pull down to refresh

104 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 28 Feb \ parent \ on: storing a 66kB continguous image in a Bitcoin tx without OP-RETURN or Taproot lol bitcoin

One of the main issues seems to be that for some reason a lot of people think microcomputers are the appropriate devices to run a Bitcoin node. They’ve always taken weeks to sync and were barely powerful enough. After a blocksize increase and always full blocks, it’s no wonder that they feel underpowered.

write
preview
2 sats \ 3 replies \ @stackt0shi 1 Mar

But we want a low base-line for decentralization purposes. Nodes need to be geographically dispersed, with a large percentage in areas where microcomputers are the only thing available/affordable. But NGU should outpace the cost to run a node efficiently, so that will become less of an issue.

reply
114 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 1 Mar

You can get a used laptop for a similar amount as a new Raspberry Pi. Comes with a built-in uninterruptible power source, more performance and a screen.

reply
44 sats \ 1 reply \ @stackt0shi 1 Mar

You're preaching to the choir :)

You're correct to point out that a lot of the opposition might be oblivious to Moore's law in addiction to the chain size growing slower than rate of technological advancement in general, or they're just using it as a red herring.

reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 1 Mar

There are also a number of IBD improvements in the pipeline, so it might actually become more feasible to run bitcoind on a microcomputer again. Swiftsync especially should be a gamechanger

reply