Additionally, I would be helping bitcoin community by making it more robust and decentralized, but I can't right now.
I read something interesting in keys.casa
Topic: What is stopping people from running their own full node? (Read 708 times)
I believe running a full node is very interesting and I certainly would like to run one for testing purposes.
Additionally, I would be helping bitcoin community by making it more robust and decentralized, but I can't right now.
I read something interesting in keys.casa
Additionally, I would be helping bitcoin community by making it more robust and decentralized, but I can't right now.
I read something interesting in keys.casa
I'm not sure there's any reason that everyone should be running a full node anymore these days. I'm no Mr Robot, but I believe there's a way of running a node and not having to download core. When I first found out about bitcoin, I read Mastering Bitcoin. I downloaded bitcoin core and that thing probably took two weeks to download. So just an fyi to anyone thinking of doing so.
Agree, there are no incentives among masses to run full node and provide the full 24x7x365 support to online operations. I'm running mine from time to time but largely use the light client that serves my everyday needs in bitcoin transactions.
I meant total Bitcoin full nodes somewhere between 2010 - 2013, IIRC the number was greater than 10K, but unfortunately i can't find article about it.
I believe LukeDashJr's has a site that monitors the network more accurately. I forgot the URL though, but you can search for it.
As people have complained in the topic, COSTS stop them from running their nodes regularly, yet there are people in the forum who propose to increase the block size. It WILL set the costs higher, faster. BUT, you don't need to run a full node, right?
Then you hear the same trolls "complain" that mining is centralized.
I know LukeDashJr's website, but that's not what i'm not looking for. What i'm looking for is data of total full node (which allow incoming connection) somewhere between 2010 - 2013.
There is clearly something wrong (that needs fixing) if more people aren't running full nodes. As a community-driven thing, it should be made as easy as possible for almost everyone to run a full node without compromising on security.
The network would be much safer and robust if it's more participatory.
The network would be much safer and robust if it's more participatory.
As i mentioned earlier, running full nodes these days is quite easy.
While there are no monetary rewards, running a full bitcoin node comes with its own intangible benefits. For example, it increases the security of transactions conducted by a user. This is especially important if you plan to conduct multiple bitcoin transactions. Depending on your short, medium, and long-term goals, each option has different benefits for your preferred method of earning Bitcoin.
yes its because people dont know if what nodes are . they think that its too hard to set it up so they decide to not get involved on it . me either thats my reason too on why i dont involved on it but after seeing this thread , im convince about your statement that maybe setting up one isnt that really hard but i also remember that no things will be hard as long as you are willing to do it . you will learn it and there are now many reference online that we can use to make things more easier
For what ordinary people need to launch full node?
To verify/validate that you actually received the coins sent to you. You can trust someone else to do it for you for convenience, but what would be the point of Bitcoin if you CAN'T do it yourself? OR if your ability to run one is taken away from you?
Newbies, never fall in the big blockers' trap when they say, "Users don't need to run full nodes". "Maybe" you don't need to run one, but NO ONE should take away your ability to run one.
I just launched my first full node. Took 74 hours to sync, on a Digital Ocean droplet. Happy though
There is clearly something wrong (that needs fixing) if more people aren't running full nodes. As a community-driven thing, it should be made as easy as possible for almost everyone to run a full node without compromising on security.
The network would be much safer and robust if it's more participatory.
Size and syncing discourages me from running full nodes. Imagine downloading and running multiple nodes from different cryptocurrencies on thesame device. Besides, I am usually not comfortable using valuable things that most people will find hard to use.
The network would be much safer and robust if it's more participatory.
Size and syncing discourages me from running full nodes. Imagine downloading and running multiple nodes from different cryptocurrencies on thesame device. Besides, I am usually not comfortable using valuable things that most people will find hard to use.
The thing is one is most of the times using mobile apps and all people with technical background are very less , I do think that the limited space , the electricity bills plus possible extra payment for internet and other charges is actually problematic.. therefore I do think full node is not something everyone can run . If you have good internet connection and all you can easily do it , if you can afford to pay extra electricity bills and all .
Also many people do not know about the full node maybe everyone should help others with it.
Also many people do not know about the full node maybe everyone should help others with it.
Running a full node is extremely easy as was mentioned. I started setting mine back up yesterday.
Took a fetch from a web server, an install, and launching bitcoind on my home server. Since yesterday it's up to block 413600... so it's taking quite a while to actually get caught up (as in, probably will take more than 24 hours) but hey, I have a ton of storage on that server, and it's already running 24/7.
