Running a Bitcoin Full Node: What are the Options(2020 ...

Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet

A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
[link]

Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core software’s news and discussion.
[link]

Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core software’s news and discussion
[link]

Bitcoin full node software

Is there a list of Bitcoin full node implementations?
submitted by ydmt to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[AMA] We are the developers and officers of Bitcoin Unlimited, provider of Bitcoin Cash full-node software. Andrew Stone, Peter Rizun, Andrea Suisani, Peter Tschipper, and Andrew Clifford. Ask us Anything!

Bitcoin Unlimited is a non-profit organization founded in 2015. Our principle objective is the provision of Bitcoin full-node software which enables onchain scaling. Originally the focus was on Bitcoin BTC, but since July 2017 our focus has moved decisively towards Bitcoin Cash.
BU also sponsors academic projects, research, and the Ledger journal, as well as Bitcoin conferences which encourage onchain scaling. Website: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info
BU President solex1, BU Secretary and Chief Scientist Peter__R, BU Lead Developer theZerg, BU developers s1ckpig and bitsenbytes. ASK US ANYTHING
EDIT at 20:25 UTC. We are CLOSING the AMA. Thanks for all your questions and interest in BU. We will be around for any followup discussions in the future!
submitted by solex1 to btc [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Cash Network is undergoing a network upgrade on 15 November 2020. Due to one of the seven Bitcoin Cash BCH full node software projects attempting to divert 8% of the coinbase reward into a wallet under the control of Amaury Séchet it looks like ABC will provide BCH holders a free airdrop

submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

I did a full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within.

I did a full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within. submitted by benperrin117 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The DEFINITIVE GUIDE to the BEST BITCOIN CORE FULL NODE, LND NODE, ELECTRUM SERVER and a lot of stuff all in one, and all scripted!!! Open source and free for almost all the features!

After some year playing with full bitcoin core nodes and lightning network nodes, starting times ago with a project called raspibolt (that teach me a lot), i can tell you to have found an awesome project that is ok for the beginner and for the professional too.
I challenge all of you to find another product (commercial too) with all of these functionality and starting from 0$. It calls myNode (this is a screenshot of the app https://ibb.co/n7KDmkx).
I discovered it by chance reading a post from the main developer here on reddit, and I wanted to discover this fantastic software to all bitcoin and tiny hardware enthusiasts like the raspberry pi that want have at home a swiss army knife :) .
Think of an automated script that takes care of configuring everything without you having to do anything. Does it seem strange to you? Try this app!
If you want more informations, please check the website https://www.mynodebtc.com and the telegram official channel with more than 150 guys happy to have discover this awesome application -> https://t.me/mynode_btc
--------------------------------
best hardware to buy: (https://www.mynodebtc.com/download)
- raspberry pi 4 with 4gb of ram
- power cable
- hdd or ssd of 1tb
- hdd or ssd adapter to connect to usb3 of raspberry pi
- micro sd of at least 16 gb
--------------------------------
best bitcoin full node software
- mynode - www.mynodebtc.com
--------------------------------
some characteristic/functionality:
- open source
- free for basic stuff
- github - https://github.com/mynodebtc/mynode
- tor enabled by default for bitcoin core and lnd
- vpn
- full bitcoin node
- lightning wallet (lnd)
- simple ui / web interface (screenshot of last release: https://ibb.co/n7KDmkx)
- bitcoin explorer
- electrum server - btc light wallet server
- ride the lightning - lightning wallet
- lnd hub - lightning wallet server
- bitcoin cli
- quicksync - quickly sync bitcoin blockchain
- lnd connect - generate qr codes for connecting wallets
- ln channel backup
- lnd manage cli tool

and a lot of stuff will be added in future like..
- joinmarket
- btcpay server
- liquid sidechain (blockstream's elements)
- samourai dojo (whirlpool)
- blockstream satellite cli
--------------------------------
steps to use it (https://www.mynodebtc.com/download)
0 - collect hardware
1 - download image from site
2 - flash image
3 - boot device
4 - enjoy
--------------------------------
submitted by CAPTIVE_AMIGA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Cash Network is undergoing a network upgrade on 15 November 2020. Due to one of the seven Bitcoin Cash BCH full node software projects attempting to divert 8% of the coinbase reward into a wallet under the control of Amaury Séchet it looks like ABC will provide BCH holders a free airdrop

The Bitcoin Cash Network is undergoing a network upgrade on 15 November 2020. Due to one of the seven Bitcoin Cash BCH full node software projects attempting to divert 8% of the coinbase reward into a wallet under the control of Amaury Séchet it looks like ABC will provide BCH holders a free airdrop submitted by Antibuddah to CryptoGambler [link] [comments]

Full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within.

