Topic: What does it take to run a full node? - page 3. (Read 871 times)

Yes, but the point I was making is a lot of people out there [looks in mirror] who setup 500GB nodes a while ago and have had them running on autopilot so to speak and hit the wall.

However, NEW 2TB spinning drives are now well under $50 here in the US and 1TB SSD and NVMe are at the $50 level.

So upgrading to a NEW larger drive is not that big a deal.

USED drives with low hours and good smart info are about 1/2 those prices.

It's no longer an expense.

And unless you want to trust a download you still have to download and verify the entire blockchain so no real bandwidth savings there if you are going to do it the proper way.
After that your daily download is the same for pruned or not.

Would also like to say that if you are US based it looks like for Black Friday there are going to be some 1TB 2.5" external drives on sale for $29.99 so if you want to run a node on a RPi you can keep a look out for that.

-Dave

Running pruned node also require you to download whole blockchain. Although it's different case if you use copy of pruned node such as https://prunednode.today/ where some trust is needed.


Correct.


No, pruned node only store recent block based on your setting and limitation of full node software you use. For example, Bitcoin Core only let you store recent block ranging from 550MB to 99GB.

Some people that want to run a node may see downloading the full blockchain to be discouraging, better than not, they might just use pruning.

If up to 10 gigabyte of data is needed monthly for recent new mined blocks and transactions, won't the prune node need it too? Which means it will start having the blockchain right from where the pruning started?

@franky1
At least prune node is helpful to some extent, it does just like full node, just that it does not have the entire blockchain, but it has the capability of validating and invalidating transaction and relaying it. It has routing function and communicating with full nodes. Because of these, we can not say prune node does not help the blockchain.

But since some HDD company use base 10 while computer use base 2, the actual size of 500GB HDD (5*10^11 byte) should be about 465GB. Size of blocks directory on my HDD already reached 466GB, so node operator who use 500GB should already upgrade their storage or shutdown their node until they make upgrade.


Pruned node make small contribution by broadcast latest 288 blocks and relay unconfirmed transaction. Personally i'd say pruned node is less helpful.

windfury you are wrong again. and i laugh when you just shout insults but never back it up with data or actual facts

stop getting your opinions from doomad.. he is not a source of information in the slightest

the participants of the NY agreement aligned with the core devs actually
they were the economic few but are part of the main decision makers

do some research. i know you like things spoon fed to you but do some research for once

the DCG funded blockstream devs who have merge/maintainer status in cores github (DCG funded the devs involved with segwit)

heck even check out the DCG portfolio. notice that lightning is listed as their portfolio

do you know who the CEO of DCG is .. barry silbery
do you know who headed the NY agreement.. yep barry silbert. with his sister company like coinbase and other exchanges in his portfolio spreading the word to other exchanges and pools that if they dont follow suit the pools blocks will be rejects and exchanges wont see their block rewards or subsequent spends. thus it was a blackmail.

DO YOUR RESEARCH

if you cant be bothered to check the blockchain for the flag data, if you cant be bothered to check the code linked to the flags that show the mandatory crap.. atleast realise who was involved in the NY agreement

you do realise doomads rhetoric he teaches you make you look more like a idiot by repeating his hymn sheets right..

try for once some independent research. not of social media of buddy opinions that match your own. but of actual data and time events of the period.
give it a try

The big blockers debate against that is, "but you don't need to run your own node because it won't matter to the network". BUT it SHOULD matter personally to the users themselves FIRST, not the network.

The troll also brings back another disinformation effort saying that the Core developers and their supporters are turning the debate from technical to political. Wasn't it Roger Ver, the queen of all Drama Queens, who turned everything political after a MAJORITY of the community came into consensus behind the Core developers? Wasn't it the signers of the New York Agreement who tried to co-opt Bitcoin's development away from the Core developers?

First off the best way to run a node is use an old Mac mini or an old Lenovo tiny pc.

Rasp Pi is lacking the testicles to do a good a job.

here is a Mac mini that will do a killer job

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144480984769?

with a code for 15% off  CORE15OFF

has i7
has 2tb ssd
has 16 gb ram

far better than a rasp pi.

and simply clone the drive once you downloaded the blockchain.

put the cloned drive in a safe spot.

the above setup is overkill but should be good for years.

if you hate Mac OS the Mac will run linux.


note I do not know the seller nor do I endorse him. just a quick ebay search.


now here is a screamer of a deal
https://www.ebay.com/itm/325417040077?

$135 usd.

16gb ram

 i5 6500t cpu

the ssd is small 256gb

so buy this

https://www.newegg.com/samsung-2tb-870-evo-series/p/N82E16820147794?

grab the windows key from the 256 gb ssd

and you have a machine for 135+160 = 295 plus tax.

now all of the above is assuming you have 100 internet speed


https://www.speedtest.net

shows me at 215 Mbps down and 37Mbps up

I can load the whole block chain fairly quickly but I average 150 speed on a long download.


