Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I'd love to run a Classic node or two on a cheap VPS. Are there any guides that could walk me through this? I'm comfortable with a command line, however I haven't touched any bitcoin client in a while.. (My primary use case the past few years has been to simply buy and immediately send to an offline address).

there have been several offered on reddit. can't vouch for any of these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44n9iu/want_to_host_a_bitcoin_classic_node/

https://gist.github.com/Zorlin/9e202138887eadf07ca9

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44e5y6/bitcoin_classic_beta_2_ubuntu_vps_setup/
[doublepost=1454878601][/doublepost]

I think I'm probably using the wrong terminology, routing I imagine implies point-to-point, I think what I mean is more like a hidden service. The reason I'm wondering is that I think it would make a lot of sense for full nodes to just obscure the tx's they produce, and everything else can be in the clear with no privacy issues. It seems like that would be way preferable to running the entire node on top of Tor.

have you tried the Mycelium with Tor function enabled yet?

 

[yrral86]

I think I'm probably using the wrong terminology, routing I imagine implies point-to-point, I think what I mean is more like a hidden service. The reason I'm wondering is that I think it would make a lot of sense for full nodes to just obscure the tx's they produce, and everything else can be in the clear with no privacy issues. It seems like that would be way preferable to running the entire node on top of Tor.

If that is what you want, why not broadcast it via a transaction broadcasting service that you connect to via TOR?

A quick Google turns up a few, but here is an example: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/pushtx/

 

[cypherdoc]

OMG:

 

[rocks]

I only investigated ETH seriously in mid-January. At that point I took a position of about 1/3 of my total crypto allotment. Have been adding to it though the more (IMO nutjob) stuff I hear from people (some of them large HODLers) in the small block camp. I still hold a significant BTC position, and my ETH position is up around 40% on a total cost basis.

I suspect we will know in a couple years if my decision to migrate some of my BTC holdings to ETH was irrational or not. If the hard fork succeeds and significant small-block hodlers drive the BTC price way down, I win. If the small blockers actually win, it's clear to me that BTC will definitely not be the future of crypto. The scenario where I don't do as well is where the hard fork succeeds, BTC price goes through the roof, and ETH price doesn't go up much (or even gets dumped). But I still hold a large (for me) BTC position, so I'll still win in that scenario, just not as much as others.

I'm confident that I'm pretty early on the hedge BTC with ETH trade though. I suspect we'll see a lot more of that before the hard fork vote.

I thought about diversifying awhile ago, but then decided to stay with bitcoin for the following reasons.

The first is if bitcoin fails I doubt another will succeed in its place. The reason is two fold. If bitcoin fails I think faith in crypto will be irreparably damaged to the point that it will be hard for another crypto to grow beyond a niche following. Too many people after having been burned will not try another crypto even if the new one was fixed. Additionally it will mean the decentralized model does not work, and attack vectors are possible.

The second is if bitcoin successfully gets through the fork I think it will be impossible to time when to reenter and most people will miss the run. I believe there is a ton of pent up demand due to the current uncertainty, and once this uncertainty is removed this demand will flow back into bitcoin. The problem though is timing, the move will likely happen based of the markets perception of the future, so by the time you think uncertainty is decreasing the market will have already started to move.

I think the best investment strategy is to slowly purchase what you are able to lose, and put those purchases into long term cold wallet savings and wait.

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

agreed

 

[_mr_e]

OMG:

Any signs this hashrate is being deployed outside of china?

 

[Norway]

Maybe PWC have invested in miners, lol.

 

[yrral86]

I know I would be buying mining hardware if I ran an exchange or wallet that supported larger blocks.

 

[cypherdoc]

@yrral86

yeah, could be an indicator that miners believe bigger blocks are on the way

I just don't see how they support SW
[doublepost=1454896561][/doublepost]

Any signs this hashrate is being deployed outside of china?

My bet yes, Bitfury

 

[Richy_T]

I'd love to run a Classic node or two on a cheap VPS. Are there any guides that could walk me through this? I'm comfortable with a command line, however I haven't touched any bitcoin client in a while.. (My primary use case the past few years has been to simply buy and immediately send to an offline address).

It's incredibly easy under Linux. There are many guides out there but basically, it's as simple as download and uncompress the binaries, run bitcoind, edit bitcoin.conf with any necessary settings then run bitcoind again.

 

[Mengerian]

cypherdoc [7:19 AM] In SW, what's your understanding of how it encourages reduction of the UTXO set?
elliotolds [12:38 PM] It basically makes inputs cheaper and outputs more expensive. so txns that take lots of inputs (hence clean up the utxo) are cheaper, and those that have lots of outputs (pollute the utxo) are more costly. The debate comes when you imagine that since spending outputs is cheaper, people might be more willing to generate them in the first place. If youre creating and spending outputs as part of one use case it may have no effect
cypherdoc [1:05 PM] Who are the ones who will be making these multi input txs? Pools & exchanges?

