Hi! I'm looking for a Usenet provider that accepts Bitcoins. I've previously used Astraweb, Supernews and Newsdemon but that was many years ago and I see that things have changed. I have looked through the provider deals section of the Wiki and tried to sign up for a year at Newsdemon, but the Bitcoin payment procedure is handled by BitPay and doesn't show the Bitcoin address I should transfer the funds to so I couldn't complete the sign up. Does anyone have a solution to this particular problem or do you have any other provider that you'd recommend instead? Bitcoin payment as well as a no logs policy when it comes to what I'm downloading is a must for me.
Any recommended Usenet providers that accept Bitcoin?
Since many VPNs and indexers do accept Bitcoin and allow for basically anonymous sign-up, I'm curious if there are any options in the Usenet world. I'm using a Giagnews reseller, which IMO has been solid, but are there any good alternatives that take BTC? Any recommendations from this crowd? Seems like no Giganews backbone offers Bitcoin from all my searches.
Usenet providers that accept Bitcoin - Where are you!?
I've searched through this sub but can't find very much info on any usenet providers that accept bitcoin apart from this 2 year old thread that looks to have been updated around a year ago. The reason I would prefer to pay with Bitcoin is so I don't have to trust the provider to secure my payment information and also if RIAA/MPAA decide to kick any doors down and request information, my personal details are not on anyone's books. I use dognzb for my indexer and specifically chose them as they accept bitcoin, I would like to do the same with my usenet provider.
I'm aware of a few usenet providers that accept Bitcoin such as: bitusenetchundlehitnews I have not used any of these services so I can't comment on quality, but does anyone know of/used any other providers that accept bitcoin? I'm not asking due to privacy concerns or anything like that. It's more of a promoting bitcoin in general angle.
I currently use Easynews, but I hate paying them at least $10/mo. each and every month. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding an alternative provider that accepts BTC? Additionally, if they price by volume rather than by a subscription, that's a huge plus.
I've googled around a bit and have only found one provider that uses bitcoin as payment which is a reseller of a us company that is heavily censored: bitusenet.com Right now I'm using tweaknews.EU but I would prefer bit coin as payment for an extra layer of anonymity even though they state they don't log. Just the fact of accessing a Usenet server I'm sure is red flagged. Any ideas?
Hi service providers, I know you're lurking here. I'm going to be speaking at a couple of conferences in the next few weeks on Reviving Usenet. One conference is a Cypherpunk conference and one is a more mainstream Linux conference. Would any of you who accept Bitcoin/Altcoins like to be plugged as such for the Cypherpunk conference? I don't want any sponsorship or anything like that. I just don't want to recommend you if you don't want to be.
Are you OK with direct message offers from vendors? Yes What are your main reasons for getting a seedbox? Only for download/upload (Torrents/Usenet/DDL) Do you have any specific requirements? Well it has to be more interesting than my current plan :) Are you looking for a shared or dedicated solution? Doesn't matter Are you looking for managed or unmanaged solution? Doesn't matter Please describe your Seedbox experience: Yes Currently with a provider or used one before? I currently have a seedbox @ UltraSeedBox (Tejas-Stream) but i need more monthly Traffic (currently 18TB). I'm planning to upgrade my plan but might as well look for more options! What is your Linux experience? Yes What is your monthly budget? Flexible, currently on a 25$ plan. Payment preferences or requirements? PayPal or Bitcoin Do you need support for public trackers? Yes Routing: Tell us your continent: Asia What kind of connection speeds do you need? 1 Gbps How much monthly bandwidth is needed? More than 20TB/month or unmetered How much disk space do you need? At least 4500GB List some features you are looking for: SSH access and i need all usual apps. Anything else you think we should know? Thank you for the help!
Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general
I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise. In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments: - BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags - BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash" It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit. My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags. Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community. The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321"The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners? As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis. The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now. Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to). But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure. Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off. Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship. Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto. Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe". EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
Are you OK with direct message offers from vendors? Yes What are your main reasons for getting a seedbox? Keep my ratio in private trackers and upload content to usenet Do you have any specific requirements? Well... this is probably the hardest part for me, since I will need root, and almost all vendors I already check, no one give access to root with right reasons. Are you looking for a shared or dedicated solution? Shared, but probably with my requetiments I will need get some dedicated server Are you looking for managed or unmanaged solution? Both options are fine. Please describe your Seedbox experience: High Currently with a provider or used one before? Stay years with dedi server at ovh, than hetzner, dropped my latest dedi server because euro is really expensive in my country because pandemic and our shit president What is your Linux experience? Litlle or medium. What is your monthly budget? 15 euros, but I can increase a bit more. Payment preferences or requirements? Paypal or Bitcoin Do you need support for public trackers? No Routing: Tell us your continent: South America What kind of connection speeds do you need? Anything at least 1gbps dedicated or 10gbps or more shared How much monthly bandwidth is needed? 3TB at max. How much disk space do you need? 1TB at least List some features you are looking for: With root access I can install ny myself. Anything else you think we should know? No, I think not. Thanks for read ;)
We are a Usenet provider and like many of you in these challenging times, newsgroup.ninja is practicing social distancing and ensuring service continues for everyone. To make things fun to pass the time and thank the usenet community, I am doing a giveaway of 3 unlimited lifetime accounts to ninja. This is to celebrate that we now support Bitcoin payments and to keep everyone occupied at home. Although, the ulterior motive is that if you aren't a customer or don't win an account, you will check out Newsgroup Ninja $39.99 yearly deal via the special promo link. Giveaway Details:
I have chosen a city in the world, the 3 comment guesses closest geographically will win a free lifetime unlimited account to newsgroup ninja
If multiple people pick the same city, the earlier submission will win
Open to all, leave a comment in the next 6 hours with your guess
SHA256 provided ahead of time and I will reveal the answer that hashes to it: f200f10214d6dfe558e5ea2c2b0df40a331731315987e11fb8e6737b956ae194
I will contact you directly if you win to collect your prize and setup the account. This post will be edited to reveal the string that hashes to the SHA256 sum above to verify winners. Good luck and stay safe! EDIT We are coming up on the time limit now and I have gone over the submissions. Thank you for joining in and making this a fun success. The SHA256 above was derived from this phrase: newsgroup.ninja: Iga, Mie - Hattori Hanzō The city is in Japan and was picked for its legacy to ninjas. I noticed several answers with Japan which were almost dead on. Top 3 closest:
Ija, Japan - stiles_stillinski
Kyoto Japan - aselunar
Nagoya Japan - cyclone_99
Honorable mention and consolation prize of $100 USD Visa for guessing the city was ninja related:
Kōga, Japan - vivalasvegan
Chosen at random for $50 USD BTC:
Answer that made me laugh out loud, $50 USD BTC:
Winter Park, Florida (normanbi)
I will now reach out to all 6 winners for setting up accounts. Apologies if you were super close but didn't get it as I know it can be frustrating. I hope you will still consider checking out newsgroup ninja!
Usenet providers that accept bitcoins. Usenet is easily the best networks in the world (Usenet vs Torrents), one of the most reliable and one of the most secure networks.Usenet is not dependent on any centralised authority.Usenet is a wonderful service for finding and downloading files with maximum usage of bandwidth. Supernews is a veteran Usenet provider having been in operation since the mid-90s, and it has servers across the US and Europe. You get 2,357 days of binary retention and 5,021 days of text ... If you ’re interested in using bitcoin to buy services from a VPN provider, a USENET provider or an NZB indexer, be sure to check out our reviews. We give information on providers, including payment methods accepted, to make all of this easier on those who want any of these useful services. Every now and then there have been questions about which providers accept Bitcoin as payment and the only ones that came up in those discussions usually were bitusenet.com and chundle.com. I've decided to do some research via google and the provider list at r/usenet/wiki/providers and actually came up with quite a few that now accept Bitcoin. The best Usenet provider will let you download from newsgroups to access a staggering number of videos, images, audio and software applications, completely uncensored, and at fast speeds.. Plus, Usenet is also a safe way to get the content you love. This is thanks to strong encrypted connections (SSL) between you and the Usenet servers and no logs being kept of your activities.
How to Buy Bitcoin on Coinbase Using Your Debit Card - YouTube
Another insane #Bitcoin fractal! Coincidence or hug move imminent? Wealthy investors accumulating #BTC under the radar, YouTube cryptocurrency scams out of c... Premiumize.me offers USENET access in addition to a host of other Internet- and privacy related services. Compared to other USENET access providers, however, their download speeds are far from ... Bitforx is a new cloud mining service provider Visit Link : https://goo.gl/A29K1B They offers everyone possibility to participate in Bitcoin mining economy , you can buy and sell hash rates any time. Blockware Solutions is a leading service provider for the Bitcoin Mining Industry: presently one of the largest distributors of ASIC's to the US Market, hosts a top 18 Bitcoin Pool that is ... Banking on Bitcoin takes a look at what this revolutionary technology is and the players who are battling to define how it will shape our lives. Provider GravitasVOD