Full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within. submitted by 5tu to BitcoinTechnology [link] [comments]

I did a full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within. (x-post from /r/Bitcoin)

I did a full tutorial on running an Umbrel Bitcoin/Lightning node. Parts, assembly, software installation, setup and using apps within. (x-post from /Bitcoin) submitted by ASICmachine to CryptoCurrencyClassic [link] [comments]

We’re Bitcoin ABC, the leading full node software development team for Bitcoin Cash, AMA/AUA

We’re Bitcoin ABC, the leading full node software development team for Bitcoin Cash, AMA/AUA
Hi! We are Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers and George Donnelly representing Bitcoin ABC, the leading full node software development team for Bitcoin Cash, and the team responsible for creating the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017.
Proof: https://youtu.be/lHGnfZWu1eU
We’re taking all your Bitcoin Cash questions but specifically those related to the future development of BCH.
We’re raising funds for Bitcoin Cash protocol development at https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/. We have a business plan with a budget, timeline, deliverables and more. Please review that here
https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bitcoin-ABC-Business-Plan-2020-r7dot1.pdf
http://fund.bitcoinabc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ZH-Bitcoin-ABC-Business-Plan-2020-r7dot1.pdf
Ask us your questions here and also tune in to the livestream as we answer them on air https://youtu.be/lHGnfZWu1eU
Special guests such as Haipo Yang of ViaBTC, Stefan Rust and others will be joining us on the livestream from 12:00 UTC to 14:00 UTC.
The Bitcoin ABC fundraiser ends tomorrow and the results will dictate what we can or can not accomplish over the next 12 months. So please contribute.
UPDATES
- Stefan Rust has joined us: https://twitter.com/Bitcoin_ABC/status/1260903609681752064
- Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.top has joined us: https://twitter.com/Bitcoin_ABC/status/1260913594465648640
- Haipo Yang of ViaBTC has joined us: https://twitter.com/Bitcoin_ABC/status/1260922197796892674
- The stream has ended and there are still some questions to answer. Please keep asking your questions here and we will answer them as soon as we can. Thank you!
https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/
submitted by georgedonnelly to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Hard coded UTXO checkpoints are the way to go. They're safe. They're necessary.

