From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Sun, 24 May 2026 17:11:11 -0700 Received: from mail-oa1-f62.google.com ([209.85.160.62]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wRIuU-0005cr-2a for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:11:10 -0700 Received: by mail-oa1-f62.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43b5c0e6ff6sf3466694fac.3 for ; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1779667863; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=Rsqihyzbvjkh4aAVOOdN/JIEPcTXhr1uXHZ8UcSG4BTaloWY17Mdn4GCVCe/IvjtfC kC/4BDKDsqGuBk829PY+Re1el23ekH8aSHkpLIkQ1P/QPo07INCj6GkI5Ev0FNV1BvEt 7sFiAfrIStwPrMEZSuc+0lb3hvSX11aefZWKUzrZmzRLDyiENSUPFbQctqvfxrmg+W4k Qo6MWPVLZMW1Cu36I81i2isexNavcEzGHoMCK96G5+P486lJeCWBWZf5sEu2WtGmRLIp 3XDtHhkdKhhTDC2TnY2b/gy/Wv6pBavOSqOaRY9bazDBWJnsxjYWGTlLtEEZ4dDW5Q+t 93SA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:mime-version:feedback-id :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to:date :dkim-signature; bh=/bu79rzdjhuzgE3htXYtNoVC8TeGTVwPJXFtvl+H39o=; fh=oRSrv0I55rrT0royV3MeMfOK3m/2sMCnihg0lg5L0oY=; b=UyCbKlNHkhem693rSdhAOa7OImkDL6KrFK0rZ+Y0kJOoAQ01RaVuLcDI66Cz4xGype +krLiYrC6LXg3ZOuzgBY+K0dG/dn3F9AkNI4Ir0nUoqkJAa4WSNZ9qeyjrRRAVmXxHUj vYkaNAiT2SMdItVYJrSSDrFTKVTBjNW0yb9lOWzOS9zCVhzkjLv0Akd41IVGKifbbRhH 1SkD7g6s+aaWyDKB0vHc/yQcZkxfYWI4OKj71vppRafMlMuMHTvfaOFK6TMdPvEEJN7n x6MT8QkSso8il6w/n4HsaN4Y6UkPkA//UfRG/RQ3hcoRUl0vqHAMQf08KYgUP5M11J9x 1/7Q==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=fNc85kpw; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 79.135.106.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20251104; t=1779667863; x=1780272663; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:mime-version :feedback-id:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/bu79rzdjhuzgE3htXYtNoVC8TeGTVwPJXFtvl+H39o=; b=XEX9I3wRy1c2dOFkbZOjcLVzrHg2XGlc5g4EB4PjJzc+TXqT0lOE5p3HP1RXuaHbA/ FOFKGhi2rXrZyDZoZxLQRzCPs3APQi/sowNkJfPsAu15c8e1YR6o1o8YnyMKRNjWjI5f m7na4Efxxp3rDf+DqJAYzqoCx+xAM7y36s2wDsdKyQjUSO9QizI/pwXNIm0FGB7j5cxA PzTRuzeBjbKwRHGHh+3sTFbr9aCIvpj4lfroT7tC/0OEqIu9Q8rkVXb7SNDKPzcF0ELs C40jnhKstqr9j1592QhS5mIv3y0XP0leJEsxK5kggD0ut1FZDQq5A2iLI2Tw3UCW8eIf hrTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779667863; x=1780272663; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:mime-version :feedback-id:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to :date:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/bu79rzdjhuzgE3htXYtNoVC8TeGTVwPJXFtvl+H39o=; b=Futp5ri3hLQAGmt0lIREcAuU+tGbJnh+ALOt3QZXbeVUT44m3jvofplQ9MUzAWzobD u5ZIFQZUfCx1fevP7efEl1x9gTdgxDBw5b3u9XVluUPppywyKrtEWSCNoXFqI7VW6Kwk +DVcTk3DzjjMlJmgVR6QXLY/4Df8FTr+uWcjzJpDXuTqra55rqcWlFBoKffFgkv/LBT0 szWzC6pBbdiGmWgQZIiQ6aQtGZN/pAtVMvW0i4JigXXjxQ3hGO5fl8ydrDheAWRsABjv i9w8AvX2na7b1/uKX7I5Stj5TDUv8e/nuBoXF/hjELocM4z69H76GM2kML2gtnEgWm6T q2nA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AFNElJ+/fvbTHAhto3qieMqFOMaFXgBEupCbDJ945W/vUTOAiKX0FITzAr6KXJcSrAk1ugi4NaQv+tyrnWSS@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2dyMkFdnID5aAGKRGTWW+NDb5BjTVmT0kfDT96T9dY4WM9eUD l2lKP2TDJIvPRQ+LHDx5aV6+1+d42En51xP0gnDPwJ50fg9W7jK3wq+F X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e05:b0:422:f606:1420 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43b5aed5818mr7099871fac.34.1779667863123; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:11:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="AUV6zMMvvUn1AcTOpTsqDFJ+Q/0QLkEfJ+7dF7iUV3t4hsJNbQ==" Received: by 2002:a05:6870:f22a:b0:43b:6f92:1c26 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43b6f92c577ls1683611fac.0.-pod-prod-09-us; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:10:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:c1cb:b0:479:ff59:dcec with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4854a4502bbmr7819096b6e.32.1779667857729; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:6402:a54c:10b0:670:416a:5ab4 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-688ad2ad009msa12; Sun, 24 May 2026 16:50:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:847c:b0:bd5:18e8:1ac1 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-bdd25337efcmr436000066b.5.1779666635030; Sun, 24 May 2026 16:50:35 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1779666635; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=l2fA2e81fwAT7bJ7JirKOroXVL1033kYm/GJrvclDItNaEY0sBegZkH6fZkz3/lVZz rDMFQR15aI/qGhfls+s46YyRm7zZNgaYQLpzpH9JKIj9HWuadfFzdZSYJZbdxFGtCG2T oKR+5fMymLghVjKL4jSdxkdqsBESSRuMwZaWade+LLsugHjH12LH18pQY7REtWQSySMQ 7uCMs1wk/nrS9M6MFC/b9DwTiifjYgXeadjGMfBWd31xuq6r+0/WgRaRhGCaZ5slF3/3 