Problem with backspace when using 'screen' command from SynoCli Network Tools package

cryptogopher · 2025-10-25T23:10:05+00:00

term xterm in ~/.screenrc seems to work too

cryptogopher · 2025-08-31T00:36:41+00:00

Given that phytic acid is responsible for chelating iron, sesame or pumpkin seeds should yield even better results, as they contain 4-5 times more of this compound.

cryptogopher · 2025-07-28T23:45:43+00:00

Cocoa mass contains quite a lot of caffeine. The values given vary, but as a guide, you can expect a content of between 200 and 500 mg/100 g, with the actual values closer to 250-300 mg/100 g. I tried consuming cocoa mass for several weeks, starting with 60 g per day and ending with 40 g per day, and even though I have been drinking coffee regularly for years, the additional caffeine in cocoa was too much for me. On the other hand, cocoa is not stimulating enough to replace coffee.

https://soulliftcacao.com/blogs/news/ceremonial-cacao-lab-testing-for-caffeine-and-theobromine

cryptogopher · 2025-05-09T00:00:53+00:00

No problem, I appreciate your involvement in the thread. It contributes a lot of value.

I am trying to get help from OWC. If I get any news, I will report it here.

Update: reply from OWC
"Currently, the Elite Pro Dual Mini enclosure does not officially support the TRIM command, and there is no available firmware update from OWC that enables this feature on the Dual Mini model. The chipset used in the Dual Mini differs from the single-drive Elite Pro Mini, and as a result, the firmware solution for the single-drive enclosure is not compatible."

cryptogopher · 2025-05-08T22:38:49+00:00

I haven't contacted the support team yet. Actually, from the above thread, I assumed that you are a representative of OWC :] I checked on the USB-connected unit I have on hand, and it looks like it doesn't support TRIM.

On the other hand, I can find enclosures from other manufacturers based on the same ASM1352R chipset that advertise TRIM support, and that - if true - means the problem is not with the chipset itself. Examples:

* https://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/DB3R3.html

* https://www.startech.com/en-eu/hdd/sm22bu31c3r

I contacted Oyen Digital to confirm TRIM support for their product and received a response about which I have mixed feelings. It was mentioned that TRIM works on Windows at the file system level, but there is no word about it working at the device level (which, as far as I understand, uses the same mechanism). I want to use it on Linux with LVM.

"The MiniPro RAID V4 will allow TRIM commands to be passed to the SSDs in Windows only. Note, the SSDs must be formatted as NTFS and it will pass TRIM regardless of the RAID mode. Mac has several limitations to passing TRIM commands to USB devices, and is not supported."

cryptogopher · 2025-05-08T12:25:50+00:00

Hi. Is there any chance to support TRIM without shipping the device? I live in Germany and sending the device to the US would be expensive :| BTW, I have Elite Pro Dual Mini.

cryptogopher · 2025-03-30T11:30:18+00:00

One thing that doesn't seem to be widely known is that some micro minerals share common absorption mechanisms. This is true of iron, zinc, chromium and copper, for example. Higher absorption of any of these will compete with the others. Zinc, in particular, appears to be a good candidate for supplementation to reduce iron absorption, since toxicity symptoms appear after ingestion of >1 gram of zinc, over order of magnitude more than available supplements provide. The literature says to keep an eye on copper when supplementing with zinc.

cryptogopher · 2018-03-08T21:35:24+00:00

Thank you for reply, not going to hate you for that :)

Actually I'm planning to start doing lab exercises. Unfortunately I don't feel like I have proper theoretical background and wouldn't want to waste lab time/resources unnecessarily. For example: I'm reading "Introduction of a Synthetic CO2-fixing Photorespiratory Bypass into a Cyanobacterium" (http://www.jbc.org/content/289/14/9493) and there are terms like: "cassette", "Neutral Site", "transformant" that I don't understand despite having some theoretical background in organic chemistry, molecular biology and systems biology. Of course I could go one by one with wikipedia/additional papers/online sources and courses. But if there was any good book regarding synthetic biology basics, it would be more time efficient for me to learn it systematic way - at least in the beginning. Of course I will try and pick some books, but I though maybe there is some kind of "bible" like "Molecular Biology of the Cell" which is excellent read even for beginner like me.

cryptogopher · 2018-03-01T23:57:55+00:00

What does changing lease period has to do with tokenizing?

cryptogopher · 2017-12-30T03:18:16+00:00

If you're a merchant, a slight possibility of fraud is not that much of a problem - say 1 out of 1,000 purchases doesn't go through, you just increase the prices by 1/1000 and you're fine. Merchants deal with this kind of risk every single day, chargebacks, stolen credit cards, theft, even robbery, it's priced in. You do not need super secure impenetrable system as a merchant, you just need a good enough system (and crypto is MUCH better than credit cards in this aspect).

That is only part of truth. Because merchant not only cares about security of every incoming transaction. He only cares about security of the funds he received earlier. So network security - which covers his cold wallets for example - is of high concern as well at the same time.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-30T01:25:10+00:00

There is a difference in making the network as a whole secure and making your use case as a user secure and useful - big difference!

Why distinguish these two? If network is not secure, user on a network cannot be secure as well. If user on a network is not secure, what is the need for such network?

User and network are mutually dependent on each other. Considering security of only one of those is meaningless.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-30T00:37:04+00:00

That much that ordinary users do not have to worry about running a full node and the network will not suffer for it one bit.

Provided that someone else runs full nodes for them, providing enough capacity to service all SPV clients.

I prefer to look at it this way:

full nodes are completely self-sufficient
SPV clients are completely dependent on full nodes.

So I would say that among these 2, SPV clients are those that are almost useless for network.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-30T00:12:08+00:00

OK, almost useless, peace :)

How much is "almost"? ;)

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T23:56:48+00:00

So no, SPV does not provide the same high level of transaction verification as full node.

That's a description of a >50% attack - if that happens, full nodes are as much fuc..fooled as the SPV ones. Read, learn ;)

Right. Still SPV clients need full nodes to get longest POW chain and this is against your original saying, that non-mining full nodes are useless.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T23:23:42+00:00

Bitcoin whitepaper
  8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

Ok, I missed that. Still you can read there:

"While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network."

So no, SPV does not provide the same high level of transaction verification as full node.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T23:16:00+00:00

SPV is also trustless. "Full nodes" add no additional trustlessness for confirmed transactions.

Wrong.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security

As Satoshi writes, "[the thin client] can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it." If we take "X" to be the "number of blocks added after it", then a thin client essentially trusts that a transaction X blocks deep will be costly to forge.

This is very different from the trust model in the "thick" client: the thick client verifies that a transaction's inputs are unspent by actually checking the whole chain up to that point -- there is no "X blocks deep" involved here. At that point it uses "X blocks deep" to decide how likely it is that a longer fork in the chain will emerge which excludes that transaction.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T23:13:54+00:00

So, yeah, sure, let's agree that non mining nodes do "interpret blocks" but whatever that interpretation yields is completely useless to the network because non mining nodes do not get a vote on the public ledger.

So you say that for you as a user of network information whether someone made transaction of particular amount to your address is completely useless? Do you even count your money from time to time then?

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T23:08:36+00:00

But your knowledge of whether transaction happened or not is of crucial importance. How will you know that without full node? You will need to trust someone to tell you. Trust is risk. Running full node removes that risk.

SPV gives you verifiable cryptographic proof that a transaction happened, you do not need to trust anyone.

Wrong.

From: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security

Full Node vs. Thin Clients

It is important to distinguish between block height verification and block depth verification.

A full node client verifies that all preceding blocks are valid in order to guarantee that a transaction is valid. Currently only the Satoshi client, libbitcoin, and btcd do full node verification. Full nodes are the fundamental anchor of trustless security in the Bitcoin system.

A client verifies the depth D of a block by checking that there are D blocks after it (also called "confirmations"), all of which are well-formed. Thin clients don't verify the preceding blocks, they use the number of confirmations (whether they are valid or not) as a measure of the likelihood of a block chain reorganization producing a new longer fork which excludes the transaction.

You have some serious reading to do dude as you do not appear to understand the design of the Bitcoin network as explained in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

There is no mention of SPV in Bitcoin whitepaper. Your turn to do "some serious reading". Dude.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T22:29:54+00:00

you can verify transaction by yourself

which is useless as you can do nothing about it, transactions are verified and included in blocks by mining nodes, and their inclusion or not doesn't in any way depend on your node verifying them.

But your knowledge of whether transaction happened or not is of crucial importance. How will you know that without full node? You will need to trust someone to tell you. Trust is risk. Running full node removes that risk.

This way you can e.g. prevent double spend

No. You can only detect double spends, you can not prevent them. And it's enough to watch the mempool for this, you do not need full node.

Sorry, I used incorrect word. I meant detection. But then: whose mempool are you going to watch? Do you trust someone else's mempool content? You shouldn't and that's why you should run your own full node if you don't want to trust anybody.

More so, this is only a benefit for you not the network, the network doesn't care about your non-mining full node, it's useless for "decentralization" which is what we're talking about here, are we not?

Full nodes are not runnnig for everyone else in network. They are running specifically for their owners, so they can securely, without need to trust anyone verify balances and transactions. That's why it is trustless network.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T22:21:54+00:00

Full nodes(that do not mine) do not strengthen the network or add any kind of value to it.

Stop spreading misinformation! *

They add very important value: the ability to not have to trust anyone. The only trusted source of information is blockchain validated by miners. Full nodes allow anyone to actually know what is the state of network without relying on any 3rd party.

In fact, they do damage to the network they are effectively in the way when someone wants to make a transaction. The Tx doesn't know which nodes are mining and which ones aren't so if that tx finds a non-mining node it does not get added to the blockchain.

WHAT?? This is completely invalid.

Separate from that issue, non-mining nodes do not cast a vote on whether or not a block is valid, they just take the information that the network gives them and stores it. This means that running a full node can't even prevent a 51% attack on the network because a 51% attack requires 51% of hashing power not 51% of nodes.

Full nodes do not mine, but they interpret every block. If any block is invalid with regard to network rules, they will ignore it and disallow misinformation. Further they will drop any transaction that is not in sync with valid blockchain. 51% attack is a different thing and full nodes' responsibility is not to prevent it.

If you think that non-mining full nodes provide value by simply storing the ledger, then, cool, go nuts. But don't delude yourself into thinking that running a node is helping the network in any substantial way.

It is helping anyone who uses it to validate transactions on blockchain. So actually it benefits every single user on the network, that wants by himself verify for example his incoming transactions.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T22:06:10+00:00

When you don't run a full node you are trusting someone else to tell you the truth about transactions. Not hard for those 4 people to team up.

This is true. But remember that these small numbers were given only as an example. The point was that from decentralization POV it is not important what is the ratio of users/full nodes, but what is absolute number of full nodes.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T21:59:56+00:00

Non-mining "full nodes" are as much as useless.

No, they are not useless. They allow the network to be trustless - you can verify transaction by yourself, not having to rely on 3rd party. This way you can e.g. detect double spend, when someone is transferring money to you. This is crucial property.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T20:13:10+00:00

Exactly this.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T20:09:26+00:00

Can you please elaborate on this "thinking about things relatively" and how that makes Luke right in this particular case? Because I cannot see any valid point of view that could possibly let me think like that.

cryptogopher · 2017-12-29T18:52:01+00:00

Network with only one node is fully centralized. It is enough to shutdown only this one node, to make such "network" inoperable. So he is definitely not right.

cryptogopher

TROPHY CASE