Update 3:
Pieter convinced me in the comments of his Stack Exchange answer that these checkpoints don't give any material improvement over assumevalid and assumeutxo. He made me realize why my Case IV below would not actually cause a huge disruption for assumevalid users. So I rescind my call for UTXO checkpoints.
However, I maintain that UTXO checkpoints done properly (with checkpoints sufficiently in the past) are not a security model change and would not meaningfully alter consensus. It sounded like Pieter agreed with me on that point as well.
I think UTXO checkpoints might still be a useful tool
I will call for Assume UTXO tho. It plus assumevalid adds pretty much much all the same benefits as my proposal.
OP:
Luke Jr has been proposing lowering the maximum block size to 300mb in order to limit how long it takes a new node to sync up. He makes the good point that if processor power is growing at only 17%/year, that's how much we can grow the number of transactions a new node needs to verify on initial sync.
But limiting the blocksize is not the only way to do it. As I'm sure you can foresee from the title, I believe the best way to do it is a hardcoded checkpoint built into the software (eg bitcoin core). This is safe, this is secure, and it is a scalability improvement that has no downsides.
So what is a hardcoded checkpoint? This would consist of a couple pieces of data being hardcoded into the source code of any bitcoin full-node software. The data would be a blockheight, block hash, and UTXO hash. With those three pieces of information, a new client can download the block at that height and the UTXO set built up to that height, and then it can verify that the block and UTXO set are correct because they both have the correct hashes.
This way, a new node can start syncing from that height rather than from the first block ever mined. What does this improve?
While not strictly necessary, its likely that the UTXO data would come from the same source as the software, since otherwise full nodes would have to store UTXO sets at multiple block heights just in case someone asks for it as part of their checkpoint. Also, full-nodes should store block information going back historically significantly further than their checkpoint, so they have data to pass to clients that have an earlier checkpoint. So perhaps if a client is configured for a checkpoint 6 months ago, it should probably still store block data from up to 2 years ago (tho it wouldn't need to verify all that data - or rather, verifying it would be far simpler because the header chain connecting to their checkpoint block would all that needs to be validated).
To be perfectly clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting a live checkpoint beacon that updates the software on-the-fly from a remote source. That is completely unsafe and insecure, because it forces you to trust that one source. At any time, whoever controls the live source could disrupt millions of people by broadcasting an invalid block or a block on a malicious chain. So I'm NOT suggesting having a central source, or even any distributed set of sources, that automatically send checkpoint information to clients that connect to it. That would 100% be unsafe. What I'm suggesting is a checkpoint hardcoded into the software, which can be safely audited.
So is a hardcoded checkpoint safe and secure? Yes it is. Bitcoin software already needs to be audited. That's why you should never use bitcoin software that isn't open source. So by including the three pieces of data described above, all you're doing is adding a couple more things that need to be audited. If you're downloading a bitcoin software binary without auditing it yourself, then you already take on the risk of trusting the distributor of that binary, and adding hardcoded checkpoints does not increase that risk at all.
However, most people can't even audit the bitcoin software if they wanted to. Most people aren't programmers and can't feasibly understand the code. Not so for the checkpoints. The checkpoints could easily be audited by anyone who runs a full node, or anyone who can check block hashes and UTXO hashes from multiple sources they trust. Auditing the hardcoded checkpoint would be so easy we could sell T shirts that say "I helped audit Bitcoin source code!"
The security profile of a piece of bitcoin node software with hardcoded checkpoints or without hardcoded checkpoints is identical. Not similar. Not almost. Actually identical. There is no downside.
Imagine this twice-a-year software release process:
Month 0: After the last release, development on the next release start (or rather, continues).
Month 3: The next candidate version of the software is finalized, including a checkpoint from some non-contentious distance ago, say 1 month ago.
Month 6: After 3 months of auditing and bug fixing, the software is released. At this point, the checkpoint would be 4 months old.
In this process, downloading the latest version of bitcoin software would mean the maximum months of blocks you have to sync is 10 months (if you download and run the software the day before the next release happens). This process is safe, its secure, its auditable, and it saves tons of processing time and harddrive space. This also means that it would allow bitcoin full nodes to be run by lower-power computers, and would allow more people to run full nodes. I think everyone can agree that outcome would be a good one.
So why do we need this change? Because 300kb blocks is the alternative. That's not enough space, even with the lightning network. I'm redacting the previous because I don't have the data to support it and I don't think its necessary to argue that we need this change.
So why do we need this change? This change represents a substantial scalability improvement from O(n) to O(Δn). It removes a major bottleneck to increasing on-chain transaction throughput, reducing fees, increasing user security as well as network-wide security (through more full nodes), or a combination of those.
What does everyone think?
Update:
I think its useful to think of 4 different types of users relevant in the hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin adopts this kind of proposal:
  1. Upfront Auditors - Early warnings
  2. After-the-fact Auditors - Late warnings
  3. Non-full-auditors - Late warnings
  4. Non full nodes - No warnings
Upfront auditors look at the source code of the software they use, the keep up to date with changes, and they make sure that what they're running looks good to them. They're almost definitely building directly from source code - no binaries for them. They'll alert people to a problem potentially before buggy or malicious software is even released. In this scenario, their security is obviously unchanged because they're not taking advantage of the check-pointing feature. We want to encourage as many people as possible to do this and to make it as easy as possible to do.
After-the-fact Auditors want to start a new node and start using Bitcoin immediately. They want to audit, but are ok with a period of time where they're trusting the code to be connecting the chain they want. They take on a slight amount of personal risk here, but once they back-validate the chain, they can sound the alert if there is a validation problem.
Non-full-auditors are simply content to trust that the software is good. They'll run the node without looking at most or any of the code. They take on more risk than After-the-fact Auditors, but their risk is not actually much worse than After-the-fact Auditors. Why? Because as soon as you're sure you're on the right chain (ie you do a few monetary transactions with people who accept your bitcoin), you're golden for as long as you use that node and the part of the chain it validated. The can also still help the network to pretty much the same degree as After-the-fact Auditors, because if there are a problem with their transactions, they can sound the alarm about a problem with that software.
Non full nodes obviously have less security and they don't help the network.
So why did I bother to talk about these different types of users?
Well, we obviously want as many Upfront auditors as possible. However, doing that out of the starting gate is time consuming. It takes time to audit the code and time to sync the blockchain. Its costly. For this reason, for better or worse, most people simply won't do it.
Without checkpoints, we don't have type 2 or type 3 users. The only alternative to being an Upfront Auditor is to be an SPV node that doesn't help the network and is less secure. With checkpoints, we could potentially change many of those people who would just use SPV to doing something much more helpful for the network.
One of the huge benefits of After-the-fact Auditors and Non-full-auditors is that once they're on the network, they can act like Upfront Auditors in the next release. Maybe they're not auditing the source code, but they can sure audit the checkpoint very easily. That means they can also sound the alarm before malicious or broken software is released, just like Upfront Auditors. Why? Because they now have a chain they believe to be the true one (with an incredibly high degree of confidence).
What this means is that Upfront Auditors, After-the-fact Auditors, and Non-full-auditors help the network to a very similar degree. If software that doesn't sync to the right chain, they will find out about it and alert others. Type 2 and 3 take on personal risk, but they don't put the network at greater risk, like SPV nodes do.
If we can convert most Non-full nodes into Type 2 or Type 3 users, that would be massive gain for the security of Bitcoin. Luke Jr said it himself, making nodes that support the network as easy as possible to run is critical. This is one good way to do that.
Update 2: Comparison to -assumevalid and why using checkpoints upgrades scalability
The -assumevalid option allows nodes to skip validation of blocks before the hardcoded golden block hash. This is similar to my proposal, but has a critical difference. A node with -assumevalid on (which I've heard is the default now) will still validate the whole chain in the case that a longer chain is floating around. Because of this, -assumevalid can be an optimization that works as long as there's no other longer chain also claiming to be bitcoin floating around the network.
The important points brought up by the people that wrote and discussed adding this feature was that:
A. Its not a change in security model, and
B. Its not a change in consensus rules.
This meant that it was a pure implementation detail that would never and could never change what chain your node follows.
The checkpoints I'm describing are different. On point A, some have said that checkpoints are a security model change, and I've addressed that above. I'd like to add that there is no way for bitcoin to be 100% trustless. That is impossible. Bitcoin at the deepest level is a specified protocol many people have agreed to use together. In order to join that group even on the most fundamental level, you need to find the spec people are agreeing to use. You have to trust that the person or people that gave you a copy of that spec gave you the right one. If different people claim that different specs are "bitcoin", you have to choose which people to trust. The same is true of checkpoints. New entrants want to join the network that the people they care about interacting with believe is Bitcoin, and those are the people they will trust to get the spec, or the source code, or the hash of the UTXO set. This is why I say the security profile of Bitcoin with checkpoints is identical to Bitcoin without checkpoints. The amount of trust you have to put in your social network is not materially different.
While its not a security model change, as I've supported above, using checkpoints is consensus rules change. Every new checkpoint would change the consensus rules. However, I would argue this isn't a problem as long as those checkpoints are at a non-contentious number of blocks ago. While it would change consensus rules, it should not change consensus at all. There are 4 scenarios to consider:
I. There's no contention.
II. There's a long-range reorg from before the checkpoint.
III. There exists a contentious public chain that branched before the checkpoint would usually be taken.
IV. There exists an invalid chain that's longer than the valid chain.
In case I, none of it matters, and checkpoints have pretty much exactly the same result as -assumevalid.
In case II, Bitcoin has much bigger problems. Its simply unacceptable for Bitcoin to allow for long-range reorgs, so this case must be prevented entirely. The downsides of a long-range reorg for bitcoin without checkpoints is MUCH MUCH larger than the additional downsides with checkpoints.
In case III, the obvious solution is to checkpoint from an earlier non-contentious blockheight, so nodes validate both chains.
Case IV is where things really differ between checkpoints and -assumevalid. In this case, nodes using a checkpoint will only validate blocks after the checkpoint. However, nodes using -assumevalid will be forced to validate both chains back to their branch-point.
I don't believe there are other relevant cases, but as long as checkpoints are chosen from non-contentious heights and have time to be audited, there is no possibility that honestly-run bitcoin software would in any way affect the consensus for what chain is the right chain.
This brings me back to why checkpoints upgrades scalability, and -assumevalid does not. Case IV is the case that prevents -assumevalid from being a scalability improvement. You want new nodes to be able to sync to the network relatively quickly, so say the 90th percentile of machines should be able to do it in less than a week (or maybe we want to ensure sync happens within a day - that's up for debate). With checkpoints, invalid chains branched before the checkpoint will not disrupt new entrants to the network. With -assumevalid, those invalid change will disrupt new entrants. Since an invalid chain can have branched arbitrarily far in the past, this disruption could be arbitrarily large.
One way to deal with this is to ensure that most machines can handle validating not only the whole valid chain, but the whole invalid chain as well. The other way to deal with this is checkpoints.
So back to scalability, with checkpoints all we need to ensure is that the lowest power machines we want to support can sync in a timely manner back to the checkpoint.
submitted by fresheneesz to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

