Topic: People who run Bitcoin Nodes, what's your opinion about the Ordinals/NFT? (Read 324 times)

Bitcoin dies if no one runs a node.

Thats cool and thanks for sharing it. But, let me ask you: what happens if no one do runs the nodes?

To those who quote the price of a HDD/SSD, you have to realize that people don't buy a storage disk to dedicate to their full node and it should not be like this. They should be able to dedicate a part of the spare space they already have (people keep other stuff too!) and not be forced to purchase new hardware. That would mean less people running a node.

Additionally there is another problem with spam attack such as Ordinals which is bloating the chainstate or the UTXO database with garbage outputs which they'll have to load each time they want to validate a new transaction they receive in their mempool or a new block.

And finally this is all irrelevant because at the end of the day Ordinals Attack is abusing a flaw in the protocol to perform this spam attack. Whether it is going to affect blockchain size (ie. block size has a cap) or not shouldn't change the fact that this exploit has to be fixed.

Read:
1. https://learnmeabitcoin.com/beginners/nodes
2. https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#what-is-a-full-node
3. [Guide] How to run a Bitcoin Core full node for under 50 bucks!

There's no reward to run full node or pruned node, you're just participating into the network and helping the Bitcoin's decentralization.

What is run a bitcoin node and how can i do it? Does it have a reward for that?

I don’t like it, it is an attack on Bitcoin. It’s done purely to bloat the mempool, make it more expensive to use Bitcoin & simply annoy people. There are so many scammers & grifters, money launderers etc involved in ordinals & nfts. They should go & use BCH or BSV that use bigger blocks. They won’t do that though because that doesn’t give them the attention they need. I believe that Luke Dash Jr said a fix will soon be here in Bitcoin Core update that will make it impossible for them to continue, I look forward to it.

Great, you made a good point. This has been discussed before, but I wouldn't say I like it if someone else uses my HD or SSD. I have to disagree with that. Because I will use other things, it cannot be taken. I won't let that happen.

The data blockchain records on the original network are unmatched. It works automatically when it is used. The matter is different. I need an excellent way to do ordinals, which would be nice. But the problem is that we have no choice. It differs from the current quality, but some news is being said about it. We hope to come out strong and get something better.

The thing is, what we call "Ordinals" is more like a bug in the code that allowed such spam.

Remember when Satoshi fight against spammers?

If running Bitcoin full node burden their financial, then IMO they should doing that and focus to improve their financial condition.


But with block size limit, there's upper limit of blockchain size growth.


But term "full node" already exist before any full node software offer prune mode. So personally i would keep using term "full node" (store all blocks) and "pruned node" (store recent blocks). And i recall term "archival node" comes from ETH community.

Curently I run four unpruned nodes and every node has a particular purpose for me. It's not that I believe more nodes do more benefit for the Bitcoin network; I just have my own uses for my nodes.

As of now this is current storage usage:

Since the exploit of the vulnerability and I see it as a vulnerability to add arbitrary discounted(!) witness data the growth rate of the blockchain has slightly but notably increased, the change is visible. My 1TB storage devices will still last for quite some time, no need to make a fuss of it.

At first I was annoyed thinking about all the, in my personal opinion, shit stored by inscriptions into the immutable blockchain. But after some thinking I have to say that it's not me to decide what people write into blocks. I'm annoyed of the pure existance of the vulnerability that allows an easy and discounted storage of larger amounts of data bloating blocks up to almost 4MB (occasionally).

I know with OP_RETURN it was and is possible to write (undiscounted!) arbitrary data in small chunks into the blockchain. You need to use this? Go ahead, it's up to you. You want to abuse OP_RETURN? I say, shame on you, you violate the spirit of Bitcoin.

