Why do average people run full nodes

sandykho47

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Knowledge its everything

I think they think there are no different between full nodes & not (for they have high PC spec & high speed ISP)
Maybe they want to do it, because bitcoin make them rich

Or they mine with ASIC & want to support bitcoin network

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 01, 2014, 03:06:07 PM

bitcoin-core "node" request :
- less than 180Mo of RAM
- with a 10Mb of cache (setting)
- restricted to 12 connexions (usually 8 )
- less than 10ko/s in Upload bandwidth
- at this day, 25Go of space disk
- less than 5% of CPU power (on 2,9GHz dual core style)

To alive an network ... that it can not be shutdowned (or controled) ... it's a gift.

Is this really spec for bitcoin full nodes Shocked

I think the spec are higher Grin

HELP.org

hero member

Activity: 510

Merit: 500

Quote from: stryker on September 02, 2014, 07:04:42 AM

Also whenever I run a lite client such as on my mobile... I point it exclusively at my own trusted node!

That is an interesting topic, the concept of a trusted node. Not sure where it will go in the future but I registered TrustedNodes.com last year for some kind of possible service in the future.

pandalion98

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

Quote from: giveBTCpls on September 02, 2014, 06:22:23 AM

These profitless nonego driven people is who keep bitcoin alive, not other.

I can't possibly run a node due my shitty PC specs.

I feel ya

pandalion98

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on September 02, 2014, 06:10:48 AM

Quote from: minerpumpkin on September 01, 2014, 10:19:25 AM

People want to be part of the whole experiment. They love Bitcoin and thus want to contribute to it. Running a full node is the easiest way of doing that. If you want to mine, you have to invest a lot in mining hardware, also you're paying a lot for electricity. Running a full node is the perfect trade-off for many people, I guess!

Yes, I think this is the best reply to thread.

I agree here.

stryker

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Also whenever I run a lite client such as on my mobile... I point it exclusively at my own trusted node!

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Quote from: pandalion98 on September 02, 2014, 05:57:25 AM

Yes, I just learned from here that disk space, ram, and cpu are no problem for ***some*** people.

I also learned that bandwidth is a big factor here.

I'm seeing people with crappy ISP's that run a full node. Does that hurt the network (no matter how small)?

It shouldn't, if I'm remembering an old discussion right. Core tries to pick the peer with the most unlimited upload bandwidth for downloading since it doesn't download multiple blocks simultaneously (or didn't). If that's correct, then, it should only be downloading blocks from a slow peer if, compared to other options, they're the fastest available (not to be confused with sharing the Txs, where I'd imagine any significant upload bandwidth is helpful).

giveBTCpls

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

These profitless nonego driven people is who keep bitcoin alive, not other.

I can't possibly run a node due my shitty PC specs.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: minerpumpkin on September 01, 2014, 10:19:25 AM

People want to be part of the whole experiment. They love Bitcoin and thus want to contribute to it. Running a full node is the easiest way of doing that. If you want to mine, you have to invest a lot in mining hardware, also you're paying a lot for electricity. Running a full node is the perfect trade-off for many people, I guess!

Yes, I think this is the best reply to thread.

pandalion98

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

Yes, I just learned from here that disk space, ram, and cpu are no problem for ***some*** people.

I also learned that bandwidth is a big factor here.

I'm seeing people with crappy ISP's that run a full node. Does that hurt the network (no matter how small)?

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Quote from: rackcityb1 on September 01, 2014, 03:31:39 PM

I would think that these limits would prevent you from relaying unconfirmed TXs as your node would spend much of it's time downloading recently found blocks (if the average block is close to the limit).

It seems to prioritize bandwidth for this, or it's just that unconfirmed Txs are so relatively small in size, it's not an issue, but this is how I've run Core in the past. Since, they've upgraded a cell tower nearby, so I let it upload without limits unless I'm doing something where I need a bigger share of the 40kb/s up I can snag. NetLimiter's supposedly adding a feature to give programs bandwidth minimum grants, which'd be great since I could let Core run in the background and then give minimums to web browser (as is, it semi-frequently causes timeouts since Core likes to suck everything down unless it's explicitly restricted, with an odd exception to these timeouts being this forum, I'd guess due to an unusual configuration I'd be interested in learning about).

