPU and RAM consumption.

FamousM1

The whole blockchain doesn't need kept or stored. It says so right in the Bitcoin Whitepaper: > 7. Reclaiming Disk Space > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree, with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. Also, Satoshi said: > Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. > > The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. > > That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. > > If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. > > Satoshi Nakamoto > https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

FamousM1

The majority didn't decide the keep the blocks small. Over 85% of nodes were signalling for a blocksize increase. I think your scenario of 1gb blocks is unrealistic, but if it were the case, the whole blockchain doesn't need kept or stored. It says so right in the Bitcoin Whitepaper: > 7. Reclaiming Disk Space > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree, with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. Also, Satoshi said: > Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. > > The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. > > That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. > > If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. > > Satoshi Nakamoto > https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

LovelyDayHere

> bandwidth, speed, RAM, and other fidelity issues that grow exponentially with bigger blocks. You still haven't found any analysis backing your claims?

TissueUnflawed

You can't push more than 520 bytes in a single push op. You might be able to have hundreds of dupe ops. That's for you to research - what is the limit to the number of op codes in a script? You might have 1000 dupes after a 520-byte push. So you've wasted 520k bytes of a node's memory. Make sure you're not using a 4k RAM TRS-80 for your node Try it in your testnet node

LovelyDayHere

> bandwidth, speed, RAM, and other fidelity issues that grow exponentially with bigger blocks. Can you point me to an analysis which substantiates any of these claims?

Dry-Philosopher-4800

OP is trying to confuse people with the incorrect idea that hard drive space is the reason Bitcoin blocks are small, to push his favored altcoin that uses bigger blocks. Blocks are small because of bandwidth, speed, RAM, and other fidelity issues that grow exponentially with bigger blocks.

Ilovekittens345

He designed it to remove transactions after you have verified them, and not store them forever. >Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory

Ilovekittens345

>not in explaining anything that might make Bitcoin seem anything less than a divinely perfect gift from our lord and savior Satoshi. Satoshi did not design it like this. Storing a cup of coffee for all eternity on the blockchain is ridiculous. Only a madman would design it like that. Satoshi wrote in the whitepaper: >Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree , with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. So the design makes it so that transactions are discarded, not stored forever. Then the saboteurs came in around 2015-2016 and sabotaged it. And now you'll have fun paying fees!

cylon_agent

I built an ethereum validator a couple of years ago but I sold all my ETH before I could stake it. So now I have the hardware lying around doing nothing. Any ideas what I should mine/profit off of with it considering I have no ETH at the moment? The validator doesn't have a dedicated GPU, just a high end CPU with 16GB of RAM.

Altruistic-Ad-7363

Node specs for those interested : * Board: Raspberry Pi 4 Model B 8GB RAM * PSU: Official Raspberry Pi 4 Power Supply * Case: Argon ONE M.2 Aluminum Case * Storage: 2TB SSD M.2 SATA, 32GB microSDHC * OS: Umbrel

Ilovekittens345

> Sure it scales a bit more, but eventually it breaks down. Says you. But it scales just fine. As long as you don't try to store every purchases of a cup of cofee on the blockchain for all eternity nothing breaks down. >Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.