Should the vulnerability be closed? Yes, absolutely, every exploitable vulnerability should be fixed. Period! Don't mistake it as an act of censorship.

its not about forcing or belittling..

its about you not understanding the terminology. you thought being pruned meant full, i corrected you.
end of story.

you are free to prune. just be happy with your coice and learn what it means.. just dont pretend you are full node when your not. accept your choice with maturity and grace of understanding the choice you made
you decided to a pruned node. if your happy about it be happy about your choice. just dont hide away and pretend to be a full node

also stop now trying to reclassify a full node as "archive node"
your reclassification nonsense is like you trying to say real men are now "CIS men" and trans-men are "men"
your getting things messed up and twisted around.

That's an irrelevant analogy. I am purely wearing pants for my own modesty. I'd mind my own business about how others dress, perhaps not for you.

I'm perfectly fine using an SPV node, or with the alternatives which doesn't benefit the network. Yet, I am choosing to run a pruned full node while someone on the internet is chiding me for being restricted by resources and telling me that I should run a full archival node when I don't have the capabilities to. Don't fool yourself; running a full archival node is a good to have but I am not forcing it on others to do so.

Basic concept of positive externalities, which is what this phenomenon is.   
Ridiculous. I am not going to force others to run a full archival node because I believe they should. I would encourage people to run a full archival node, but not belittle others for not being capable or not being willing to run one. Of course, if everyone prunes, then it would be terrible. But so long as people are willing to do whatever they can within their capabilities, I don't see how it would be a problem.

Sure, hard disk space is cheap. But I'm not going around to tell others that they suck because they are not running a full archival node. I was able to purchase and used a dedicated drive in my desktop for an unpruned node, but that wouldn't be the same for all.

Sure, I don't see how anyone has toot their own horn for running a pruned node here. Sure, it is good to run an archival node but don't expect people to care nor thank you for it.

compensated?
whats next you want to be paid to wear pants to hold your bank notes in your pocket.. give over..
if you wanna wear a dress but shout you wear pants with a secure pocket. expect to be called out for it.
and no dont expect people to not want to discuss your dress malfunction unless they pay you.. thats not how the world works

if you call a skirt "mans pants" expect people to correct you

as for your preference or hope to get paid.. i laugh
if you think that spending $50 on a hard drive for current 15 years + another 5 plus years of usage...
then why think its a expense in comparison to just the fee's of bitcoin transaction

do the math 20 years usage 7300 days = is not even 1 cent a day yet fee's are more then a few dollars per tx
the fee's are more of an expense you should cry about, not the concern of hard drive cost

hard drive expense is not going to be the cause of centralisation
the social dumbness of people being told to prune is more of a concern

point is..
if you dont want to help keep the blockchain decentralised. thats your personal choice.. but stop pretending that you are helping the network when you made the choice not to. just be happy being an underclass of node. be happy with your choice, and honest about it

No one is virtue signalling here; I'm not running a pruned node to feel good or brag about it. Heck, I'm not even being compensated for running a full archival node. Getting shamed or attacked for running a pruned node instead of a full node is disgusting and unwarranted. If I can only run a pruned node, then you bet I wouldn't buy another disk just to run a Bitcoin node.

If I'm not getting compensated for running a node, I don't think anyone should lecture me on what I should be doing to my node. After all, it's not like my pruned node is a negative to the network and is still in fact providing blocks to my peers, validating transactions before relaying it, etc.

conventionally prunning wasnt even a thing.. all full nodes archived data(as well as other network services)
you do know that the point of blockchains is decentralised storage of validated blockchain data.. to avoid centralising the blockdata

i think you are just trying to find excuses to pretend you are helping the network without helping the network but still want to be seen as helping the network, even though you only care about the features that help yourself

nothing wrong with wanting feature that help yourself, but lets not pretend you are offering full decentralised network services to help the decentralised network

i am considering the historic usage of the term..
it is you that is only considering the more recent re-imagined usage of the term
remember prunning was not a thing 2009-2017
so im considering term usage from the beginning upto 2017, and also the grammar, logic and common sense usage post 2017
you are just considering the social misunderstanding of grammatically, logically, and common sensically void/irrelevant term usage post 2017
..
i think you have totally missed the whole entire purpose of blockchains

.. im not even trying to have a go at you for prunning. im just having a lil poke at you to understand how full nodes are in every sense of the word full. just so you can get your mind around the true sense of the term. rather than recent mis-interpretations made by idiots thinking that prunning doesnt affect the network
..
so back to topic
the threat of hard drive prices is not a threat to network centralisation... prunning is, especially if people are fooled into thinking they are helping keep the network decentralised while not actually even storing the blockchain

Conventionally, the community has always agreed that full nodes are the opposite of SPV clients and that full nodes are just nodes that validate each block and transactions. Sounds like you’ve blown the issue out of proportion. Just look at the historical usage of the term.