I wouldn't recommend these kinds of limits for a service using the daemon frequently, of course, but for personal use, it's been a great configuration when I've needed it, and also permits those on harshly capped plans to have the advanced functionality a full node client provides since the majority of post-sync bandwidth Core and other full clients use is not strictly necessary.

doggieTattoo

full member

Activity: 209

Merit: 100

Quote from: Soros Shorts on September 01, 2014, 03:56:16 PM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:29:11 AM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on September 01, 2014, 10:21:07 AM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:16:30 AM

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

It is not true that they are entirely leechers. A "half-node" can still relay transactions between 2 full nodes.

This is better then nothing. IMO the blockchain is propagated enough right now that it would be just fine if most additional nodes were half nodes, as they provide the most important functions of nodes.

tl121

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 254

On my PC, running bitcoind uses about 26 GB of disk storage ($2.60 worth of storage at $100 / Terabyte), about 500 Mb of RAM storage ($6.25 at $100 for 8 GB) and about 10 minutes of processor time per day. (A fraction of a penny per day for extra electricity given that I already run the machine 24/7.) My machine has 4 TB of disk storage and 12 GB of RAM, so running bitcoin is not a big deal. The only downside is the impact on network bandwidth, which may be significant if you have a pathetic ISP. Even this can be mitigated by limiting bandwidth made available for bitcoin.

onezerobit

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Most people do it...for the sake of it (you should be thankful of them). And they do it to support BTC, so more people would be attracted by it.

And i am glad that they are doing it for free (i hope). That is the best part of it.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:29:11 AM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on September 01, 2014, 10:21:07 AM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:16:30 AM

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

It is not true that they are entirely leechers. A "half-node" can still relay transactions between 2 full nodes.

Dimelord

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: pandalion98 on September 01, 2014, 09:19:25 AM

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

BECAUSE WE CAN!!!!!!!!!

xrobesx

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:29:11 AM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on September 01, 2014, 10:21:07 AM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on September 01, 2014, 10:16:30 AM

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

what are the correct ports to open? That will up the connections from about 8 to many more correct?

rackcityb1

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: Kluge on September 01, 2014, 11:58:30 AM

Quote from: TimS on September 01, 2014, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: pandalion98 on September 01, 2014, 09:19:25 AM

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

I run Bitcoin Core (with limited incoming connections) and Armory. It takes a big one-time download that took a few hours, ~50GB of disk space (with plenty free), ~650 MB of RAM out of 16GB, ~1 CPU hour out of 400 (based on current uptime and CPU time usages), and minimal bandwidth requirements. The last few of those I can pause any time I want to reclaim the extra resources.
In return, I get to use a good, secure client (Armory) that's connected to the network independent of any external service or undue reliance on peers (to tell the truth about the state of the blockchain, or to protect my privacy). And having powerful local clients, instead of overly-simplified ones, helps me learn more about the technologies behind it. I also like helping secure the network.

For me, that's an agreeable trade, so I run a full node. For some people, the requirements are relatively larger, and the rewards are less important to them, so the balance does not tip in the "run a full node" direction.

Self-interest can, in fact, be sufficient, including in my case. Altruism is a small part of why I run a full node, but is not sufficient nor necessary in my case.

And I know how average users can hurt the network. If we had fewer average users, I'm sure I could bump up my max number of connections substantially. I have to keep it low because I'll occasionally have someone want to download a huge number of blocks from me, and I have little upload bandwidth, so it interferes with anything else I'm trying to do.

Just a quip -- you can run armoryd/bitcoind and limit bandwidth consumed to ~8kb/s down, 2kb/s up with it still being fully functional and up-to-date (req's should be significantly lower than that, but I haven't checked in a while and wanted to be conservative) using an application-level bandwidth throttler like NetLimiter.

I would think that these limits would prevent you from relaying unconfirmed TXs as your node would spend much of it's time downloading recently found blocks (if the average block is close to the limit).

Velkro

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 1014

Because they believe in Bitcoin project and they are enthusiast... just because of that
not everything has profit reason

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

bitcoin-core "node" request :
- less than 180Mo of RAM
- with a 10Mb of cache (setting)
- restricted to 12 connexions (usually 8 )
- less than 10ko/s in Upload bandwidth
- at this day, 25Go of space disk
- less than 5% of CPU power (on 2,9GHz dual core style)

To alive an network ... that it can not be shutdowned (or controled) ... it's a gift.

HELP.org

hero member

Activity: 510

Merit: 500

I have DNS servers and such that run 24/7 and running a Bitcoin node doesn't make any noticeable difference.

Topic: Why do average people run full nodes (Read 2526 times)