oTi4Pkku16ZCT94Pcs4DJvBXUrxzjzA9XvSOlbTqoun0pRVMY0I4svPXOBpkUDW6VoxB vRcQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=mime-version:feedback-id:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject :cc:from:to:date:dkim-signature; bh=ooSf/ytG5Hj/71ykf22B5/MCdfQvZq5LL1ep0oTgVIA=; fh=VUyRMGDsLDyKXHBc8DWjokFBiSMTvXavinKdBJZhUls=; b=XFkNrA5AFqHOPuys76dcJMgkGmHoMBWSxsY7zzDZ0febdadq22V5c1MRrzDXXvlHwU ObQkpSh060DYQuvyO/BMUBzpYvLHli6dLyvt2MotXR65TmH5N9ALMab7wPzM3KBx+b5X 8sph10+mqOqv3oEesFsU0iHUKAIh1qZBcK9ZBuUaIkCC1TMKtXjdxOnMxZyu0ja/b+E1 yY7nil5YL1ZXf2/el7zbSKmymCXGoUTnWzIHWclWoyBQnOWgOW+ag9oFdB52Og0Q6+bk xQwnFMEc4z3lye99aje6+Fr/6VwSYNA58d919v4mm9QATUAtbIR+DqzmjXtl7HciNzgA /MXA==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=fNc85kpw; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 79.135.106.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com Received: from mail-106121.protonmail.ch (mail-106121.protonmail.ch. [79.135.106.121]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-bddc719f84fsi15052966b.4.2026.05.24.16.50.34 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 24 May 2026 16:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 79.135.106.121 as permitted sender) client-ip=79.135.106.121; Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 23:50:28 +0000 To: Eric Voskuil From: "'Fabian' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Draft] P2P UTXO Set Sharing Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <929d44f7-42d8-4670-8cf6-d01d44c36c2en@googlegroups.com> References: <19616822-8a03-4de1-99be-72d50479208fn@googlegroups.com> <02c201dce227$e808e050$b81aa0f0$@voskuil.org> <002301dce4cf$27bc3040$773490c0$@voskuil.org> <929d44f7-42d8-4670-8cf6-d01d44c36c2en@googlegroups.com> Feedback-ID: 5067558:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: f4f07d0f73cc588e0cbdaa746b3e02ac71029df5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1=_zX8Mxt0cxnHOO6TCx4Q0oP2STJX0L3LOZW2Rj2AaGZY" X-Original-Sender: fjahr@protonmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=fNc85kpw; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 79.135.106.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com X-Original-From: Fabian Reply-To: Fabian Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --b1=_zX8Mxt0cxnHOO6TCx4Q0oP2STJX0L3LOZW2Rj2AaGZY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eric, > Libbitcoin significantly outperforms bitcoind on a 16GB Raspberry Pi5. Independent benchmarks so far don=E2=80=99t confirm better performance of L= ibbitcoin4 even when compared to Bitcoin Core v30 even with 32 GB RAM: https://blog.lo= pp.net/2025-bitcoin-node-performance-tests/ I won=E2=80=99t run those benchmarks because in the likely case that they d= on=E2=80=99t match up with your marketing slide, you will probably make new fake claims of me = not being honest again, which I am getting very tired of. Instead, I will ask t= he community to impartially run benchmarks and share them in a constructive ma= nner. One important thing to add to that: these benchmarks need to be run without= the network being a significant factor obviously. This is where the config of t= he nodes clearly diverges and where (to my understanding at least) Libbitcoin behaves very differently from Bitcoin Core. First of all, from the config i= t=E2=80=99s very clear that you are using 100 outbound connections, which is of course,= an order of magnitude more than what Bitcoin Core uses. But in order to get th= ese 100, Libbitcoin will connect to up to 500 nodes in parallel and let them ra= ce against each other and only keep the ones that are fastest to respond. I co= uld not identify any other mechanisms to ensure peer diversity of any kind (correct me if I am wrong here). This is terrible for many reasons but I will pick the IMO most important on= es: First, making this many connections is not sustainable for the network as a whole. If every node would be configured like this a new node would have an extremely hard time finding any connections because the inbound slots would likely all be exhausted all the time. Second, just taking the nodes that ar= e the fastest to respond and ignoring everything else is just begging to be eclipse attacked. Or if there is no attacker, at least to be connected to only to nodes in the nearest AWS data center. So these two examples make clear where Bitcoin Core and Libbitcoin really diverge: Bitcoin Core cares deeply both about the broader network health as well as the security of the individual node. Performance is great of course but it usually takes a backseat compared to these other two. Libbitcoin onl= y cares about performance and that is certainly also a fine approach in isolation, though personally I wouldn=E2=80=99t run a node that prioritizes= that above network health and security. But what is not fine IMO is to try to du= nk on Bitcoin Core for marketing purposes using only performance numbers and completely glossing over all these other considerations that Bitcoin Core i= s taking into account and you are ignoring. Really the only reason Libbitcoin can even realistically make 100 outbound connections quickly enough for you= r benchmarks to even run at all is because of the very conservative configurations Bitcoin Core has chosen and which you are repeatedly mocking on Twitter. And I think it=E2=80=99s also pretty funny that you are accusin= g me of trying to off-load hosting cost to the P2P network when you yourself are exploiting it in a manner that is completely unsustainable. If you are interested in fixing your eclipse attack vulnerability and relat= ed issues, I would recommend you take a look at ASmap: https://github.com/bitc= oin-core/asmap-data FWIW, I hate that this conversation has veered so far off-topic, but most o= f this ML thread never actually discussed the BIP proposal and I need to resp= ond to what you are putting out here, including your latest ad-hominem attacks (=E2=80=9Csnake oil=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cdelusional=E2=80=9D). I have also re= sponded in the PR now since you were trying to put words in my mouth again and I guess I need to repeat myself over and over now again because, otherwise, my opinion might have changed in the meantime: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35054#issu= ecomment-4530515268 Best, Fabian On Sunday, May 24th, 2026 at 8:29 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote= : > Responding to a few earlier comments. > >> The same applies to the 32 GB RAM minimum noted for libbitcoin... which >> already excludes a large share of consumer hardware outside high-income >> regions... >> Following the trajectory of the last few years to its conclusion, the >> minimum is likely to be 64 GB next year, then 128 GB the year after, and >> validating with libbitcoin will soon require the latest generation of >> Nvidia chips. Validation time will keep going down on that path, but the >> user base it serves will keep shrinking. > > Libbitcoin significantly outperforms bitcoind on a 16GB Raspberry Pi5. > > https://x.com/evoskuil/status/2058574669708443756 > > All it takes is changing the config settings that target larger machines.= Despite 16 years of optimization and money poured into bitcoind, and its v= arious clones and ports, it underperforms on both modest and high end hardw= are. We are a small team of volunteers, just getting started on performance= tuning and optimization. > >> I am obviously exaggerating somewhat to make a point: > > You aren't just exaggerating, you sound delusional. > >> it is easy to construct a plausible-sounding slippery slope argument, > > "plausible-sounding" is one way to put it, and yet the truth of it was cl= early demonstrated 13 days after you dismissed it. > >> including one about libbitcoin's hardware trajectory. And I don't think >> you are able to prove today that libbitcoin will not follow this path in= the >> future. That is exactly why I don't find your similar argument persuasiv= e. > > Well it only took me 13 days for the stunning arrival of the very scenari= o you denied. And the hardware fantasy that you fabricated to make this poi= nt actually applies to bitcoind architectures, not Libbitcoin. I would call= that unpersuasive. > >> And in all seriousness, I think at least some Bitcoin implementations sh= ould >> aim to be accessible with low bandwidth and minimum hardware requirement= s >> compatible with widely available consumer hardware outside high-income r= egions. >> That is what many of the developers I work with are aiming for. > > No, that is what we are doing. What you are doing here is called snake oi= l. My suggestion is you roll the clock back a decade and do the work that n= eeded to be done in order to avoid this predicted outcome. > > e > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/929d44f7-42d8-4670-8cf6-d01d44c36c2en%40googlegroups.com. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= qASxp5RkHoZo6U9wmZuUlemOWYZkMfXSIDOSz-Km8opsbZDlWDZ8UP7DFLTNrEZE0XNaHjGHArF= m6rT4KpV_viBWb1ybXf7SLdL-AMZmmOg%3D%40protonmail.com. --b1=_zX8Mxt0cxnHOO6TCx4Q0oP2STJX0L3LOZW2Rj2AaGZY Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Er= ic,