CPU and RAM needs to seem to be more substantial than I remember, but I think that's just because it's in catch-up mode. If I recall correctly from when I used to run a full node, once it's settled it's pretty minimal.
Took a fetch from a web server, an install, and launching bitcoind on my home server. Since yesterday it's up to block 413600... so it's taking quite a while to actually get caught up (as in, probably will take more than 24 hours) but hey, I have a ton of storage on that server, and it's already running 24/7.
CPU and RAM needs to seem to be more substantial than I remember, but I think that's just because it's in catch-up mode. If I recall correctly from when I used to run a full node, once it's settled it's pretty minimal.
I'm not sure there's any reason that everyone should be running a full node anymore these days. I'm no Mr Robot, but I believe there's a way of running a node and not having to download core. When I first found out about bitcoin, I read Mastering Bitcoin. I downloaded bitcoin core and that thing probably took two weeks to download. So just an fyi to anyone thinking of doing so.
For what ordinary people need to launch full node?
Nobody needs to. You should anyway. It's a little bit like voting. Nobody needs to, but if nobody does, you probably won't like the results. It gives little ordinary people a tiny amount of power. And when thousands of them do it, they have more power than any other individual, no matter how powerful or rich or influential that individual is. See UASF.
For what ordinary people need to launch full node?
IMO op, it isn't a necessity for every one of us to have our own full running node in order to contribute to the bitcoin network. I think there is enough miners competing and they already have enough hashing power to verify each block and there's no need for us to have one.
<>
In addition, it consumes huge power and I don't think every bitcoin user could afford that.
<>
In addition, it consumes huge power and I don't think every bitcoin user could afford that.
I think it's a necessity to learn the difference between mining and keeping a full node.
You don't mine with a node, you don't need an ASIC, you don't need more power than the average computer you don't need a dedicated GPU..
Just a bit of ram, a processor that was deemed decent a decade ago, a cheap ssd, ..that's all
But yeah your point is still strong in that, I would probably run a full node if I was incentivized in a meaningful way to do so, but I also don't have the resources to just dump to become a miner.
Same as the guy above you, running a full node is not mining.
Honestly, the more people run nodes, the more protection the network has from miners hijacking things, the less incentivized they are to try and strong arm us. If you have fast internet, and can afford a Pi and 1TB disk to plug into it, do it! A 1TB SSD is like $100 bucks now, if you have more than 4 figures invested in bitcoin, you should run one as a simple way to protect your investment yourself.
You don't even need a 1TB, you can deal with a 500GB one, it will last you for the next 3 years even with a W10 installed on it
But as others have said, as it's not getting you any money in return, there is no incentive to run it, but I can understand it.
There are people who leave their coins on exchanges because they are not willing to deal with cold storage or buying a trezor, you can't expect them to run a node, let the miners and the exchanges do that...
Bandwidth. At the slightest hint of any upload my internet is paralysed. One photo takes several minutes and I can't do anything else in that time. I'm also constantly downloading so a node would grind me to a halt from every direction. If I had decent internet then I'd certainly look into it. I've never had it and may never have it so it's not a viable choice for me.
Oh god, I'm looking at BT's offers, 30£ for 50Mbits?
At this pace, you're going to see Netflix and YT sponsoring the ISPs to get more fiber connections.
Today's total of full nodes is very low compared with total of full nodes in past (when SPV/light wallet isn't popular and you can run full node at lower cost).
Historically, until approximately beginning 2018 the number of full nodes was steadily increasing reflecting a gradual expansion of network volumetric. It has since stayed practically unchangeable - in the plot below one can see the plateau (though with some fluctuations) which is remaining to this day.
I meant total Bitcoin full nodes somewhere between 2010 - 2013, IIRC the number was greater than 10K, but unfortunately i can't find article about it.
I believe LukeDashJr's has a site that monitors the network more accurately. I forgot the URL though, but you can search for it.
As people have complained in the topic, COSTS stop them from running their nodes regularly, yet there are people in the forum who propose to increase the block size. It WILL set the costs higher, faster. BUT, you don't need to run a full node, right?
Then you hear the same trolls "complain" that mining is centralized.
Not many people are voluntarily wasting time,hardware,bandwidth and electricity without gaining anything.
People those days associate bitcoin with becoming quickly rich and don't really care about the technology or the future that this technology may provide.
To run a node you should be one step ahead of the greed. I'm talking about ordinary users not miners.
People those days associate bitcoin with becoming quickly rich and don't really care about the technology or the future that this technology may provide.
To run a node you should be one step ahead of the greed. I'm talking about ordinary users not miners.