What do you consider full nodes which stores the entire blockchain but has bandwidth limits which disallows the peers to request more blocks? The only key difference in function is the unavailability of certain blocks in the past. In fact, they are still doing validation the same way as other full nodes.

Not all peers would be required to serve all of the blocks in the blockchain and it is possible for Bitcoin Core to requests for blocks selectively. If you’ve taken issue with the usage of the term, you should look at the historical usage of it on the forum.

the difference is YOU are foolishly adding in the word FULL to nodes that are not offering full network service
the emphasis is the word FULL  means FULL
YOU imply something less then full service is still full


there are full nodes..... (do all network services)
       then below that, there are pruned nodes (DONT do all network services)
and then if they dont do validation then they are software/wallets (just communicate to network or server then to network) for users benefit, not network benefit

the emphasis is the word FULL  means FULL
YOU imply something less then full service is still full

you do need to realise the difference between a software/wallet on a network vs a node of the network..
a node does things FOR THE NETWORK, where as software is on a network just doing things FOR THE USER

thus a full node does full network service
then depending on what services are switched off becomes lower levels of descriptions until its just features that only benefit the user(not network peers). which then become software describers

pruning is a "less than" full network service
other peers cannot bloom filter/request certain blocks/transactions in history from you
other peers cannot initial block download startup the history from you

You can probably stop hosting right? I don't know what's the deal with nodes so I'm being ignorant here and saying what's obvious in that situation. If I were running a node though, I think I will probably get frustrated because it's a really stupid reason for why the node that I run is being used for that, kind of like you're allowing people to take a picture in your wall but some choose to carve or do some vandalism on it and you can't do anything about it.

Then what is the difference between an archival full node and a pruned full node? Remember, you seemed to have taken issue with labelling pruned nodes as full nodes, while retaining that term exclusively for full nodes which stores the entire blockchain. So what gives? Don't both of them act in a similar manner?

my ssd is being used by crackers/ miners for so many years that i really dont know what to do

yes but if the network explorers like bitnodes is saying there are xx.xxxx nodes. do not suppose they are all "full nodes" you have to look at the useragents service bits to see if they are the top number to offer full servives.. and if the ratio of those that are vs those that are not lean more to those that are not. it means those that are have to service more nodes, slowing each one down fractionally


fully validate and archive(aswell as visible connections to seed peers and other stuff).. yep "full node" was a term used before pruning option was even an option

also, you do know the rules got softened right!!.
its how junk data (extra bytes) get to be in the blockchain without causing nodes to reject the junk..
the lack of care/concern by nodes that just allow uncertain/unchecked bytes to be allowed.. is a exploit that should not have happened

nodes dont validate every byte meets a purpose/format/function of a transaction. they instead see an opcode that just says "yea its valid, just accept it, dont check it"

emphasis bitcoin full nodes used to VALIDATE .. EVERY.. BYTE.
every byte used to have a purpose because previous generation of devs actually cared about lean transactions

you are not a full node if you are just adding junk without the node checking each byte has a purpose and then pruning said data

Like Ordinals or don't like Ordinals, they are part of Bitcoin on chain transactions and mempools. If you are Bitcoin enthusiast, I am sure you love decentralization and censorship resistance. So you will be against censorship even it is censorship against Ordinals.

The problems are now there is no other better way for Ordinals to operate on so if in future, Bitcoin developers can build up that space for Ordinals, like off-chain, layer 2, Ordinals migrate to their new better homes, Bitcoin mempools and on chain transactions will be better than now.

