📅 Original date posted:2012-07-27
📝 Original message: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
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 10:25:23
in reply to nevent1q…mcrp
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 10:25:23Event JSON
{
"id": "552be753c2258f343c4656acecb00af0c90c667e5163b97e36e7fbc75d32f0c3",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686133523,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"63aed588f060c9675f9ddd34399756623e96cc693cda2679b108affeaacc7675",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ba32367d2963864b5d4583b77a4be2d34a1dbb38e571a559f02ef44b1d11f56b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c840f1e75d7845e20cc48358219b63ce235ccf72a89298d799e6bda2907af87"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-07-27\n📝 Original message:On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:59:20 AM grarpamp wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be\n\u003e \u003e substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux.\n\u003e \u003e Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know\n\u003e \u003e how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as\n\u003e \u003e that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current\n\u003e \n\u003e Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity\n\u003e trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption?\n\nTrying to run state-of-the-art encryption on EVERYTHING on an ancient computer \nis fairly ill-advised. I encourage you to continue with the plan to go \nshopping.\n\n\u003e Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features.\n\u003e Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be\n\u003e tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more\n\u003e GHz and cores will do.\n\u003e \n\u003e [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your\n\u003e checkbook deserve any less?\n\nSounds reasonable...\nbut why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record?\n\nLuke",
"sig": "0049963125cfcbb7ef719a447c635fe2dca939f319a4442143292e4477f28ece400dfcd0d69f1f428bb2a64c1492148d90b89648c225f95d51f244e6d1bad1c5"
}