Both examples above I did not include your cost to clone the drives BTW you can clone the drives for backup onto and 2tb hdd you do not need to do an ssd for backup.

pruning does not help
by not having the blockchain you are not helping the blockchain

pruners leach data but dont keep it to be seed data sources for others. thus if there are more pruners there are less full noders.
pool of seeders decrease more so due to the pruning feature adverts than due to physics

idiots pretending the world works on 2005 hardware and pretends everyone should prune. are not people that are advising on how to be a full noder and support the network

yes people are not forced to be full noders. but using fake rhetoric suggesting that pruning "is full".. is bad advice.

not everyone needs to be a full noder just to use bitcoin as a currency, it is a personal choice but trying to convince people that WANT to protect the network, that want to be a ful noder.. trying to convince those that want to, that bitcoin should not scale to allow more people in, to make that choice. is then not a choice. its a restraint

bitcoin in 2022 using technology available a few years ago will allow utility for a few years after 2022.. whereby people naturally upgrade hardware anyway.

however trying to suggest people should use subnets or prune or just pay more in fee's as reasons to not allow expansion of the tx count thus not allow expansion of users on the bitcoin network is not a good suggestion. especially of the silly hard drive myth constraints are of hardware from 17 years ago as the reason to politically restrain bitcoin from user growth in 2022+

Instructions to run a full node:

Download the Bitcoin Core wallet

Open it.


Done.

Yes really, this is the simplest way. If you know a bit more about computers, you can just run bitcoind using cli only in Linux. Like others said, all you need is disk space. A full node helps new nodes start, that is the main difference from pruned nodes, you need about half a gig today but better put a 1tb hd so it lasts before going full.


Running a full node helps others start theirs. Running a node (full or pruned) helps the network be more safe and robust. Bitcoin is a "cloud" and each node is a part of it. If a node fails the others take the load, so the more nodes the better for everyone.

"resource constrained" is the myth of the speaches debunked and outdated from many years ago

i still laugh that the same myths of 2015 are being used in 2022.. not realising their data restraint arguments have changed since then

yes in 2015 your 250Gb hard drive would have been good enough for 5x years of 52k blocks of 1mb
but the thing is.. after them 4-5 years from 2015 you would have to upgrade your hardware..
gues wat. that means in 2019-20 .

so arguing in 2022 that you are resource constrained. is not a bitcoin fault. its a personal choice of yours to not upgrade.
where by the normal upgrade window of all tech is usually 4-5 years any way for all tech purposes, whether its office use, gaming, video editing. whatever

gamers upgrade their console/gaming pc far sooner. they dont cry that gaming should be halted at certain dpi/ping/frame rate.

phone users upgrade far sooner then 4-5 years. they dont say they want apps and features to be halted so they can carry on using their 10yo phone

if those myth makers think its ok that bitcoin is $1 a tx+
they are ignoring the fact that $1 is only reasonable for about 600m people in 1st world countries... but pricing out the utility of bitcoin as a whole no matter if is custodian, lite or full node usage for multiple billions of potential users where $1 a transaction is not reasonable.. does not sound like a myth that is aiming about making bitcoin more reachable.

even if people transacted just 1once a month doing a open/close sessions of an subnet, as their utiopian dream way forward where by $1open$1close per month($2). in a 4 year time scale (when people usually upgrade hardware/software). that amounts to $96

if you think bitcoin should remain constrained... where they myth make that a hard drive cost change from say 52gb data per year to 200gb data per year  is the problem(4mb blocks of full legacy utility and byte count)
then they really need to so some better math.

a 1TB hard drive which is more then a 4 year utility of say 4mb block of true way of counting true bytes amounts.. is far less than $96 cost.

heck real math of real research show that you can get a 4TB hard drive
this amounts to over 16 years of true 4mb block utility.


heck even if people only upgrade once every 10 years
a 4mb block system allowing for true 4x of legacy byte counts without the cludgy code. costs far far far less then 10 years of monthly open/close sessions of a subnet over same 10 years under the constraints/premiumisations of fees they want to keep implemented in the code

so scaling(it means progressive small growth periodically. so dont myth make it to myth that it means leaping) to 4m block of actual true byte count is not resource restrained at all
even most core devs admit 4mb is no harm to the network

so while on one hand the myth makers say using bitcoin just once a month for 4 years to close reopen some subnet system. is better than paying to buy a cheap hard drive once every 4-16 years. the math shows that its actually the opposite.

tx counts need to go up and fee's need to be kept down.

pretending that bitcoin should remain at a 2000tx average block and people should just "pay more" per use or use an altnet.. is not even good economics for the myth makers

because math of the open/close costs show that it still ends up more expensive than just upgrading hardware which people usually do anyway for different reasons unrelated to crypto

if you want to sing a hymn sheet of myths . atleast include lyrics that involve math and economics and not hopeful thoughts of promoting a subnet

do not reply if you just want to repeat the outdated hymn sheet of the subnet promotion lyrics.

do some research. take average internet/hard drive statistics of 2015(where the scaling debate vs myth began) and then realise it is 2022 and so also take some stats from 2022. and remind yourself its 2022.. reply with some data, stats, evidence that backs up your myths. come back with something that has some logic and common sense included

a 250gb hard drive was out dated in the 2019 era.
dont be stuck in the past

resource constraints are not the issue.
code implemented restraints are the issue.

in short. its not a physics problem its a political problem

Using other peoples coins, on other peoples infrastructure, on other peoples rules is not scaling. Because it doesn’t scale the actual solution.

Youre ignoring the cost of being able to decide over your rules tho. Everyone should be able to run their own node, and most people are heavily resource constrained. Each increased requirement will price x amount of people out, permanently or temporarily. So when they’re actually able to decide over their own rules, they’ll also be able to decide over things like blocksize etc. It doesn’t make sense to keep obsessing over fees only, when the cost of a running node is the prerequisite for people to decide when its time for a change or when it isn’t time for a change. I also don’t understand what we’re discussing about, because its the decision of node runners that they can take at any time they please. Our opinions doesn’t matter for this.

Haha. You did, you also said that it's also very OK to call BCasH = "Bitcoin", because it will just be like there's a U.S. "Dollar", Singaporean "Dollar", and other XXX "Dollars". For you, it's probably OK if we call Dogecoin = Bitcoin too?


Moot. They are different networks/designed differently, and it was actually you who first mentioned, and compared Netflix to the robust, anti-fragile, decentralized network architecture of Bitcoin.

really..
strange how its the same group (even see you blind follow their mindset many times) that are saying that altnets are the "solution" because bitcoin shouldn't/cant scale because x,y,z lame excuse

do you see what i mean. they are saying bitcoin cant do X because technology limits. cant do Y because "centralisation" cant do z because no one wants to see people spending only $3 in a privileged data space


are your responses more about being on the defence of protecting a social groups hymn sheets to restrict, prevent,delay bitcoin from scaling, with lame excuses outdated by a decade
only sung so they can promote other networks...

or are you thinking of actual bitcoin, where congestion/high fee's are seen, actually being discussed by more then "just franky" but really shouldnt be seen if it was able to scale 5 years ago as requested by the wider bitcoin community(not the small corp group+social fangroup)

are you personally of the mindset of:
A. people should use altnets like LN to lock value up with a middleman and rely on other middle men to be online and accepting to facilitate payments..

B. people should be able to stay with their wallet keys on the bitcoin network where they can just send a transaction and get it settled and confirmed without having to pay high fee's or having to wait days due to whatever dev politics are putting restrictions in place that have not been needed for a decade

Side note, but depending on your install / configuration people running with 500GB drives are now starting to hit the storage wall.

I had 2 machines run out of storage overnight. I knew it was coming with the 500GB drives they had and the LVM default layout. Base OS install, some swap space, a few small utilities they are now full.

Was hoping for another week or 2 since I figure 1TB SSDs will be under $50 for Black Friday, but so be it. I moved some files around and got enough empty space to keep them up for at least another month.

-Dave

Full node software don't have to read older block since it usually create separate database (called chainstate on Bitcoin Core) which store all UTXO.


It heavily depends on which full node software you use and size of blockchain/block size. I'd recommend you to check node benchmark by Jameson Lopp at https://blog.lopp.net/2021-bitcoin-node-performance-tests-2/ as reference.


Yes, higher RAM means you can store bigger part of chainstate database on RAM. But since current chainstate is 5GB, there's small noticeable difference between using 8GB and 32GB RAM.

Karen, you’re the only person i ever came across that put the words "bitcoin unfit for use" into their mouth. So maybe stop hallucinating and look into a mirror. If Blocksize was too small it would become self-evident. It doesn’t make sense to keep discussing marginal changes for which there’s no current need, no community consensus, that are consensus breaking and that have negative consequences without much benefit if not actually needed. Bitcoin is working fine and fees are cheap too. If you disagree make a BIP and get consensus. Just stop spamming the same boring, predictable and repetitive talk/ uncreative insults and stop trying to gaslight anyone talking about or working on Bitcoin that doesn’t fit your narrow view (which is probably everyone in your mind).