Generally I am against censorship like Eligius mining pool, Lukedashjr and Jack Dorsey proposed to do.

Pruned nodes do validate all of the blocks during synchronization. Definition wise, not sure what's the fuss with it. If you can't provide the full blockchain history to your peers, you are already signalling that to others in your network flag.
Full node has traditionally been used to describe nodes who validates all of the blocks and transactions, and thus by the convention that we have always adopted, it would be considered a full node. Node operators are not compensated for the operation of their nodes, and I wouldn't go as far as to assume that everyone is willing to spend so much of their disk space just to run a full archival node.

in torrent(analogy) terminology:
seeders add to the decentralisation of the torrent network
leechers just take from the network and cause more pressure on the seeders

being a leecher is better then not accessing torrents at all or relying on centralised streaming services..
but being a seeder is best

as for bitcoin
dont pretend to be a full node if you disabled full archive and also not fully validating every byte of all blocks, nor offering full data to peers

reminder: topic is about nodes.. not all types of software with bitcoin access, explore, usage are full nodes
you dont have to be a full node. but if you want to be.. hard drives are not a reason not to be.. hard drives are cheap and not a hindrance

but if you dont want to be. no problem, just dont proclaim to be a full node while not offering full network/peer services. be happy to admit you want to operate one of the other options that offer less network/peer services as default

Then use LukeJr patch and have your node without the spam. Besides, some of that spam can get you in trouble.

But it's better than not being a source of data at all.

if you prune you are then offering less network decentralised security service for the peers. as you no longer become a FULL node source of blockdata for new peers.


yep hard drives are cheap so keeping the full data is helping the higher pillar of the bitcoin network, and doesnt hurt the individual because hard drives are cheap.. thus non issue.. however pruning hurts the higher pillar of the bitcoin network

Yeah, but the spammers are increasing more and more.

When this will stop?

Lots had been talked and discussed already about this ordinals inscriptions, it causes the transaction fee to raise quite alright, but one thing I don't think it would succeeded doing is to attack the network nodes, to me, I see this as a mere competition that they should only be the ones paying higher fees and not the host which are the bitcoiners making transactions, I think we are the landlord but the visitors are taking more space than we do at the expense of paying more, as long as this does not set an attack on the network, we will soon get over it.

With a 1Tb hard drive, anyone would be able to run a full node now. Bitcoin has been around 15 years and the total data space it's taking is just above 500gb

I used the 2-4TB to show that what you need to run a full node for many decades to come.

Remember on top of that, I'm paying a higher fee on the mempool because of that Ordinals/NFT.

50$ is a lot in poor countries and we need people running nodes in all parts of the world, not only North America and Europe.

It doesn't

With a hard drive of 2-4 Tb, you'll have no issue storing blockchain data for a long, long time. And it doesn't cost you up to $50

This disincentivizes people to run Bitcoin Nodes, and the network will be less decentralized, hurting the higher pillar of the Bitcoin Network.

The only bitcoin node owners or say runners that would actually be happy to with this ordinals and it’s likes been stored on bitcoin blockchain would be the miners because the storage actually creates congestion of transactions in the bitcoin network which also result in a higher transaction fee and a bigger reward for them. The last time the transaction fee was so high, a transaction fee accumulate for a block was even higher than the current block reward of 6.25 bitcoin.

As for a Node runner who doesn’t mines then this will certainly be frustrating as they will definitely have a high larger size of blockchain to actually store on there device which is more frustrating with them having to pay higher for transaction fees too if they want to broadcast a transaction. The cost of storing this data without earning from it will definitely not sit well with many of them.

Ordinals suck for the strain it puts on the network causing higher fees, but nodes do not have to consent to anything when they are the ones keeping a record of the blockchain. It might not be ordinals and could be spammers flooding the network with little dust transactions and nodes would still keel a record of that for validity.

The disk space used is not significantly higher and if it's a bother, they can run a pruned node.

Your HD/SSD space is being used by Ordinals/NFT users right now. Do you like this? Do you consent?