> But I'd like to know what storage, RAM and bandwidth resources are
> needed. I guess that the problem is not the CPU.
Hi Francis,
Here are some rough guidelines for you, based on the statistics from my
node:
disk usage: about 30GB currently for the blockchain data. It'll only
keep growing fro
This discussion is quite bikesheddy, but (or thus? :) ) I will put in my
2c.
The main thing to think about, I think, is "what would be best for the
users". To that end, I suggest the following:
* I do think a page on bitcoin.org listing relatively major, and
relatively vetted, clients is a good i
on 09/25/2012 02:32 PM steve said the following:
> Anyone interested in helping out/reviewing processes? even if it is just
> some encouragement, it is all greatly appreciated.
not enough time in the day for me to seriously help out, but since you
asked, here's some encouragement. :) more testing
on 09/26/2012 01:49 AM Wladimir said the following:
> I'm willing to write this. But I know these kinds of proposals always
> end in a big discussion about what should be and what should not be on
> bitcoin.org, however we should be a bit pragmatic here.
May I suggest a page bitcoin.org/developer
on 07/09/2013 06:56 AM Jim said the following:
> + it will bump up the MultiBit download from about 11MB to 30-40MB
> (I think). This drops the maximum copies of MultiBit the multibit.org
> server can deliver per day from around 90,000 to 30,000ish.
> The multibit.org server maxes out at 1 TB of
on 07/09/2013 10:28 AM Mike Hearn said the following:
> SourceForge has a horrible UI and blocks some countries. It also exposes
> us to a large and potentially hackable mirror network. Whilst we're not
> bandwidth constrained on our own servers, let's try and keep using them.
the point was just t
If you want package authentication, you should at least throw in some
digital signing, not just a checksum. With a compromised host, both the
checksum and binaries can be changed undetectably, but if there's a
signature made by a key that is not kept on the host, there's no way to
fake a valid bina
> This is a decentralized currency, and we should avoid centralizing
> decisions. This is something that impacts the community at large, and
> deserves input and discussion at every level.
>
> I would suggest posting on all possible forums "proposal: switch to
> uBTC, labelled as ISO prefers (XBT
> Does anybody besides me think maybe we should name them something
> other than "BEP" ?
>
> I'm worried we'll regret it in two years when a google for "BEP003"
> takes you to the BitTorrent EPs instead of the BitCoin EPs.
this is an excellent "painting the bikeshed" question, so i cannot
resist p
> Can you post secure file checksums somewhere, preferably not on Sourceforge?
as long as it's gpg-signed, what's the difference where it is posted?
--
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valu
+1 on git. not necessarily as replacement, but at least as backup.
could possibly use markdown and github pages, which automagically
pushes git commits out to the website (uses markdown syntax, iirc)
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Nils Schneider wrote:
> Can we use a git repo or something more
> I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the wall
> a picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don't own a mobile phone
> so the QR code is
> useless. Then I remembered FirstBits, went to my terminal and typed
> 1brmlab. I got their bitcoin address from the
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> lol, way to miss the point nanotube.
>
> FirstBits *is* useless, but not for the reasons you specified. But simply
> because the resources it needs rises exponentially as the number of
> participants in the network grows linearly.
>
> The poin
on 02/19/2012 04:32 PM grarpamp said the following:
>> I am trying to post on the bitcoin forums (bitcointalk.org)
> I wish there were a bitcoin-user mailing list??? But the one on
> sourceforge is dead. Forums are too full of avatars, smilies,
> sigblocks and dead mass to be of much use. Not to me
on 02/19/2012 07:13 PM grarpamp said the following:
>> Some time ago i started a googlegroup mailing list, bitcoin-discussion.
>> It's been pretty low-volume... but it's something. :)
>> http://groups.google.com/group/bitcoin-discussion
>
> Unfortunately it appears to be just as dead as the one
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