> Libbitcoin significantly outperforms bitcoind on a 16GB R= aspberry Pi5.

Independent benchmarks so far don=E2=80=99t confirm better per= formance of Libbitcoin4
even when compared to Bitcoin Core= v30 even with 32 GB RAM: https://blog.lopp.net/2025-bitcoin-node-performance-tests/

I won=E2=80=99t run those benchmarks because i= n the likely case that they don=E2=80=99t match
up w= ith your marketing slide, you will probably make new fake claims of me not<= /span>
being honest again, which I am getting very tired of= . Instead, I will ask the
community to impartially r= un benchmarks and share them in a constructive manner.
One important thing to add to that: these benchmarks need= to be run without the
network being a significant f= actor obviously. This is where the config of the
nod= es clearly diverges and where (to my understanding at least) Libbitcoin
behaves very differently from Bitcoin Core. First of al= l, from the config it=E2=80=99s
very clear that you = are using 100 outbound connections, which is of course, an
order of magnitude more than what Bitcoin Core uses. But in order to= get these
100, Libbitcoin will connect to up to 500= nodes in parallel and let them race
against each ot= her and only keep the ones that are fastest to respond. I could
not identify any other mechanisms to ensure peer diversity of a= ny kind
(correct me if I am wrong here).

This is terrible for many reasons but I will pic= k the IMO most important ones:
First, making this ma= ny connections is not sustainable for the network as a
whole. If every node would be configured like this a new node would have= an
extremely hard time finding any connections beca= use the inbound slots would
likely all be exhausted = all the time. Second, just taking the nodes that are
the fastest to respond and ignoring everything else is just begging to be<= /span>
eclipse attacked. Or if there is no attacker, at lea= st to be connected to
only to nodes in the nearest A= WS data center.

