Why Run the Bitcoin Client? | Bitcointalksearch.org

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Quote from: finway on November 16, 2011, 10:49:56 PM

Good question, I'm running bitcoin client for several months, but i'm not sure i'll run it if it's getting too big to slow down my computer too much.

The computers are getting more powerful faster than Bitcoin is getting resource demanding. The opposite is true for Microsoft Windows. So any recent hardware are capable of supporting Bitcoin client. Tested Bitcoin even on aging server running dual Pentium 3 with Win2k3 R2.

Quote

It would certainly be pretty nice if there was a torrent network where seeders are paid. It would be like a poor man's Usenet but with the advantages of being decentralized and pay-as-you-go. Same thing for tor relays.

Some people prefer to stay anonymous, so only payment they might accept are Bitcoins. I actually run few Tor exit nodes 24/7, will You pay me for doing so? Who will pay? I will run them anyway even if You don't pay me. If You are short in cash, should You be denied from using Tor or torrents? Or there actually are people who like when computers and servers are idling to do some service for fellow internet users?

Quote

Only problem I have with running the client to support the network is it gives your ip away to would be attackers

Obtaining IP is the first and easiest step. IP adress alone will do nothing, there must be some vulnerability and way to launch exploit on the system with that IP or all attacks will fail and DDoS are the only option.

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1140

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

Quote from: ?? on ??

It would certainly be pretty nice if there was a torrent network where seeders are paid. It would be like a poor man's Usenet but with the advantages of being decentralized and pay-as-you-go. Same thing for tor relays.

I think this is bound to happen whether we ask for it or not. (Both of them)

racerguy

sr. member

Activity: 270

Merit: 250

Only problem I have with running the client to support the network is it gives your ip away to would be attackers, I do run the client all the time though through tor, but I don't think the relaying of transactions happens when you do that.

finway

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Good question, I'm running bitcoin client for several months, but i'm not sure i'll run it if it's getting too big to slow down my computer too much.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Quote from: EuSouBitcoin on November 16, 2011, 08:31:06 AM

If running the client provides a valuable service to the network, shouldn't that be rewarded?

Should I be rewarded for seeding the torrents I downloaded? They stress my computer even more than Bitcoin. They are less demanding on memory and disc access, but the network is always loaded.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Well there would be no need to upgrade every year. Maybe every 5 years but it is almost simply not realistic to think you would never need to upgrade.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:09:41 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 16, 2011, 05:07:14 PM

...
The reason for my imploring of the development team to keep some measure of focus on remaining vigilant about efficiency is that I have seen far to many development efforts forget about scaling issues in a mad dash toward some other more immediate goal (like wallet encryption or some pretty GUI fr'instance.)

Well things like encryption and GUI are a non-issue. You don't need a wallet or GUI as a relay node.
...

The issue I illuded to is that these things may take resources away from considering core network and scaling issues and implementing solutions to them.

So, I reinterate my point.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:09:41 PM

The bad news is transaction volume will increase and that means the speed the blockchain grows will also increase. However as long as transaction volume grows slower than Moore's law the cost of storage should remain roughly the same. You can get a 32GB SSD today for $64. Likely in 2 years you will be able to buy a 128GB SSD for the same price.

I would actually prefer avoiding buying new machines every year just to donate support to the Bitcoin project. Currently I am able to support Bitcoin with a network connection that I already have, and with a spare machine which was modern about a decade ago (and uses just a few watts of power.) I like that.

The question is how long it will be before people who have a minor interest in supporting the system will no longer to be able to practically do so. To some extent it depends on the growth in use of the system, but to another huge extent, it depends on the focus that the development team puts into the scaling issues that are going to be popping up.

I feel that we could already be well beyond the point of implosion had Satoshi not carefully considered some of these issues, and had not the current development team continued to consider them. I have a lot of respect for both for this reason. I only suggest that the current (and future) teams not lose touch with this aspect of the development of the system.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: casascius on November 16, 2011, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: terrytibbs on November 16, 2011, 05:17:15 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:15:39 PM

Doesn't the daemon scrub orphans after so much time? I would imagine an orphan for 100 blocks ago is kinda useless.

Pretty sure it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't too.

Regardless, they are going to be small, like no more than a block or two, once in a while. Probably less than 0.5% of the file. I think if an orphan chain managed to get any longer than that, there'd be active discussion about it and everyone would hear about it.

I ran across some comment somewhere that there will be some 'optimization' on start-up. Probably it is this, and it would be easier to implement than an optimization thread so that seems likely.

I very rarely re-start bitcoind. My goal with this (and many other things) is to re-start a process maybe yearly unless I want to compile a newer binary or something.

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1140

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

Quote from: terrytibbs on November 16, 2011, 05:17:15 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:15:39 PM

Doesn't the daemon scrub orphans after so much time? I would imagine an orphan for 100 blocks ago is kinda useless.

Pretty sure it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't too.

Regardless, they are going to be small, like no more than a block or two, once in a while. Probably less than 0.5% of the file. I think if an orphan chain managed to get any longer than that, there'd be active discussion about it and everyone would hear about it.

terrytibbs

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 501

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:15:39 PM

Doesn't the daemon scrub orphans after so much time? I would imagine an orphan for 100 blocks ago is kinda useless.