IMO op, it isn't a necessity for every one of us to have our own full running node in order to contribute to the bitcoin network. I think there is enough miners competing and they already have enough hashing power to verify each block and there's no need for us to have one. Though, it is still a great help to the bitcoin network if we will build one as one node is enough to restore the bitcoin network when the massive downfall of the network happens. In addition, it consumes huge power and I don't think every bitcoin user could afford that.
It consumes almost no power once it's synced, it would cost next to nothing to run a Pi all year long. The bigger cost is in network charges, they can consume 100's GB month, both up and down, so you really need an unlimited, reasonably fast connection to do it. Anything over 10Mbit is OK, over 50Mbit is ideal though.
Honestly, the more people run nodes, the more protection the network has from miners hijacking things, the less incentivized they are to try and strong arm us. If you have fast internet, and can afford a Pi and 1TB disk to plug into it, do it! A 1TB SSD is like $100 bucks now, if you have more than 4 figures invested in bitcoin, you should run one as a simple way to protect your investment. Individually you running one makes little difference, but collectively it makes all the difference in the world. And if you don't run one, and Bitcoin goes to zero because of some shitty hard fork initiated by miners or something, you will have no one to blame but yourself.
IMO op, it isn't a necessity for every one of us to have our own full running node in order to contribute to the bitcoin network. I think there is enough miners competing and they already have enough hashing power to verify each block and there's no need for us to have one. Though, it is still a great help to the bitcoin network if we will build one as one node is enough to restore the bitcoin network when the massive downfall of the network happens. In addition, it consumes huge power and I don't think every bitcoin user could afford that.
There are projects like abcore https://github.com/greenaddress/abcore, which can run a full un-pruned node on a mobile, I ran a full node on a Galaxy S7 with 512GB sd card for a while. Eventually phones will get to the point where every retailer could run a full node on a phone with a lightening node running, and use NFC / QR-codes to conduct all payments, without needing VISA or super expensive terminals.
Recently setup a full node and it wasn't as challenging as I expected. I am wondering what is stopping more people from spinning up their own full nodes?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
Zero rewards stops most of us.
I have run them on and off.
They drain resources and eventually I grow tired of running them.
I should do one again as I am flush on pc's and have the resources in place.
Not exactly this, I feel like I do my part with BTC by recommending it to friends and helping them set up their own wallets and stuff, I might not be contributing with negligible hash power but I'm doing what I can to help the network.
But yeah your point is still strong in that, I would probably run a full node if I was incentivized in a meaningful way to do so, but I also don't have the resources to just dump to become a miner.
Recently setup a full node and it wasn't as challenging as I expected. I am wondering what is stopping more people from spinning up their own full nodes?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
There is both factor. In overall you see articles around bitcoin and media makes it to look like bitcoin is just currency that has very unstable price and is used for illegal activities and etc. So when people watch to TV or read news online, they see that attention is maximized on bitcoin's possibilities (that it's anonymous cryptocurrency and etc). Also modern exchanges don't give any informatin about nodes. When user is under those impression from media and exchanges or other service providers, they don't even know what is node. Only those people who are seeking more information about bitcoin, understand what's nodes and what role it has in bitcoin. So number of such people is minimal and what makes it even less is that only some part of people really share this information and run node to support bitcoin. For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
Bandwidth. At the slightest hint of any upload my internet is paralysed. One photo takes several minutes and I can't do anything else in that time. I'm also constantly downloading so a node would grind me to a halt from every direction. If I had decent internet then I'd certainly look into it. I've never had it and may never have it so it's not a viable choice for me.
The reward is your own security.
People don't want to do anything for free. Rewards are needed. There are very few people who are passionate about crypto and who want to help crypto voluntarily, offering to run a complete node.
The reward is your own security.
I guess most persons are scared that it is so much ,ore complicated, you know, all the technical parts. Also there is the issue of memory spare, a full node is quite large and can actually take significant resource but is a good contribution to the network even if you really do not make money from it.If believe bitcoin is a good thing then it sounds reasonable to support the network
I used to run a full node. In fact I still am running the node but I've closed off port 8333 because periodically I get denial-of-service attacks from malicious nodes. While core 19.1 is good at stopping most network attacks these attacks could still consume terra bytes of monthly data.
Hi . Is it worth investing in this node? Thanks https://[Suspicious link removed]/3dQ4Yd7
My notebook only has SSD (no HD) and it has only 200Gb of disk space. I simply can't run a full node with my equipment. My disk storage is expensive and scarce .
Quote
This last part is very interesting, Casa gives a small incentive for users to run a node. I don't know if that still exists, but it is worth checking.
Certainly running a full node is one of the best ways to support the network.
Certainly running a full node is one of the best ways to support the network.