So these two examples= make clear where Bitcoin Core and Libbitcoin really
diverge: Bitcoin Core cares deeply both about the broader network health a= s
well as the security of the individual node. Perfo= rmance is great of course
but it usually takes a bac= kseat compared to these other two. Libbitcoin only
c= ares about performance and that is certainly also a fine approach in=
isolation, though personally I wouldn=E2=80=99t run a node= that prioritizes that
above network health and secu= rity. But what is not fine IMO is to try to dunk
on = Bitcoin Core for marketing purposes using only performance numbers and
completely glossing over all these other considerations = that Bitcoin Core is
taking into account and you are= ignoring. Really the only reason Libbitcoin
can eve= n realistically make 100 outbound connections quickly enough for your
benchmarks to even run at all is because of the very cons= ervative
configurations Bitcoin Core has chosen and = which you are repeatedly mocking
on Twitter. And I t= hink it=E2=80=99s also pretty funny that you are accusing me of
trying to off-load hosting cost to the P2P network when you you= rself are
exploiting it in a manner that= is completely unsustainable.

If you are int= erested in fixing your eclipse attack vulnerability and related
issues, I would recommend you take a look at ASmap: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/asmap-data

FWIW, I hate that this conversation has= veered so far off-topic, but most of
this ML thread= never actually discussed the BIP proposal and I need to respond
to what you are putting out here, including your latest ad-hom= inem attacks
(=E2=80=9Csnake oil=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9C= delusional=E2=80=9D). I have also responded in the PR now since you<= /div>
were trying to put words in my mouth again and I guess I ne= ed to repeat
myself over and over now again because,= otherwise, my opinion might have
changed in the mea= ntime: https:= //github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35054#issuecomment-4530515268<= /div>

Best,
Fabian


On Sunday, May 24th, 2026 at 8:29 PM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil= .org> wrote:
Responding to a few earlier comments.

> The same appl= ies to the 32 GB RAM minimum noted for libbitcoin... which
> already = excludes a large share of consumer hardware outside high-income
> reg= ions...
> Following the trajectory of the last few years to its concl= usion, the
> minimum is likely to be 64 GB next year, then 128 GB the= year after, and
> validating with libbitcoin will soon require the l= atest generation of
> Nvidia chips. Validation time will keep going d= own on that path, but the
> user base it serves will keep shrinking.<= br>
Libbitcoin significantly outperforms bitcoind on a 16GB Raspberry Pi= 5.

https://x.com/evoskuil/status/2058574669708443756

All= it takes is changing the config settings that target larger machines. Desp= ite 16 years of optimization and money poured into bitcoind, and its variou= s clones and ports, it underperforms on both modest and high end hardware. = We are a small team of volunteers, just getting started on performance tuni= ng and optimization.

> I am obviously exaggerating somewhat to ma= ke a point:

You aren't just exaggerating, you sound delusional.
<= br>> it is easy to construct a plausible-sounding slippery slope argumen= t,

"plausible-sounding" is one way to put it, and yet the truth of i= t was clearly demonstrated 13 days after you dismissed it.

> incl= uding one about libbitcoin's hardware trajectory. And I don't think
>= you are able to prove today that libbitcoin will not follow this path in t= he
> future. That is exactly why I don't find your similar argument p= ersuasive.

Well it only took me 13 days for the stunning arrival of = the very scenario you denied. And the hardware fantasy that you fabricated = to make this point actually applies to bitcoind architectures, not Libbitco= in. I would call that unpersuasive.

> And in all seriousness, I t= hink at least some Bitcoin implementations should
> aim to be accessi= ble with low bandwidth and minimum hardware requirements
> compatible= with widely available consumer hardware outside high-income regions.
&g= t; That is what many of the developers I work with are aiming for.

N= o, that is what we are doing. What you are doing here is called snake oil. = My suggestion is you roll the clock back a decade and do the work that need= ed to be done in order to avoid this predicted outcome.

e

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+u= nsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/929d44f7-42d8-4670-8cf= 6-d01d44c36c2en%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= qASxp5RkHoZo6U9wmZuUlemOWYZkMfXSIDOSz-Km8opsbZDlWDZ8UP7DFLTNrEZE0XNaHjGHArF= m6rT4KpV_viBWb1ybXf7SLdL-AMZmmOg%3D%40protonmail.com.
--b1=_zX8Mxt0cxnHOO6TCx4Q0oP2STJX0L3LOZW2Rj2AaGZY--