"clean up the utxo" -> deplete the UTXO
"pollute the utxo" -> enrichen the UTXO

 

[Richy_T]

The problem though is timing, the move will likely happen based of the markets perception of the future, so by the time you think uncertainty is decreasing the market will have already started to move.

This is true. But you don't have to buy in at the bottom. It doesn't matter if you enter a bit late, it's not like the price is going to go to its ultimate price overnight, there will be months of rise.

Anyway, not trying to convince anyone else nor promote anything (other than raising the block size limit),. Just stating my frame of mind.

 

[rocks]

Well the Dev mailing list has officially become North Korea 2. One way or other we are about to discover how censorship resistant bitcoin is.

 

[Richy_T]

WRT the count, I believe it should be reasonably straightforward to do calculations so maybe I'll see if it's possible to put together a tool for that.

The bitnodes code is actually open source so I'll not chase that too much further.

https://github.com/ayeowch/bitnodes

 

[sickpig]

www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44lhlu/an_overview_of_whats_happening/czr2lc9

Why would individuals run a node of an expensive settlement system? Why am I running a node for some settlement system used by hubs to settle their books? If I can't actually make a transaction with my node/wallet because fees have become too high and delays too long then I'm not going to run a node at all as nodes are no longer relevant to me.

 

[sickpig]

Well the Dev mailing list has officially become North Korea 2. One way or other we are about to discover how censorship resistant bitcoin is.

I've taken the time to look at moderation queue and the situation is surreal.

Perfectly valid posts by Peter R and Tom Zander are sitting there (forever?) while Peter Todd "political" points went through smoothly.

I don't want even start talking about Bryan (kanzure) Bishop's email, the tone used is so unrespectful that I barely managed to read it all.

And of course if any non-blockstream-aligned person would try to write such a political post it will get banned on the spot.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I have to say I find this both insightful and I chuckled while reading this:

Is the reddit-comment still here?

I think this quote is most realistically our problem

Now what people call "Blockstream's agenda" is Blockstream's own vision of what the future for Bitcoin should be. I think that Blockstream devs (childishly) reject any alternative to that vision because they think their ideas are right and everyone else is wrong.

It's about vision. Blockstream's vision is a settlement-network. So some stupid visions like "p2p cash" or "payment system" are considered idiotic and stonewalled.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[cypherdoc]

oh that sweet smell of DEEflation. kinda getting pungent:

[doublepost=1454946146,1454945295][/doublepost]nice of Blockstream to stifle Bitcoin's price rise in deference to gold and their juvenile vision of a "settlement" network.
[doublepost=1454946525][/doublepost][doublepost=1454946964][/doublepost][doublepost=1454947373][/doublepost]the USD anticipating QE infinity:

[doublepost=1454947463][/doublepost]yes, the speculators are counting on you getting the shit taxed out of you. where you gonna hide your money?:

 

[cypherdoc]

Aaron Van Wirdum continuing to bias journalism:

"It Skews Incentives

Removal of signatures from the original 1-megabyte blocks can effectively increase Bitcoin’s block size. But Segregated Witness does introduce a new type of maximum block size. Roughly: A blockwithout the witness, plus one quarter of the witness size, must not exceed 1 megabyte. As such, upgraded nodes will see blocks that exceed 1 megabyte, since the actual size of the Segregated Witness is larger than the quarter accounted for.

This means that multisig transactions, which include more signature data, get a greater discount. And since multisig transactions are used to establish layers on top of Bitcoin, Segregated Witness artificially skews incentives toward these added layers.

Long-term consequences of such layers – such as the effect on mining fees – are controversial.

The counterarguments

Discounting signature data is how Segregated Witness allows for added block space without requiring a hard fork. While this is indeed accomplished through an accounting measure, it is a useful one.

Additionally, witness data can be reasonably considered expendable after a certain amount of time, decreasing the need for full nodes to store it in perpetuity. It, therefore, has a lower cost to the network, making it reasonable to charge a lower fee. NOTE: he totally ignores the extra cost of transmitting this extra BW witness data over 1MB (at a discount) that all of us full nodes have to validate & relay and which increases the chances for miner block orphaning while also expanding our disk storage spaces if one wants to continue being a full node. while at the same time encouraging the use of LN.

Furthermore, the only way Bitcoin can reach millions of users while also remaining decentralized, secure and censorship-resistant is through the use of added layers. Incentivizing development and use of these added layers is not a bad thing."

how is this the only way? how does he know that? this is all new. and since Bitcoin has been shown to be effective up to this point in time as well as being secure, why should we change it to a different economic model (away from mining to LN and to a "partially validating node model") based on the assumption that it doesn't work (nullc, Corallo, Blockstream)?

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/on-the-detriments-of-segregated-witness-for-bitcoin-1454948591
[doublepost=1454953070][/doublepost]