Different architectures.

firstly i was not the one that brought up netflix..

secondly it was about bandwidth utility where the person that brought it up tried to use netflix about "server" crap but didnt realise users experience of  netflix is based on bandwidth.. thus they failed the comparison
but i tried to go along with their comparison to just knock them down a peg

if we were to discuss hard drive sizes rationally though.. my personal comparison is things like PC or PS4/5 gaming.

yep ONE GAME is 60GB+
meaning if someone is crying about 500gb. then that is like saying they cant play more then 8 games in X years
(ps4 comes with 500gb-1tb .. released 2013)
(yep even gaming specs of 9 years ago is 500GB+)

EMPHASIS .. NINE YEARS AGO

we are in an era where gamers have more then 10 games loaded up on their computers/consoles at anyone time.. where people will play alot more then 10 games on a PC or console

and right now gaming pcs/consoles are.. wait for it.. more then 500GB

we are not in the 1990's of cd-rom (ps1)

if data is "bad" if it exceeds only 250gb,, then you and him and the buddy group you all mix with are trying to say the gaming industry is broke and unfit. and no one should want to play pc games


seems those trying DESPERATELY to say bitcoin is unfit for use are using lame excuses of data measures i seen 20 years ago.. they are using scripts and outdated rhetoric that is debunked a decade ago. but they keep pushing it

i went into computer retail stores 12 years ago and seen computers that had more then 250gb

check out this example o found in a 5 second google search about someone in the UK in 2010 PC specs
https://davescomputertips.com/what-were-your-pc-specs-in-2010/
yep he had a 1.5TB hard drive even 12 years ago

so screaming 250gb is the hard drive limit of 2022 is not saying the physics limit of 2022. its saying old outdated tech of 2010

did you know that bitcoin core does not support windows vista.. and only supports windows 7 plus
windows 7+ means it supports computers of 2009+

so lame excuses about specifications of 1990's are redundant. because bitcoin core are not even wanting to support window 1998,me/XP/vista

even core devs have moved on from supporting outdated software/hardware pre 2009

so move on from scripts about bandwidth and hard drives pre 2009 spec.. realise you are all in 2022 now and things have moved on from the 1990's

..
if you bunch of a dozen same mindset social queens of altnet preference think that 2022 standard hardware billions of gamers use is unfit for gaming because "hard drive data"
or think that hundreds of millions of netflix is unfit due to "bandwidth"

now that you know gaming and netflix both use more than bitcoin requirements.. then how come netflix and pc gaming is a massive industry that is functioning, yet you think that it shouldnt be functional due to your delusions of current technology availability of 2022

yes netflix and PS5 quality gaming would be unfit for a windows 98 PC or a vista PC.. but we are not in the 98-vista era. of computing anymore

you guys sound like idiots that are screaming that netflix should stop offering HD or even 4k streaming because you scream that its 1990's

This comparison is really off. First of all Netflix doesn’t need to store their complete catalogue across 15.000 || more nodes in the world. Centralized databases work more efficiently in this regard. Also the data is just streamed to the clients, it’s not permanently appended to a blockchain. If streaming meant permanently adding 166mb - 1166mb every 10 minutes to your drive, it would become impossible quickly for almost everyone out there. It doesn’t make much sense to compare the architecture of a centralized service to a globally distributed decentralized ledger. The requirements are completely different.

Also im still using 256gb hard drives mostly and just got a 1tb one for my node. 4tb ssds would already price many people out or atleast delay their decision to run one. 4tb is definitely not the average drive size even in 2022 for an ssd, even if it’s still relatively affordable. Going HDD while increasing storage requirements simultaneously would also make IBD painful.

i never called BCH bitcoin
grow up you social queen of false drama


also you mention netflix
did you know the data amount of a netflix video to a users computer..

you will now.. so no future ignorant excuses if you want to scream netflix again..
 now that there are a over 200m netflix users. and they are happy to be receiving video.. they are not screaming "netflix unfit coz internet"


SD = 166mb per 10min
HD = 500mb per 10min
4K = 1166mb per 10min

and guess what.. no one is screaming "NETFLIX NOT FIT COZ INTERNET"

as for hard drive space

2010 hard drives were 250gb
2022 hard drives are 4tb


try to use some real world statistics and data and not your diatribe of lies and stupid antisocial stories your girlfriend  told you

The troll assumes that all of the internet connections that will join the network will be very fast, and low latency. He's assuming that the network was designed to be like Netflix, streaming gigabytes of data everyday from their centralized servers. Bitcoin, as designed by the Core developers, is to give as much people as possible to run a node without owning high-end hardware, and without needing access to high-speed bandwidth. It is designed to be ROBUST, with as little attack vectors as possible.

The troll says "my buddies", but who are his buddies? The big blockers? Roger Ver? The people in the New York Agreement who tried to co-opt Bitcoin?

Plus what did the troll say before? That Bitcoin bilaterally split into Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, and starts calling Bitcoin Cash "is the real Bitcoin" because "the white paper"?