Pretty sure it doesn't.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: terrytibbs on November 16, 2011, 05:12:58 PM

If you have a node on 24/7 you will receive most of the would-be orphans, while a node asking for the current block inventory will only get the blocks in the longest chain.

Doesn't the daemon scrub orphans after so much time? I would imagine an orphan for 100 blocks ago is kinda useless.

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1140

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:09:41 PM

That is weird. It is 0.98GB on my machine. I thought there was only one blockchain. You trying to pull a 51% attack?

I guess it depends on how you count it. Mine's 0.98 binary gigabytes, 1.06 decimal gigabytes.

terrytibbs

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 501

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 05:09:41 PM

Quote from: casascius on November 16, 2011, 04:48:49 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:42:32 PM

I did read the entire thread. The blockchain is <1GB. The bitcoind is <4MB. Given the blockchain contains over 2 years of transactions that is pretty good.

The first two years were pretty slow - it's growing massively - most of the space is taken up by the last 6 months of activity.

On my machine, my blk0001.dat + blkindex.dat are now > 1GB.

That is weird. It is 0.98GB on my machine. I thought there was only one blockchain. You trying to pull a 51% attack?

If you have a node on 24/7 you will receive most of the would-be orphans, while a node asking for the current block inventory will only get the blocks in the longest chain.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: casascius on November 16, 2011, 04:48:49 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:42:32 PM

I did read the entire thread. The blockchain is <1GB. The bitcoind is <4MB. Given the blockchain contains over 2 years of transactions that is pretty good.

The first two years were pretty slow - it's growing massively - most of the space is taken up by the last 6 months of activity.

On my machine, my blk0001.dat + blkindex.dat are now > 1GB.

That is weird. It is 0.98GB on my machine. I thought there was only one blockchain. You trying to pull a 51% attack?

Quote from: tvbcof on November 16, 2011, 05:07:14 PM

I broke down and logged into my machine and looked just now. I have 4G in .bitcoin/databases/* but they are apparently log files which are, presumably, dispensable on a dedicated appliance.

.bitcoin/blk0001.dat is about 750M and blkindex.dat is about 300M. I agree that this is remarkably good, but I also feel that the economy is .0001% of what it coulda/shoulda been and hopefully will be.

The reason for my imploring of the development team to keep some measure of focus on remaining vigilant about efficiency is that I have seen far to many development efforts forget about scaling issues in a mad dash toward some other more immediate goal (like wallet encryption or some pretty GUI fr'instance.)

Well things like encryption and GUI are a non-issue. You don't need a wallet or GUI as a relay node. The bad news is transaction volume will increase and that means the speed the blockchain grows will also increase. However as long as transaction volume grows slower than Moore's law the cost of storage should remain roughly the same. You can get a 32GB SSD today for $64. Likely in 2 years you will be able to buy a 128GB SSD for the same price.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:42:32 PM

I did read the entire thread. The blockchain is <1GB. The bitcoind is <4MB. Given the blockchain contains over 2 years of transactions that is pretty good.

I broke down and logged into my machine and looked just now. I have 4G in .bitcoin/databases/* but they are apparently log files which are, presumably, dispensable on a dedicated appliance.

.bitcoin/blk0001.dat is about 750M and blkindex.dat is about 300M. I agree that this is remarkably good, but I also feel that the economy is .0001% of what it coulda/shoulda been and hopefully will be.

The reason for my imploring of the development team to keep some measure of focus on remaining vigilant about efficiency is that I have seen far to many development efforts forget about scaling issues in a mad dash toward some other more immediate goal (like wallet encryption or some pretty GUI fr'instance.)

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1140

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:42:32 PM

I did read the entire thread. The blockchain is <1GB. The bitcoind is <4MB. Given the blockchain contains over 2 years of transactions that is pretty good.

The first two years were pretty slow - it's growing massively - most of the space is taken up by the last 6 months of activity.

On my machine, my blk0001.dat + blkindex.dat are now > 1GB.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

I did read the entire thread. The blockchain is <1GB. The bitcoind is <4MB. Given the blockchain contains over 2 years of transactions that is pretty good.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:09:34 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 16, 2011, 03:56:33 PM

Again, I request that the developers put some focus on making it practical and desirable for folks like myself to attempt to provide resource support.

1) Run the client w/ port 8333 open/forwarded on firewall
2) Done.

You are providing support to the network.

If you want a lower resource option, setup bitcoind to run on boot and delete the client.

I've never run anything but bitcoind and I in fact run it on my firewall/router.

You did not read the entire thread. My request of the developers is that they put some focus on addressing such things as disk space utilization before they become an issue. I'll add to that the hope that the CPU and memory requirements remain as light as practical.

I am building tiny appliances which are inexpensive to buy and operate and hope that they remain effective as full bitcoin clients. (In fact, my end goal is to put some FPGA mining cards in them, but it is unlikely that I will get to that point.)

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Yeah I thought that was implied by open on firewall but just in case I updated it.

nmat

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 502

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 16, 2011, 04:09:34 PM

1) Run the client w/ port 8333 open on firewall
2) Done.

You are providing support to the network.

You might have to forward ports if your router does not support UPnP

Topic: Why Run the Bitcoin Client? (Read 3921 times)