Topic: Actives Full Nodes of BTC, BCH & BSV (Read 226 times)

Take note it doesn't apply if the "good number" of nodes is run by same person or very small group and majority of the community don't use full node client software which needed to "support" the fork.

being decentralized is a combination of both nodes and miners. we want both hashrate and nodes to be spread among as many people as possible and around the world so that there isn't any centralized point of failure.
having more nodes shows the higher distribution and less node less distribution.
for example in bitcoin even if someone had a very large portion of the hashrate they still couldn't create a fork without convincing all the nodes to accept that fork. if they forked their blocks would be rejected by the majority of the network and they will lose money. even if they controlled a lot of nodes (100 out of 100k) it still wouldn't make a difference.
but if there were so little number of nodes, and if that someone with high hashrate and a good number of nodes decided to create a fork they could easily do that because the network is small (100 out of 150) and the minority have no choice but to follow.

having lots of nodes also prevents so many attack vectors like DDoSing nodes, sybil attacks,...

it is also a matter of privacy too. if you run your bitcoin node, when connecting to others there is a good chance that they are also other individuals. but if you run a BSV node there is a very high chance that you are connecting to nodes controlled by the company owning BSV. now they can easily monitor your transactions, where you send your coins, which addresses belong to you, record your IP address, censor your transactions even,... add sybil attacks and backdoors in the altcoin clients and all of that becomes even easier.

I think the ranking of the coins must be evaluated by the number of nodes, total transactions in the chain and the coding activity.

I was a bit misleading but I am not yet clear I guess in this issue. What's the exact benefit of having a lot of full nodes (not miners)? It's making the chain more decentralized, isn't it? Then how? Sorry if I have missed anything. I guess instead of "can not be altered a transaction" I can write "can not be overwritten"? Still it's same meaning.

the number of nodes has nothing to  do with hashrate (or number of miners). and my point was about the number of nodes. whether there are 10 nodes or a million node the transactions can't change without creating an invalid forked chain that will be rejected by everyone.

There are much more than 10k nodes, as ETFBitcoin said.
You can only view full nodes that accept incoming connection.

Considering how many people use bitcoin 11000 is not that big number i though it should be at least 30k. That's why im running one full node 24/7 for a few monts now and i'm planning to set up sometime soon a second one. We need decentralization.

Only recent transactions, from the most recent mined blocks.

The attacker must mine a previous block and outpasse the whole hash rate mining new blocks in his alternative chain until he passes and his chain becomes the longest.

So, this cannot be done in a transaction which already has 50 confirmations.
For practical purposes,  a transaction with 6 confirmations is already considered irreversible

If someone have more than 51% of the hash rate, can't take the control of network and change transactions?
I know that's very difficult since it needs a very very big computing power. Once a transaction is changed, the hash of that block and all following blocks are changed and proof of work problem of all of them must be solved again. But isn't it at least theoretically possible ?  

Take note the number only count full node who accept incoming connection. The number is far higher according to https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html


Network hashrate and hashrate owned my malicious party play bigger role if we're talking about altering transaction/block

number of nodes isn't the reason why. a transaction can not be altered because of the cryptography that is used in bitcoin (and obviously in all its copies).
having more nodes distributed around the world means the network is more decentralized so it is a lot harder to want to take control of it.


i like comparing the altcoin node numbers with bitcoin testnet node count
according to bitaps explorer there are 9737 bitcoin nodes and 852 bitcoin testnet nodes. in other words the number of bitcoin testnet nodes is nearly the same as bcash mainnet nodes and it is 3 times higher than bcash-sv mainnet nodes.

Well, I know there's no point of comparing this three. I just wanted to share the figures with the community so that they can learn more about full node and decentralization.

Number of active full nodes of BTC at the moment- 10945
Number of active full nodes of BCH at the moment- 1475
Number of active full nodes of BSV at the moment- 361

That means, BTC transactions can never be altered at all because of its significant number of nodes which have all the records in their nodes. BCH & BSV transactions are too can't be easily, but that's much easier in proportion of BTC.


As you can see here, out of the total active full nodes of these three coin, 86% is domintaed by BTC while the rest 14% are by the other two coins.
Hope you liked the figures.