I read that to run casa you need to pay a fee of 400 dollars a year so that much money would probably solve the problem of not enough space on your laptop and you would not have to buy casa at all.
I've never even thought about buying this thing. It's just too expensive compared to doing the same thing on a computer.
I used to run a full node, but abandoned it long time ago. I don't have enough space, got only 750 GB across 2 SSD and I need all of it. I also have a weak CPU, so actively validating blocks negatively affects performance of my system. And for some reason syncing was always painfully slow.
But, I plan to make something like a home server in the future, and I'll likely try to run a full node on it. Maybe other people will be doing too, if blocksize will grow slower than the prices of hardware, more and more people will be able to afford to run full nodes.
But, I plan to make something like a home server in the future, and I'll likely try to run a full node on it. Maybe other people will be doing too, if blocksize will grow slower than the prices of hardware, more and more people will be able to afford to run full nodes.
People don't want to do anything for free. Rewards are needed. There are very few people who are passionate about crypto and who want to help crypto voluntarily, offering to run a complete node.
In addition, the resources of the device need to be good to run the node and many of these people do not benefit from a good device.
In addition, the resources of the device need to be good to run the node and many of these people do not benefit from a good device.
I am wondering what the memory requirements are to run a full node. Do they fit in 8/16GB of memory?
As I understand running a ful node you have to download the blockchain from the very beginning, that is a lot of size considering I just have a decent internet connection and using prepaid service will just make my pocket into the world of emptiness. Do this big mining farms was the one that has huge distribution of Bitcoin network that run full nodes?
Ask yourself,
Validation only occurs when the # of confirmations increases,
Confirmations only increase when a New Block is added,
Therefore non-mining node don't validate anything ,and are irrelevant to network security.
Non-Mining nodes could all turn off right now, and no one would care.
Validation only occurs when the # of confirmations increases,
Confirmations only increase when a New Block is added,
Therefore non-mining node don't validate anything ,and are irrelevant to network security.
Non-Mining nodes could all turn off right now, and no one would care.
I will tell you a mind blowing truth:
Miners do not validate transactions.
Full nodes do. Anyone can validate transactions, a mining rig is not necessary for that.
Quote
https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node
What Is A Full Node?
A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.
Most full nodes also serve lightweight clients by allowing them to transmit their transactions to the network and by notifying them when a transaction affects their wallet. If not enough nodes perform this function, clients won’t be able to connect through the peer-to-peer network—they’ll have to use centralized services instead.
What Is A Full Node?
A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.
Most full nodes also serve lightweight clients by allowing them to transmit their transactions to the network and by notifying them when a transaction affects their wallet. If not enough nodes perform this function, clients won’t be able to connect through the peer-to-peer network—they’ll have to use centralized services instead.
Maintenance cost is what stops me. My internet cost are really high and the connection is not so reliable either. While I can spin up some SSD to run a node, the network cost and instability just make it less appealing. I'll probably run one when I move to another city in the next 4-5 years as it means I can find a better network provider (and hopefully way cheaper than my current setup).
There is no point to run full node when network doesn't scale.
More nodes don't make transactions faster or cheaper, but the validation mechanism more decentralized.
If you don't care about decentralization you can just use Visa. Faster than any cryptocurrency. Bitcoin exists for other reasons.
This last part is very interesting, Casa gives a small incentive for users to run a node. I don't know if that still exists, but it is worth checking.
Small is right... and also, the only way to sign up for that was by purchasing a Casa Node (essentially a RaspberryPi4 with a 1TB SSD and some custom OS on it)... at the "cheap" price of $399 annual subscription!!?!In return you can "make" 10,000 sats/week?
Running a full node is resource intensive. It is really not very technically complex.
I believe most people don’t run full nodes because they can get what they believe to be nearly the same security by relying on third party services and other full nodes to provide security (they use lightweight clients such as electrum). Relying on third party services such as blockchain.com is a bad idea, but I also understand that it is free and gives the appearance of having similar security as running your own full node when looking through the eyes of someone who is unfamiliar with bitcoin. Relying on other full nodes via the use of lightweight clients reduces privacy but again it is free, however it is not sustainable.
I believe most people don’t run full nodes because they can get what they believe to be nearly the same security by relying on third party services and other full nodes to provide security (they use lightweight clients such as electrum). Relying on third party services such as blockchain.com is a bad idea, but I also understand that it is free and gives the appearance of having similar security as running your own full node when looking through the eyes of someone who is unfamiliar with bitcoin. Relying on other full nodes via the use of lightweight clients reduces privacy but again it is free, however it is not sustainable.