We’re Bitcoin ABC, the leading full node software development team for Bitcoin Cash, AMA/AUA

We’re Bitcoin ABC, the leading full node software development team for Bitcoin Cash, AMA/AUA submitted by georgedonnelly to btc [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin Cash planned network upgrade is approaching fast. On May 15th the Bitcoin Cash protocol will undergo its 6th scheduled upgrade. Upgrade your full node software today!"

submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

💡| Knuth is a high performance implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol focused on users requiring extra capacity and resilience. It is a full node software client, but also a development platform. It is designed for: miners, exchanges, app devolopers, block explorers and other businesses.

💡| Knuth is a high performance implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol focused on users requiring extra capacity and resilience. It is a full node software client, but also a development platform. It is designed for: miners, exchanges, app devolopers, block explorers and other businesses. submitted by ojjordan78 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin Cash planned network upgrade is approaching fast. On May 15th the Bitcoin Cash protocol will undergo its 6th scheduled upgrade. Upgrade your full node software today!"

submitted by Mr-Zwets to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Ripple (XRP) Analysis (quite thorough)

NOTE: I did not write this article below. I simply copy and pasted the article. Please click the following link to view the entire article. The article includes charts and images which were not transferred to the text below.
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@lennartbedrage/the-ripple-xrp-effect-fundamental-analysis
The Ripple(XRP) Effect - Fundamental Analysis: lennartbedrage44 in cryptocurrency ripple.jpg
Lately, there’s been a tremendous amount of buzz around Ripple(XRP), but is it only because of the massive growth we’ve seen in the past few 30 days, or is there something more?
In this article, I’ll dive into a brief back ground of Ripple, objectively examine the arguments for and against it, explore its potential from a economic standpoint, then close with potential threats to your investment and a summary.
Meet Ripple(XRP)-
Released in 2012, Ripple aims to enable “secure, instant and nearly free global financial transactions of any size with no chargebacks” through their real-time gross settlement system (RTGS) and currency exchange and remittance network. Ripples distributed open-source internet protocol consensus ledger was created as basic technology for interbank and regulated financial institutions to integrate Ripple into their own systems. This differs from the Bitcoin full node and other crowdsourced altcoin consensus networks in several ways:
Ripples common shared ledger is a network of independent validating servers which compare their transaction records, rather than the full network of nodes coming to consensus prior to each transaction, enabling faster transaction speeds. Although their protocol is open source, it was not created as a plug & play solution, like bitcoins full-node software, nor does it rely on crowd-sourced support. Unlike Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and other Alt-coins, Ripple is recognized as legal tender by several governments, which gives it instant liquidity via financial institution, as well as purchasing power over material goods. Because of this, it cannot be evaluated in the same ways as other coins, which are largely evaluated based on assumptions & speculation. In terms of value, it’s more like cash than a commodity. Because of this, it is evaluated in a much different way than Ethereum(ETH) and other alt-coins with intrinsic value, but is accepted much more rapidly because it’s easy for the mass-market to understand. Remember: without market acceptance, there is not value, regardless of how innovative something may be.
Just 4 short years after its release, on 01MAY17, Ripple announced that a consortium of 47 banks have successfully completed a pilot implementation of Ripple in Japan, making it the first country in the world to enable domestic and international real time money transfers via the cryptocurrency. This event lead the XRP value to sky-rocket from $0.051580 USD to an all-time high of $0.430085 in just 16 days… but why? Is it 100% speculation, or is there something else going on here?
“It’s not a real cryptocurrency!” Or is it? Well, those whom bring this argument to the table are probably referencing facts that I’ve mention during my introduction to Ripple: Its a centralized and regulated crypto-currency which does not need global consensus for transfers, and it is built specifically for (and potentially by) financial institutions. Though a lot of the Anarcho-Capitalists may want to steer clear of this one due to its highly regulated nature, regular capitalist may believe these core differences to be its greatest strengths:
Regulated - As I mentioned in my analysis on Ethereum(ETH), Bitcoin’s lack of regulation was likely he reason (or at least, that’s what they told us) that the proposed ETF failed to pass the SEC’s evaluation several months ago. If adhering to some sort of trusted regulatory standards, this could drive federal confidence, which in turn drive bank and lending institution faith…trickling all the way down to the consumers. This insures rapid mass market acceptance. Consensus - As mentioned before this is much different process than Bitcoin’s global consensus, which means that transaction times are nearly instant regardless of volume transferred. Additionally, all transfers adhere to distributive ledgers DLT standards, which is a requirement for many financial institutions to be insurable. Institutional Management - You’ve probably guessed this one already. Although the demand and speculative value is driven at some capacity by ‘the people’, this currency is about as close to the World bank and SWIFT as you can get. This is largely due to the amount Deliberate - It feels like a big bank, because it is. Ripple was built specifically for the financial markets, which is why they specifically targeted regulatory compliance. shutterstock_289877267_long_read_cover_large.jpg
Economic Value As mentioned in the last point, Its easy to see that Ripple offers tremendous value to financial-institutions and retail investors. These two groups make up 358 billion (numbers from 2013) non-cash cross-country annual transactions, and the FOREX market which sees more than $5.1 trillion $USD each day. Per a report released by Capgemini and The Royal Bank of Scotland, this is growing at an average rate of about 7.5% each year globally, though China and other Emerging Asian economies have been leading the charge at around 21%.
Seems like a lot, right? Well, for sake of uncovering the immediate value of XRP, we will zoom into the recent adopters of the distributed ledger technology: Japan, India, and the Central Europe, Middle East & Africa(CEMEA) regions.
Japan.jpg
Japan is the third largest economy in the world by nominal GDP ($6.11 trillion), fourth by purchasing power parity(PPP) and second largest developed economy. Currently, their GDP per capita is roughly $48,412 (vs $56,430 in US) and their major trade partners include the US, China, Hong Kong, Australia and South Korea.
Japan GDP.png
Aside from the speculation that they maybe soon pressure their trade partners (excluding the US and China) to adopt a system which allows for instant, near free transfers of funds, here’s where it gets interesting for the immediate future: Japan has already started accepting Ripple(XRP) as legal tender. If Ripple raises to just 25% of the overall transaction volume of P2P, P2B & B2B within Japan itself (represented in the chart by Other Services, Real Estate, Retail, Transport, Communications, Finance & Utilities) which is equal to about 20% of their overall economy, Ripple would be handling roughly $1.27 trillion USD in Japan – alone - every year. To put that in perspective, the current (at the time of writing) market capitalization of Bitcoin(BTC) is $30.7 billion USD (or >0.4%). Unlike Bitcoin, Ripple is legal tender which means that it can be exchanged for material goods and services, which means that it’s likely to have explosive acceptance in the local area.
India.jpg
India-based Axis Bank announced in April that they will soon begin leveraging distributed ledger tech for cross-border transactions and to make banking simple and convenient for their customers. About 15 days’ prior, another large financial institution, Yes Bank, also announced that they would be adopting Ripples ledger for the same reasons. If Ripple continues to grow in acceptance at this rate in India, we could see another economy, roughly 1/3 the size of Japan’s ($2.074 trillion USD) add to Ripples annual transaction value. Now, from an economic stand point, this is most interesting because agriculture represents more than 50% of India’s employment, which means that India would be the 2nd case of consumer trading Ripple for staple foods.
India GDP.png
It is likely that Ripple will not handle as large of a percentage of overall transaction volumes in India because only two major banks have adopted this currency and it is not the only Crypto. The latter is probably one of the most important variables, as this means that Ripple will be duking it out for market dominancy. As all of my projections are fairly conservative, I would estimate that Ripple will handle roughly 10% of India’s over all transaction volume in the next 365 days, equal to roughly $311.1 billion USD.
One last thing that I would like to mention is that India is literally the ‘I’ in BRIC and roughly 13% of the BRIC countries total output. If the BRIC comes to fruition, India may be able to convince it’s other close trade partners to jump on the XRP-Train as well.
Dubai.jpg
Abu Dhabi Bank, the National and largest bank of the UAE, has already begun offering cross-border transaction services with Ripples distributive ledger technology as well. As they deal extensively with their middle eastern neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, the UAE is likely to set a trend for other CEMEA countries to follow.
UAE GDP.png
This might be a surprise to some people, but Dubai’s largest industry is the energy sector (shocker!) followed closely by Real Estate and their Finance industry (double shocker!). Although their GPD is much smaller than Japan and India’s (about $370 billion USD), I am anticipating Ripple to handle a larger percent of the UAE’s transaction volume (31.11%), especially in the finance, Real Estate, Retail and Logistics industries. This is due largely to the fact that their population is only roughly 9.157 million, but most Abu Dhabi nationals are very financially inclined (or at least heavy spenders).
Potential Threats As this threatens SWIFT (unless they are completely on board) and the US dollars’ supremacy in the economic & financial markets, I would not be surprised to see a false flag attack, in which the NSA attacks Ripple and blames it on North Korea or China. Frankly, this would be a cake walk compared to Stuxnet or WannaCry and they could probably hand the task to an MIT intern. Where semi-centralization is Ripples strength in terms of transaction speed and regulation, it is also the biggest security flaw and may open it’s user to some heart ache, hair loss and heavy drinking over the next several years.
Possibility So, what is possible in terms of value over the next few years? Well, if we consider the following scenario:
XRP accounts for roughly 20% of Japan, India full GDP, but 31.1% UAE’s GDP ($7.152 Trillion USD) total exchange volume in the next 2 years Max XRP Supply stays at 100 billion No other countries adopt XRP (not likely) No hacks or other catastrophic events remove confidence Exclude speculation, demand, rallies, and GDP growth projections for each country Then we’re looking at each Ripple(XRP) market capitalization over ~$1.75 Trillion USD, making each coin $17.52 in real value. This means that if you were to invest today at $0.362794, your ROI would be about 4,989%. That said, I think that it’s likely it will go over $30 in the next 2 years, due to speculators flooding the markets and other countries signing up. Again, these are conservative numbers are based on total transaction value in USD equivalent.
For those whom subscribe, I will update as new variables are available to my appraisal
Bottom Line Although it was most definitely created by an insider of the banking industry and does not ‘feel like a crypto’, I personally feel that due to its rapid market acceptance, liquidity and position as legal tender in 3 large economies, Ripple(XRP) is both primed for explosive growth in the near future and likely to be one of the safest value based Crypto-investments we can make today.
Another thing, China is the anchor of the West Pacific, so we should all watch their evaluation of Ripple, very closely. If they were to jump on the XRP-Train, you are likely to see Australia, South Korea, Indonesia and Singapore do the same.
If you enjoyed this article, be sure to share & subscribe, as I have kept my proprietary models and will update as major events and additional countries begin to adopt this currency. If you feel that I have missed something or am just flat out wrong, please be sure to let me know in the comments below!
Planned articles for the next 14 days:
ICO advice from a Venture Capitalist (Follower Request) Paper Wallets (Follower Request) VIVA Analysis (Follower Request) Segregated Witness(Segwit) : Friend or Foe? A Kraken ate my gains... Fundamental Analysis: Stellar Lumens(XLM) Dual-Citizenship and Banking in Panama Rich vs. Wealthy All analysis, numbers and projections are my own. Core information was gathered from reliable sources, such as the World Bank, IMF, CIA world fact book, eia.gov and more.
submitted by ripcurldog to Ripple [link] [comments]

05-19 18:15 - 'To elaborate, with your full node wallet, you get to choose what size block chain you support. You can choose to run the full node software that follows the 1mb (BTC) chain, or the full node software that follows the 32m...' by /u/buttonstraddle removed from /r/Bitcoin within 80-90min

'''
To elaborate, with your full node wallet, you get to choose what size block chain you support. You can choose to run the full node software that follows the 1mb (BTC) chain, or the full node software that follows the 32mb (BCH) chain, or the full node software that follows the 128mb (BSV) chain, or you can start your own chain at whatever blocksize you want and start mining it yourself.
The point is, by using your own software, you vote with your intentions. If I refuse to accept coins from the 32mb rulechain, then that's my preference. Just the same as if I refuse to accept MS Office documents, and only plain .txt files, then I am voting for my preference. "Sorry my text editor can't read your .docx file" is the same as "Sorry my node isn't showing your txn". Its not what some web block explorer says. Its not whether some Google docs website can read your MS Office document. Its what your software can recognize, because you only trust the software that you choose to run.
If enough people are like me, and want and choose the same thing, then a community/network starts to emerge. That's how this thing works. No one in control; each individual choosing. Developers are irrelevant if no one is going to choose to run that software. Yes, that means you need to have a technical understanding of the tradeoffs of both sides, so that you can make a conscious choice. You want to disrupt central banks, then you have the responsibility of educating yourself.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: buttonstraddle
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin full node supported wallets software by ledger?

