I have to admit this gave me a really good laugh.

All Core developers are FULLY controlled by Blockstream LTD. Blockstream is fully controlled by AXA insurance. AXA is controlled by the centralized banking cartel, which is controlled by the deep state, which is controlled by the liberal media, which is controlled by the illuminati, which is controlled by wizard alien overlords trying to bring in a millenia of darkness to Earth.

Open your eyes sheeple!

wizard alien overlords



Do not be afraid.

Yes I am very sad that the centralized banking cartel killed Satoshi because Gavin warned the CIA that they were extorting him into inserting the malicious block size limit code into Bitcoin that caused it to self destruct. Those damn wizard aliens are too powerful for us mortals. Be careful not to think rationally and logically, the wizard aliens are able to read your mind and will kill you just like Satoshi.

Back then everyone agreed with satoshis vision so of course everyone would fork alognside satoshi. 
Ignoring satoshis fork would be very stupid because you'd clearly be the minority.     

Also, miners didn't block gavins proposal, the other core devs did.   
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that satoshi handed the keys to gavin, and gavin choose to share his authority with 4 others instead of taking control on his own. And yet the same persons who got shared access accuse Gavin of trying to gain more control of bitcoin.     
If Gavin was trying to get control, then why would he share the keys? He didn't have to do that.       


Gross exaggeration and you know it.   
Furthermore bitcoin was never designed to have regular users run nodes anyway.
Run a node if you can handle it and want to do so, but if you can't or don't want to, don't.



Even if this is true, then it's still not worse then LN. 
However, I'm pretty sure SPV can be designed in a better way than what you are describing above.   





Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay for very long, in fact he hinted at removed it over 6 years ago.   
When it was placed it was 1000 times larger then the average blocksize back then, and only placed to prevent spam/bloat attacks on the network because back then every user had to download the full blockchain just to run a wallet.   
Right now most bitcoin users don't even download the blockchain, so the blocksize limit is already not serving the initial purpose anymore. 
Satoshi was quite clear about his intentions:
To prevent the blocksize from becoming too large too fast so that users new to bitcoin would not be discouraged downloading a wallet because of a too large blockchain (which they had to download in order to run a wallet).     
Right now the blocksize limit is discouraging new users from using bitcoin due to high fees and slow transaction times. In fact, it's not only discouraging new users, but it's discouraging old users as well.   
So not only does the blocksize limit no longer serve the initial purpose, it has actually become harmful.   
And it's not because satoshi was wrong for adding it, it's because the current core devs are wrong for not removing it like satoshi suggested.     


Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.   
Unlike Adam back and his gang.

It goes to show that UASF isn't so dangerous and we don't necessarily need "miner approval" to make changes, as long as there is economic approval. It worked many times before.


Thats not what happened. I'm talking about p2sh.


I never said that.


No it's not, it's an understatement. It was 300GB a year ago for a non-listening node when I stopped running mine. A listening node requires 1-2TB a month. Here is a log from a node from a year ago that I found doing a quick Google search, showing it using 300-400GB/mo:
https://hastebin.com/dukuheneva.1c

If you don't believe me, run a node for a month and come back. I await your threads complaining about the issues you have.

Bitcoin Core crashes when there is less than 2GB RAM. It's the most common reason for crashes. Hundreds of threads out there. First question people ask when some posts about their node crashing is "do you have 2GB ram free?" You need 3-4GB RAM for it to run smoothly.

The problem is so bad that there are many Bitcoin businesses not running their own node. And there are miners doing 'spv validation' at times because it takes so long to validate blocks and txes. Very dangerous. Those miners caused a fork before by doing this.


Fraud proofs prevent miners from doing most malicious things to SPV wallets. They don't exist yet and there are questions about the kind of resources requirements they would put on an SPV wallet and nodes. But we do need it.

There is no easy solution to the other problems.

Mike Hearn tried to use bloom filters to prevent the node from knowing your addresses, didn't work so well.

Anyone will tell you you're giving up a lot of privacy, security and anti-censorship protection by using an SPV wallet.

When you use an SPV wallet, there is a tradeoff. Convenience for less privacy,security and anti-censorship.

LN is optional and Roger Ver has stated it's coming to BU too. It is necessary for instant microtransactions. It only works with txes less than 0.042BTC in practice. Few people actually think that onchain scaling shouldn't happen. It should be done safely.

IBLT/weak blocks will lower the resources required to run a node, though they will take a long time to be developedl, but when they are, increasing the block size limit can be done very safely and there should be no reason for anyone to oppose it.

Sharding is another one, monero devs are developing this right now to deal with their scaling problems. Monero does not have a blocksize limit (something like 1700tx/sec) but a non-listening node requires 1.5TB/mo currently as monero txes are 10x bigger than Bitcoin. We can learn from monero and implement sharding if it works well for them.

Segwit allows for extension blocks, so the blocksize limit can be increase in future without a hard fork. Even if devs refuse to implement any onchain scaling, it would be pretty easy for users to do it. Sidechains such as a MimbleWimble sidechain will allow Bitcoin to scale to visa level, and don't require anything from the devs once segwit is activated.


He also hinted at payment channels (LN). We need both, but it has to be done safely. We can't give up decentralization for more capacity. Centralization = less privacy, security and anti-censorship.


He's been involved in all kinds of shady shit. All the things I mentioned happened and he spent 10 months in prison as a result and had to rat out his counterfeit cisco hardware supplier for a deal.

He pays for BU development. Allegedly over $1 million.

He also pays miners to signal for EC. His bitcoin.com pool (which runs Core cos BU keeps crashing) pays them a 10% bonus for mining there. He wants to increase this to 200%.

So Trump is an extraterrestrial?  Oh that does make sense ...    It totally explains his hair.

No!! its the FBI who runs bitcoin NOT aliens, JEEZ.

OP, either you are a paid shill or you need to get back to CS 101 (primary school version). Nothing in this post adds up, neither the false claims, false equivalencies, nor the false number thrown out as "requirements".

I wonder who you, and the BTU folk are tied to.

Yes, make a vague post that doesn't respond to any of my points claiming it's all false and throw in a few insults too. Genius, you will be safe from the wizard alien overlords.


https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/how-to-run-a-full-node#minimum-requirements


^this is outdated too. I searched and it's actually hard to find anything in the last year. I wanted real time data. Shorena used to have a node showing bandwidth consumption, shut down. Looked through some other node bandwidth monitoring pages, all shut down.