I always wondered why miners don't take the block reward and the fee's should go to the node I think that would be a very good way to incentive's people spinning up nodes if they we're to be the node that is first to broadcast the block they would get a reward for it.
then how would you decide which node out of hundreds of thousands of nodes that are receiving, verifying and relaying the same exact transaction should receive the fee?
and more importantly how do you prevent someone spending a little amount of money (compared to cost of buying mining hardware) rent servers and run thousands of nodes?
Quote
Probably some downside to this idea but it would be something to ensure node's which are key parts of the network would be a reward to run.
there must never be any difference between nodes. otherwise we end up with a centralized network. look at altcoins with same issue. 
I always wondered why miners don't take the block reward and the fee's should go to the node I think that would be a very good way to incentive's people spinning up nodes if they we're to be the node that is first to broadcast the block they would get a reward for it.
Probably some downside to this idea but it would be something to ensure node's which are key parts of the network would be a reward to run.
Probably some downside to this idea but it would be something to ensure node's which are key parts of the network would be a reward to run.
because most people who you see are not in bitcoin because they saw a decentralized currency and were attracted. instead a lot of them are here because they saw "profit" and they became interested. and someone who cares about making more $$$ is not going to run a full node and contribute to the network. instead they seek the easiest way possible which is custodial wallets, web wallets and best case scenario is an SPV desktop wallet.
i don't think there is any technical challenge though.
i don't think there is any technical challenge though.
Recently setup a full node and it wasn't as challenging as I expected. I am wondering what is stopping more people from spinning up their own full nodes?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
Zero rewards stops most of us.
I have run them on and off.
They drain resources and eventually I grow tired of running them.
I should do one again as I am flush on pc's and have the resources in place.
Recently setup a full node and it wasn't as challenging as I expected. I am wondering what is stopping more people from spinning up their own full nodes?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
I can say for myself.
I have a personal notebook and I don't have a desktop computer.
My notebook only has SSD (no HD) and it has only 200Gb of disk space. I simply can't run a full node with my equipment. My disk storage is expensive and scarce .
I believe running a full node is very interesting and I certainly would like to run one for testing purposes.
Additionally, I would be helping bitcoin community by making it more robust and decentralized, but I can't right now.
I read something interesting in keys.casa
Quote
Why Run a Node?
The most important quality of Bitcoin is its decentralized nature; there’s no single entity capable of controlling or manipulating it. Because of this, there must be some way to maintain its integrity without trusting any single entity to do so. This is precisely what Bitcoin full nodes are tasked with. However, unlike mining, there aren’t direct financial incentives for running a Bitcoin full node—so why should you run one?
...
Once a node validates a transaction or block, it relays that data to other full nodes so that they can come to a consensus. This responsibility of validating the whole blockchain and enforcing the rules of Bitcoin is what makes a node “full.”
...
Monetary Incentive
Casa is the only company that provides an additional monetary incentive for running a healthy node. When Casa Node users connect their node to Sats App, they’re able to earn bitcoin! Users of Sats App with Node Heartbeats can get 10,000 SatsBack per week for getting 5 heartbeats sent. This serves as a direct incentive to maintain a high node uptime and strengthen the network.
https://blog.keys.casa/why-run-a-node/
The most important quality of Bitcoin is its decentralized nature; there’s no single entity capable of controlling or manipulating it. Because of this, there must be some way to maintain its integrity without trusting any single entity to do so. This is precisely what Bitcoin full nodes are tasked with. However, unlike mining, there aren’t direct financial incentives for running a Bitcoin full node—so why should you run one?
...
Once a node validates a transaction or block, it relays that data to other full nodes so that they can come to a consensus. This responsibility of validating the whole blockchain and enforcing the rules of Bitcoin is what makes a node “full.”
...
Monetary Incentive
Casa is the only company that provides an additional monetary incentive for running a healthy node. When Casa Node users connect their node to Sats App, they’re able to earn bitcoin! Users of Sats App with Node Heartbeats can get 10,000 SatsBack per week for getting 5 heartbeats sent. This serves as a direct incentive to maintain a high node uptime and strengthen the network.
https://blog.keys.casa/why-run-a-node/
This last part is very interesting, Casa gives a small incentive for users to run a node. I don't know if that still exists, but it is worth checking.
Certainly running a full node is one of the best ways to support the network.
Recently setup a full node and it wasn't as challenging as I expected. I am wondering what is stopping more people from spinning up their own full nodes?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
For me it seems not as many people care about the network, as they do about the price. I am wondering what you guys think, is this due to people not being aware of how important nodes are? Or due to the "technical" challenges they may face?
Jump to: