From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:03:59 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.4-gentoo-nestfix; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAD2Ti29dqCYoOMcX0zcOQnpLGCxnCjYHHqMzyyq+hvcVQ2c7nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQmQ6f1_025QgJsG4aEyH4yHwk-2aWUUY+2FPs7-Tpvvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD2Ti29LR+9=uO+LnrcsTYGSFW9S1FWuCLtoU-KwKkNmiVrnGQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti29LR+9=uO+LnrcsTYGSFW9S1FWuCLtoU-KwKkNmiVrnGQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201207270604.01966.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues
Precedence: list

On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:59:20 AM grarpamp wrote:
> > I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be
> > substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux.
> > Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know
> > how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as
> > that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current
> 
> Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity
> trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption?

Trying to run state-of-the-art encryption on EVERYTHING on an ancient computer 
is fairly ill-advised. I encourage you to continue with the plan to go 
shopping.

> Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features.
> Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be
> tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more
> GHz and cores will do.
> 
> [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your
> checkbook deserve any less?

Sounds reasonable...
but why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record?

Luke