How do you always have it? Number 2 Copying Bitcoin core data (blocks, indexes, chain states) to an external drive?

Drives are connected to nodes only if they are not connected to individual offline workstations.

Ideally, there’s no need to stop bitcoind On a node at any point. So far I’ve been using this command:

rsync -P -h -a --delete /home/satoshi/.bitcoin/ /mnt/bitcoin-copy/

However, it can take a particularly long time after the drive has been disconnected for a while. More importantly, chain states take too long to synchronize and get damaged.

You will stop the node during copy corrections for that issue, but if possible, even a more bulletproof or automated solution. Is Raid 1 also an option in this scenario?

Thank you in advance!

What does non-saving mean in this context?

Non-active means “we are missing things because we are not guaranteed, especially in the presence of enemies or when the volume is really high.” Also, the “package relay” in quotes refers to the fact that there is no package relay protocolpart of the opportunistic logic that can be seen when an orphanage transaction happens to be CPFping a failed transaction with low refueling.

Perhaps a good similarity is if you’re a restaurant chef who doesn’t have a dedicated server. Once you’re finished cooking, you can opportunistically bring food to the table, which is often fine, but delayed during rush hour. The ticket system is also not evaluated. If you can’t keep all the tickets, then random tickets will fall to the ground and forget to order them. One annoying customer can ruin someone else’s dining experience by ordering 100 diet cokes.

We can hire others to serve food. It certainly makes the restaurant more efficient (e.g. BIP 331, still WIP), but it doesn’t solve everything. Starting from 30.0, there is a strategy to limit customers to rates so they don’t forget to send out huge amounts (see “P2P: Improve Service Boundaries in Txorphanage” https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829).

Are there any situations where parents’ transactions cannot be confirmed yet?

The most important limitation of 28.0 is that Cook can only offer something very simple (1P1C package). Anything above 1P1C will not work. If the child has another unconfirmed parent, the logic of opportunism will not work, even if it is already in Mempools. This has also been changed (“Package Validation: Relax the package.

When broadcasting a transaction via SendRawTransaction, Bitcoin Core 28.0 automatically forms a 1P1C package

That’s the right thing to do. When you send a transaction to Mempool, the node does everything automatically. If it is a 0-FEE parent + child package, sendrawtransaction You might complain about the fees, so you submitpackage RPC (equivalent to multi-transactions sendrawtransaction (with a very similar API). RPCs also accept single transactions, so it may be most convenient to use them all the time.

“Dear Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin is and must remain censorship resistant.” That’s the promise, the battle, and the line in the sand drawn this week as Leonidas, the host of The Ordinal Show, weighs in on the raging Spam Wars, warning Bitcoin Core:

“Any serious attempt by Bitcoin Core to tighten policy rules or censor Ordinals and Runes transactions will be met with decisive action.”

Bitcoin Core: transaction censorship is a ‘dangerous precedent’

Leonidas argues that the Bitcoin network was designed to be neutral, permissionless, and open to anyone willing to pay competitive fees. To censor JPEGs, memecoins, or any on-chain experiment under the guise of ‘spam’ is to undermine what sets Bitcoin apart: resistance to censorship at the base layer. He warns:

“There is no meaningful difference between normalizing the censorship of JPEG or memecoin transactions and normalizing the censorship of certain monetary transactions by nation-states. Both would set very dangerous precedents.”

For anyone following the 2025 Spam Wars, the Core versus Knots debate is everywhere, and node operators have begun voting with their feet, flocking to Knots for its aggressive anti-spam features.

Knots’ share has ballooned from 69 nodes at the start of 2024 to over 4,200 in September 2025, now representing over 18% of the reachable network, a dramatic show of protest against Core’s upcoming v30 release.

At stake is more than OP_RETURN data limits here. It’s a battle over Bitcoin’s soul: Should the protocol remain a strictly monetary settlement layer, or can it evolve to support innovative on-chain uses, as long as transaction fees are paid?

The Ordinals and Runes perspective

The Ordinals and Runes ecosystem, according to Leonidas, has driven over half a billion in fees, supporting miners and security, while “using Bitcoin as money every day” outside of legacy narratives. They’re fed up pf being “gaslit” by Knots proponents.

Miners aren’t sitting out, either, he says. Many mining pools commanding over half of Bitcoin’s hash rate have privately expressed willingness to accept any consensus-valid transaction so long as security and implementation are sound. That’s not neutrality in name only; it’s how protocol resilience is achieved on the ground.