Hi community, can you explain briefly to me:
1) Which safe to use full node wallet apps exist for bitcoin, can you list some? I am only aware of bitcoin core.
2) Can you use a Ledger device with a full node wallet, with which full node wallets is ledger compatible, is there a full list?
3) Non full node wallets like the "Ledger Live" app use their own servers for transaction verification. What is the case if you use a full node wallet? On whose servers are you relying on when making transactions?
4) I have read about people using ledger+electrum+electrum server to run a full node. Is it mandatory to have an own server when using a full node wallet?
5) If there is no need for an own server: What pros/cons are there in terms of wallet security, using own electrum server vs. not having own server?
Thanks
submitted by celentano1234 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Peter McCormack on Twitter: 1/ Bitcoin confession, I expect to get savaged for this...I have never set up a full node: - I synced the software on my laptop - I have a Casa Node still in the box ...but I have never completed the setup. Discussing my Beginner's Guide it is clear this has to change.

Peter McCormack on Twitter: 1/ Bitcoin confession, I expect to get savaged for this...I have never set up a full node: - I synced the software on my laptop - I have a Casa Node still in the box ...but I have never completed the setup. Discussing my Beginner's Guide it is clear this has to change. submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node)

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node) submitted by Crypto-Guide to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node)

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node) submitted by Crypto-Guide to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node)

Choosing a Crypto Wallet... Looking at the Bitcoin building blocks of a wallet (Keys, Wallet Interface, Nodes and Consensus network) Understanding the differences, strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. (Comparing Exchange, Software, Hardware, Full Node) submitted by Crypto-Guide to BitcoinWallet [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Miner vs Full Node - Programmer explains Building A Bitcoin Full Node And Lightning Node Part 1 ... Os benefícios de um Full Node de Bitcoin How to run a Full Node ~ Bitcoin to the Max Bitcoin Q&A: Lightning, full nodes, and miners

Full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.. Most full nodes also serve lightweight clients by allowing them to transmit their transactions to the network and by notifying them ... Grundlage für Bitcoin Full Nodes sind in aller Regel Minicomputer wie der Raspberry Pi. Im Falle von Casas Full-Node-Lösung hat man auf das Flaggschiff des Mini-Rechners, dem Raspberry Pi 4 mit 4 GB RAM, zurückgegriffen. Neben einem Bitcoin-Knotenpunkt bietet das Casa-Paket noch Schmankerl wie einen Lightning Node sowie die Option auf MultiSig-Lösungen zur sicheren Verwahrung von Krypto ... Running your own Bitcoin node means that you configured a computer with the Bitcoin Core software and have a full copy of the entire Blockchain database on it. This copy of the Blockchain database will continue to grow over time so it’s important to have a lot of storage space available. How many storage space? Currently, the total Blockchain is about 230GB in size and the chart above is ... What’s a Bitcoin full node? The Bitcoin network is a collection of computers all over the world running the Bitcoin Core software that verifies transactions and blocks. It’s the distribution of these “nodes” (the term for a computer attached to the network) and the fact that anyone can set one up that makes Bitcoin “decentralized.” A Bitcoin full node is software that allows businesses and advanced users to validate transactions and blocks on the blockchain of their choice. Running a full node is a read-only access to the blockchain. It does not give you power over the network, simply the ability to monitor it. For the majority of end-users, full nodes aren't required to run. Setting up a full node is something that ...

[index] [1901] [2405] [18967] [24573] [29685] [26520] [44687] [25572] [18589] [11731]

Bitcoin Miner vs Full Node - Programmer explains

Get early access to Bitcoin to the Max by supporting the channel on https://tallyco.in/purism https://www.patreon.com/wcn Read Rothbard, Use Bitcoin Show wit... Are there full node starter kits? Could bitcoin nodes be cut off if ISPs blocked port 8333? How do nodes connect to each other? How could you route around censorship? Will Bitcoin evolve into a ... Produced by https://CryptoCousins.com: On this episode we install a Bitcoin Core Full Node. Watch as we figure out the process. Join Tony Cecala and Gary Lel... As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on on... Muita gente pergunta se é realmente necessário rodar um full node de Bitcoin. Neste vídeo o Dov explica quais são alguns dos maiores benefícios e motivações para você rodar seu próprio node.

#