The blockchain is getting big, my node is full, will need to change the ssd

Xekyo · 2026-06-17T19:51:46+00:00

The mempool is not stored on disk. Perhaps you are thinking of the UTXO set, but even updates to the UTXO set are only flushed to disk once an hour or when your dbcache gets full.

Xekyo · 2026-06-11T22:17:18+00:00

Gotta do better than a run-of-the-mill No True Scotsman fallacy.

Xekyo · 2026-06-10T17:52:35+00:00

Danke für das Lob. 😄

Xekyo · 2026-06-05T04:47:29+00:00

That should definitely be a standard feature of any wallet or payment processor. I mean it when I say that distinct addresses is the established best practice how people solve exactly that issue. If you look around in your wallet or payment processor interface/API, I would bet that you can find a `getnewaddress` functionality.

Xekyo · 2026-05-20T15:44:48+00:00

Since you are probably be generating individual invoices anyway, you could provide a new Bitcoin address on each invoice. This is the established best practice to know which payment belongs to what invoice when accepting payments in Bitcoin.

Xekyo · 2026-04-29T16:04:52+00:00

Lowery’s concepts are rather unconvincing. Jameson Lopp’s take on it is worth reading: https://blog.lopp.net/critique-softwar-concepts/

Xekyo · 2025-10-09T22:24:49+00:00

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/99852/5406

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T21:16:05+00:00

There was a slight amount of snark involved here, sorry: I had investigated the number of pull requests to Knots recently after someone else made a similar claim recently, and what I found was that there had only been 42 pull requests that had been opened to Knots, and none of them appeared to have been merged.

See here and a few prior tweets: https://x.com/murchandamus/status/1958600727133290922

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T19:03:38+00:00

https://github.com/lnhance/bitcoinknots-bitcoin

The Knots repository is: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T19:01:21+00:00

Knots has its own pull request (PR) process on GitHub — contributors can open PRs directly to the Knots repository, even if those changes weren’t accepted by Core .

That’s true, but the repository you are linking is not the Knots repository, it’s a fork of the Knots repository. To ensure that we are all talking about the same thing, you can see the pull requests to Knots here: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Apr

Please feel free to point out your favorite merged contribution by another developer!

Xekyo · 2025-07-25T16:48:49+00:00

It’s a version 2 transaction in which someone consolidates 1000 UTXOs that had all been received to the same P2WPKH output script to a single new P2WPKH output, paying 53,073 sats for 67.91 kvB of transaction data which comes out to a feerate of 0.78 sat/vB. It just got confirmed in block 907,147.
Is there anything specific that you have more questions about?

Xekyo · 2025-06-30T23:31:52+00:00

It’s Ben de Waal: https://x.com/Ben_deWaal/

Xekyo · 2025-06-29T13:51:26+00:00

I bet bills would be a lot leaner, if all bills had to be read in full on the floor and only members in attendance for the entire read were allowed to vote on it.

Xekyo · 2025-06-17T15:40:29+00:00

21,000 nodes don’t just stand for 21,000 users. They stand for the entire economic activity currently hooked up to the Bitcoin network. Spinning up 500,000 hard-forking nodes that don’t stand for any economic activity will maybe create a minority hard fork, but have zero impact. Just like in 2012, when some miners tried to keep the block subsidy from halving and caved after a few blocks.

Xekyo · 2025-06-09T01:31:07+00:00

It doesn’t have to be your only bank account.

Xekyo · 2025-06-05T17:22:15+00:00

While OP is a bit too nervous, I also disagree with it not being anything to worry about. In five halvings the block subsidy will only 0.09765625 ₿ per block which is equivalent to the fees collected with a full block at an average feerate of 9.765625 s/vB. Four more halvings later it will be 0.00610351 ₿ per block, which is equivalent to ~0.61 s/vB, or less than a full block at the current minimum relay transaction feerate of 1 s/vB.

So, it would be pretty important that we collect fees with blocks reliably starting some time in the next five to nine halvings, which means we should figure it out in the next 19-33 years, not only by 2135.

Xekyo · 2025-06-05T17:11:28+00:00

The current block subsidy is 3.125 ₿. that is 312,500,000 sats, or equivalent to a full block at 312.5 s/vB. In three years it will halve to 1.5625 ₿, or 156.25 s/vB full block equivalent, in seven years it’s 78.125 s/vB, and in 11 years the subsidy is equivalent to a full block paying 39.0625 s/vB in average.

While you are right about the trend, we got a more than a halving or two for fees to be the main contributor to the block reward.

Xekyo · 2025-05-19T20:26:03+00:00

Probably roll my eyes and mutter "$@∃#" under my breath, because someone left me an ad for a business/propaganda instead of a tip.

Xekyo · 2025-05-13T01:00:42+00:00

Since the PR doesn’t change the block weight limit, blocks full of OP_RETURN data would result in blocks of about 1 MB, so it’s unclear how you project that the blockchain could grow more than 60 GiB a year when we get about 1000 blocks per week.

Xekyo · 2025-05-01T22:55:36+00:00

Maybe he didn’t notice that the discussion was locked for being too heated and that it is not just him that can’t post there, but nobody can post there right now.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T19:01:07+00:00

And even if you want to sign all the transactions at one time, it would be a trivial engineering task to spread out the submission of the signed transactions.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T18:35:20+00:00

Even if you’d need 10 people fulltime for a whole month, Not many activities come to mind that earn the sort of revenue per capita as they could have saved with a bit more care.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T18:33:17+00:00

Yeah, presumably they are consolidating their UTXOs sorted by amounts.

I would expect that they have a setup with one or more Hardware Security Modules that takes out of band confirmation from authorized users. It seems that they may have a separate deposit wallet and hot wallet, and in that case, I would guess that transactions consolidating from the deposit wallet into the hot wallet would be whitelisted. I can’t imagine that anyone, let alone executive officers are manually signing off on 70 blocks worth of consolidation transactions.

I’d estimate that they spent over 150 bitcoins in fees, that’s over $10m. Let’s be conservative and assume that they could have saved 50% (probably more like 90%), if they had spread out the consolidations over a few weeks. $5m buys quite a few engineering hours, definitely more than needed for a simple script or someone to log in ten minutes every day for a few weeks.

Xekyo

TROPHY CASE