I guess one of the contributing reasons could also be that it isn't as easy as it should be. Imagine if there was software and you had to only press "turn on" to become a full node (once synced).
Why is it so difficult to download and install Bitcoin Core then just start the program and let it run? What is so hard about that. That is essentially what you are saying. It is quite easy to run a full node, albeit the wallet function of Bitcoin Core could use some UI work. There are also hardware nodes that you can just buy and works right out of the box. 
Topic: The overlooked existential threat of centralization - page 2. (Read 1845 times)
Bitcoin Core has many downsides. The main one is it's really RAM heavy/CPU heavy. HDD space like you point, is the least of the worries.
It takes ages to sync, often it stops downloading blocks and you need to reopen it, which means waiting again for the blocks to be validated. A lot of people have problems even when they make sure connections aren't being blocked by firewalls and whatnot.
It takes ages to sync, often it stops downloading blocks and you need to reopen it, which means waiting again for the blocks to be validated. A lot of people have problems even when they make sure connections aren't being blocked by firewalls and whatnot.
I really don't know why people post pictures of HDD space costs here. That's greatly misleading, because the most limiting factor is not HDD, it's network upload capacity. It's increasing at a much slower pace than HDD costs sink - and you can't even simply determine it by measuring network capacity at a single point in time, because most residential connections have explicit or implicit limits on total data volume (at some point the speed my suddenly drop, because the provider puts you in slow mode).
Finally, since you need to create one new address to receive and send payments each time, it means you need to backup your wallet every time you make a new address... overall, it needs a lot of work, making it more accessible will make more people run full nodes instead of resorting to third party wallets.
That's not true, Bitcoin core has a pool of addresses already stored in the wallet.dat. Only if you exceed the maximum number, you will need to make a new backup.
ya.ya.yo!
hmmm... now that i think about it i should try to move my blockchain to another drive instead of my os ssd drive. thanks for reminding me of that. i just have to figure out how to do that now.
Move your datadir from its default location to wherever you want and always start Bitcoin Core with the -datadir flag. 
It's true that we are having less nodes, and that's why nodes are incentivated and there is also dedicated hardware for nodes... But what makes you think that bigger blocks means less nodes? The only thing that would make us have less nodes is simply people feeling like shutting down theirs. There isn't really a reason to have less nodes...
Nodes aren't incentivized
I will like I just did, you're saying the increased block size will lead to less nodes, the only thing changing with an increased blocksize is the POSSIBILITY of larger blocks. The large amount of time it would take to get those blocks full will negated by the always decreasing price per gigabyte.
The only other reason people wouldn't keep their full nodes is out of some sort of spite or vindictive attitude.
Bitcoin Core has many downsides. The main one is it's really RAM heavy/CPU heavy. HDD space like you point, is the least of the worries.The only other reason people wouldn't keep their full nodes is out of some sort of spite or vindictive attitude.
It takes ages to sync, often it stops downloading blocks and you need to reopen it, which means waiting again for the blocks to be validated. A lot of people have problems even when they make sure connections aren't being blocked by firewalls and whatnot.
Finally, since you need to create one new address to receive and send payments each time, it means you need to backup your wallet every time you make a new address... overall, it needs a lot of work, making it more accessible will make more people run full nodes instead of resorting to third party wallets.
I guess one of the contributing reasons could also be that it isn't as easy as it should be. Imagine if there was software and you had to only press "turn on" to become a full node (once synced).
We should work on explaining the need for nodes. Setting up one isn't that cheap and with 1TB of storage you will be set for a while.
We should work on explaining the need for nodes. Setting up one isn't that cheap and with 1TB of storage you will be set for a while.
Again by the time we get to 2mb expect the price of the current drives to be half of what they were and it to be no problem.
Not really. There isn't much more headroom with the current HDD technology, we're reaching the limit. At least the prices have returned to pre-flood levels. hmmm... now that i think about it i should try to move my blockchain to another drive instead of my os ssd drive. thanks for reminding me of that. i just have to figure out how to do that now.
I guess one of the contributing reasons could also be that it isn't as easy as it should be. Imagine if there was software and you had to only press "turn on" to become a full node (once synced).
We should work on explaining the need for nodes. Setting up one isn't that cheap and with 1TB of storage you will be set for a while.
We should work on explaining the need for nodes. Setting up one isn't that cheap and with 1TB of storage you will be set for a while.
Again by the time we get to 2mb expect the price of the current drives to be half of what they were and it to be no problem.
Not really. There isn't much more headroom with the current HDD technology, we're reaching the limit. At least the prices have returned to pre-flood levels.
It's true that we are having less nodes, and that's why nodes are incentivated and there is also dedicated hardware for nodes... But what makes you think that bigger blocks means less nodes? The only thing that would make us have less nodes is simply people feeling like shutting down theirs. There isn't really a reason to have less nodes...
Centralisation is a problem and it might get worse when block are consistently over 2M. We are not there yet. When there are more merchants accepting bitcoin and more bitcoin startups, we will have more high quality nodes. I think we have more nodes than reported because most users do not have their bitcoin core opened all day.
Bitcoin is more and more vulnerable the less nodes it has.
The less nodes it has the more likely a ddos becomes which could have fatal consequences.
This kind of attack where an only medium size enitity (like mastercard or visa for example) could ddos 90% or more of the nodes on the network is highly overlooked and underestimated. That's also a reason a blocksize increase which would further reduce nodes is very unwise.
Imagine Bitcoin with less than 1000 nodes ... it wouldn't be secure at all anymore.
If someone really would manage to ddos almost all nodes on the network i could imagine multiple forks to occure.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
The less nodes it has the more likely a ddos becomes which could have fatal consequences.
This kind of attack where an only medium size enitity (like mastercard or visa for example) could ddos 90% or more of the nodes on the network is highly overlooked and underestimated. That's also a reason a blocksize increase which would further reduce nodes is very unwise.
Imagine Bitcoin with less than 1000 nodes ... it wouldn't be secure at all anymore.
If someone really would manage to ddos almost all nodes on the network i could imagine multiple forks to occure.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Jump to: