Not very smart of you.
1. You can be tricked into believing a transaction has been confirmed when it is not.
2. You leak information about which addresses belongs to you to full nodes you are talking to.

It used to run fine on N900, but the blocks are too large now.  You statement will be true in the future as well if the block size is increased.

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it.  There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options.  If you don't like it, use a bank.  If you use an SPV wallet,  the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not.  Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is.  The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates.  If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks.  If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

Remember the last soft fork (BIP66)?  We had a six block chain split after the fork because F2Pool didn't take the time to verify the blocks it got before building upon them.  Why didn't they verify?  Because it takes time to verify a 1 MB block.  Why was this a problem?  Because F2Pool announced support for the soft fork, while actually they didn't.  Now try with a hard fork to even larger blocks.

Well it is much less of a problem then getting hacked and loss all your coins on core. And you can't use it without a computer. Unless you use TeamViwer and get hacked that way... It must have some backdore since even with 2FA someone connected to it and downloaded wallet.dat for 2 times. So I really don't see how you can use core in any practical way...

It is not safe. Still just a core. And you need 20GB and Trezor is missing... And I'm sure it is not an app but something you need to compile... So not for normal user... Battery life?

If you don't understand why the idea any node can make up its mined is dangers I can't help you. Normal user will think that if something works one day it will work the next. Even BitGo has problems today(service that pool is using). If that is not a problem I don't know what is... And running full node doesn't give me any idea what fee should be or rules on the network... And it is a security risk if you have funds on it...

Yes 1 hour and problem more or less solved. And I really don't see how big blocks will be any different. I think they learn the lessen and will be checking when next fork happens... And it was not like they didn't verify. There was a bug in a code they use. As sone as they got a block they start hashing the next one and checking one they got. But for some reason when they couldn't verify it they didn't reject it but start building empty blocks on it(I can explain you in full if you are interested why empty blocks).
Yes but if you would read some more you would see that some additional rules were added in last days by some big pools and also big nodes. And it is a big problem for some services like BitGo...

LOL!  Do you use Wintendo or some other virus hive?  Don't use your toys for storing money.  I run bitcoind on a Linux computer, which I can access over ssh from anywhere.

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<


No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

I was referring to land mass, not population.
Your information means the EU is 4 times as dense as the US, so easier to build up infrastructure for...

Ah, makes more sense, you are correct there. Also if more people in less space paying similar taxes and rates, why isn't the infrastructure better? Bumming cheap skates.

You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network.  If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message.  If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network.  What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand.  But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc.  The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants.

Just look at statoshi.info. They have graphs and numbers for the stats of the unconfirmed transactions among other stuff.

Yes, it is.  I never got the hang of graphical user interfaces.  They slow me down, and it is hard to automate anything with them.

Ehm..  Just about everything is easier than Windows.  The last Windows versions are so mindboggingly confusing, I can't understand how anyone can get anything done with it.  TeamViewer?  You have already lost.  It is not even open source.

Currently my main Bitcoin wallet is on a small 4 core ARM processor with 2 GiB RAM consuming about 2 W of power.  Fanless, about 5x5x5 cm³, costs less than 100 USD.  I have about a week of battery backup power replenished from a small 10W solar panel in case lightning knocks out the ground fault breaker when I am on holiday.  Could run the server and ADSL on solar and battery for the entire summer if the weather is nice. home is on an encrypted file system, of course.  Solid, stable, secure and no hassle to install.

WTF?  No, there has been no forks relating to any of the antispam features.  Most of the antispam features are built into Bitcoin Core, which reject most possible valid transactions by default.  Have a look at AcceptToMemoryPool in src/main.cpp, and associated checks.  With no provisions against denial of service attacks, I can't see how bitcoin will survive in the long run, and of course bitcoin has to adapt to new attack vectors.  The rules do not change the validity of the transactions, only your willingness to relay and mine the spam.

EDIT: Badly done Antispam is even more dengues... If your Antispam filter would reject all mails that had more then 10 recipients you would not be happy about it... If sender would not get a message that that happen it would be even a bigger problem in case it is a legit impotent mail... So just say if it has more then 200 outputs it is spam is really stupid way to do that...