‘Standing with the Degens’: the Shinobi angle

Few comments captured the mood quite like Bitcoin Core’s Shinobi’s:

The Crypto Investor Blueprint: A 5-Day Course On Bagholding, Insider Front-Runs, and Missing Alpha

Nice Your first lesson is on the way.

Please add [email protected] to your email whitelist.

“As retarded as I think all the sh*t they do is, I stand with the Degens. I will not participate or standby while a bunch of moralizing puritanical clowns try to undermine the very thing Bitcoin exists to be: a censorship resistant system.”

It’s raw, it’s frustrated, and it echoes a broader sentiment among those who think differently from Knots: resistance to any transaction censorship is non-negotiable, whether the threat is JPEGs, memecoins, or nation-state monetary disputes.

Tensions continue to boil over on X and Nostr, with miners, node operators, and developers locked in heated debates about nearly every technical detail from OP_RETURN caps to what constitutes “spam.”

Knots’ meteoric node share growth has made fragmentation and chain splits more than theoretical. As Bitcoin Core developer Peter Tood commented:

“This has gotten so out of hand that the Knots crowd are becoming a serious risk to Bitcoin.”

If adoption continues, Knots could reach 23% of the network by October, rerpreseting a tipping point for consensus. The message from Leonidas and many other degens this week is clear:

“We will not sit idly by while transaction censorship is normalized on Bitcoin. We will defend the principles that have always set Bitcoin apart, such as open access, censorship resistance, and neutrality at the base layer”.

To the gatekeepers at Bitcoin Core: Bitcoin is and must remain censorship resistant. Anything less would betray the very thing the world’s first digital currency was built to oppose.

So the core developers are now officially shit. When do you try to make it easier to use shit Bitcoin?

Please read everyone in the strange room. I think Bitcoin is just a database. But what kind of database is that? Free Dick Picks and Monkey JPEG Database? Or currency database?

If you’re wondering what Bitcoin is aiming for, read a white paper. To scream out loud, read the title and understand what Bitcoin is meant.

Bitcoin: Peer-to-peer electronic cash system

no! Don’t say anything about the shit, dick picks, or monkey JPEG in the title?

If you’re new to Bitcoin or the only sats you hold are in an ETF or a centralized exchange, you’d be forgiven for not knowing about Core vs Knots and the entire OP_RETURN saga. But if you’ve weathered a few cycles, HODLed like a champ, and are still scratching your head, it’s time you opened your eyes: the 2025 ‘spam wars’ bear all the hallmarks of the block size wars almost a decade before it, and it’s getting ugly fast.

Like the block size wars, the spam wars involve a fundamental ideological clash over the core principles of Bitcoin, particularly scaling versus decentralization, and whether to prioritize network capacity and ease of use over a simpler, permissionless protocol.

Supporters of Bitcoin Core, the long-standing reference implementation, and Bitcoin Knots, an increasingly popular alternative maintained by developer and CTO at Ocean Mining, Luke Dashjr, are at loggerheads, and the gloves are coming off.

Core vs Knots, what’s happening?

At the center of the controversy is Bitcoin Core’s planned removal of the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data in its upcoming v30 release, scheduled for October 2025.

This technical change, intended to boost flexibility and unlock new use cases for embedding data on Bitcoin’s blockchain, is fiercely opposed by Knots backers, who argue it transforms the main network into a dumping ground for non-financial transactions and spam.

Core developers, like Peter Todd and Jameson Lopp, claim the change supports broader innovation, like digital art and document verification. They support everyone’s right to use the Bitcoin blockchain as they feel and not have governance or morals thrust upon them. Lopp posted:

“I truly detest politics. Thus I have little patience for those who try to impose traditional governance models onto Bitcoin. If you don’t like anarchy, you’re free to leave.”

Knots supporters like Samson Mow and Luke Dashjr warn that the upgrade risks bloating the blockchain, undermining Bitcoin’s neutrality, and weakening its monetary purpose. Dashjr warned:

“What do you think will happen now that Core is opening the floodgates to spam, and essentially endorsing it? (No matter what they say, that’s how spammers will take it.) Any chance we have of making Bitcoin a success will go out the window – unless the community takes a clear stand and rejects the change.”

Network philosophy and neutrality

The Core vs Knots dispute highlights deeper ideological rifts about Bitcoin’s function. Should Bitcoin remain a strictly monetary settlement layer, or can it evolve to serve more experimental on-chain data needs, so long as fees are paid?

Core’s apparent policy shift is seen by some as relinquishing its gatekeeping role, allowing any use case if the user pays. Knots supporters, however, emphasize control with features like anti-spam protection and argue that the removal of data caps could centralize power and threaten scalability.

Miners and relay service operators play a pivotal role, determining which transaction types end up in blocks and how the network responds to diverging software preferences. Node operators, too, have increasingly migrated to Knots: its share of the network doubled over six weeks in May-June 2025, and has now reached ~17% of all Bitcoin nodes, a sign of growing protest and possible fragmentation ahead of Core’s v30 launch.

Where is it heading?

While there is no hard fork yet, mounting tensions and the possibility of blocks or transactions being rejected by different software clients evoke memories of the 2017 SegWit split.

The Core vs Knots scenario also raises another fundamental issue surrounding the true decentralization of the Bitcoin network: how many of Bitcoin’s supporters run their own node? Dashjr posted:

“Bitcoin’s greatest threat to survival is that far too few people are using a full node. For Bitcoin to work, at least 85% of economic activity needs to do so.”

With technical, political, and philosophical stakes at play, October’s Core v30 release may define the next era of Bitcoin development and decentralized consensus, determining whether diversity in software serves Bitcoin’s resilience or sparks an outright chain split.

Mentioned in this article

I don’t really know what you’re looking for. It seems like the language barriers are misunderstood here, but let’s address the context rather than the question (it seems like we’re looking for a project review that’s not a topic here).

Bitcoin Core will present a new address each time and create a new payment procedure receive tab. This helps users to separate payment contexts. By receiving payments to the address, it indicates which invoices have been resolved, thereby telling the recipient what payments the sender has paid and what payments they have paid.

Bitcoin payments are private in the sense that they do not contain information about the sender and recipient names or subject fields, but are not anonymous. All Bitcoin transaction data is fully public. In addition to time, amount, and transaction specificity, all transaction outputs are associated with specific output scripts (and usually corresponding addresses) that are opposed to some users. While the sender and receiver may have information about each other, third parties may also have information about the transaction output that is being spent funding transactions where they can make guesses about the current transaction.

Therefore, Bitcoin transactions are private in the sense that the transaction’s context is not immediately public, but are not anonymous in the sense that the words are normally used.

and onion=... You just say bitcoind How to create an outbound connection to a TOR network. To be able to reach yourself on a TOR network, you need something called a “hidden service,” which corresponds to the IP address on the TOR network. TOR is quite unusual in that it does not require such an address to make an outbound connection. It is necessary simply to receive an inbound connection.

For more information about how to create hidden services, see the Bitcoin Core Tor documentation. However, there are about two ways.

• give bitcoind Permission to ask tor Creates a hidden service (by opening the control port).
• Set it tor Create a hidden service for yourself and transfer it yourself bitcoindyou need to tell them what that hidden service address is (and therefore can be advertised to other peers).

We are excited to announce plans to introduce $INK tokens and Inklayer 2 into our existing suite of products and unlock the wave of new use cases with on-chain protocols and infrastructure. We aim to provide a seamless on-chain experience and new opportunities for our global client base.

$Ink is issued by a subsidiary of Ink Foundation, an independent entity that manages Ink Layer 2 and its ecosystem.

Tokens are designed to unify users, protocols and builders across the ink layer 2 ecosystem. $Ink Tokens will become part of the Kraken Drops program and will be broadcast to qualified, active Kraken clients and ecosystem participants.

“Our aim is to see a production-grade on-chain system that is deeply integrated into everything we offer,” said Arjun Sethi, Kraken Co-CEO.

“Including Layer-2 provides the world with a throughput, low endurance and EVM compatible environment that can be extended across the trading and payment infrastructure. The Ink Foundation standardizes the value movement not only for defi users, but for those operating in institutions, market makers and digital asset spaces.”

“Kraken supports the Ink Foundation’s efforts to coordinate the infrastructure for both Onchain and Offchain users with the same performance, security and global accessibility.”

The Ink Foundation board stated, “This is a crucial moment for the ink community and for everyone who works to embed open and authorized funds in their daily lives for the public.”

“By introducing $Ink and InkNative protocols into products that millions of users already trust, Kraken is leaping into a world where CEFI and Defi are not split. This is just the beginning of a United capital market that anyone can use. The actual work begins here and the future is ours.”

Details of these plans and $Ink Airdrop will be shared in the future as we reach the milestone.