3 ms·

> Centralization. Running a full node is already quite a commitment. The problem is not the resources needed to run a full node. The problem is a lack of incen

by Hermel 10y ago

> Centralization. Running a full node is already quite a commitment. The problem is not the resources needed to run a full node. The problem is a lack of incentives. If you want to have lots of full nodes running in the long run, you need to focus on those that do not do so for idealistic reasons, most notably the miners, payment processors, and exchanges. They all have advantages by doing so. Blockchain.info, for example, runs a full node to be able to display incoming transactions and to monitor the network. Adopting this view, the way forward is to grow Bitcoin as much as possible. The more users there are, the larger the ecosystem becomes and the more players there are that benefit from running a full node. We can't rely on the early enthusiasts. We need growth. > Bitcoin is vulnerable to (and has been subject to) attacks by way of computationally expensive transactions If you are referring to what I think, then there is a simple fix: do not allow larger transactions than before when increasing the block size. AFAIK, this is what Bitcoin Classic does.

CydeWeys 10y ago
There is no maximum transaction size, other than that imposed by the fact that it has to fit into a block. You would additionally need to hard-fork to add a new transaction size limit. More info here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015... Note that that is just one potential problem that we are aware of. I think a conservative approach is reasonable. Look at what has happened with Ethereum and the DAO.
- riprowan 10y ago
  > a conservative approach is reasonable Many people argue that Bitcoin was designed with headroom in mind, and pays out handsome block rewards in exchange for subsidized bandwidth, so the "conservative approach" would not be to run headlong into the block size limit.
- DennisP 10y ago
  The Classic fork already includes a max transaction size.
- aminok 10y ago
  >There is no maximum transaction size, other than that imposed by the fact that it has to fit into a block. There is a maximum transaction size: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/35882 http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/35882 It is equal to the maximum block size. One simple fix is to simply decouple the maximum transaction size from the maximum block size and not raise the former when raising the latter.
joosters 10y ago
Why does it need lots of full (non-mining) nodes? Unless you are mining, adding a node to the system just adds network traffic for little benefit. More full nodes don't provide a better service for bit coin, nor do they provide better security. (If your full node spots a double-spend, so will everyone else). It is just duplicating work that is being done elsewhere. Sure, if you really want to analyse all the blockchain, go ahead and run a full node, but IMO it's ridiculous to want to add incentives for people to do this. People talk about how running a full node improves decentralization, but they don't prevent any extra attacks on the currency. If there was/is a worrying concentration of mining power, that is a problem, but adding more non-mining nodes does nothing to alter this.
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  You're right, full nodes sitting on the network don't do a whole lot. It's important that many economically active users (e.g. wallets) are fully verifying though. Wallets based on a fully verifying node are less susceptible to attacks from miners. >It is just duplicating work that is being done elsewhere. This is the whole point of Bitcoin. If you only want the transaction to be centrally verified, you can use a federated model instead.
orbitingpluto 10y ago
Context: A full node is about 80GB right now. I deleted a full node just the other day that was 94GB, but that had a lot of cruft. Storage is most definitely not an issue unless you're trying to run a full node on your laptop SSD.
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  You can also use pruning, that's how I run a full node on my laptop SSD. Initial setup still requires a full download though.

by Hermel 10y ago

CydeWeys 10y ago

There is no maximum transaction size, other than that imposed by the fact that it has to fit into a block. You would additionally need to hard-fork to add a new transaction size limit. More info here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015... Note that that is just one potential problem that we are aware of. I think a conservative approach is reasonable. Look at what has happened with Ethereum and the DAO.

riprowan 10y ago
> a conservative approach is reasonable Many people argue that Bitcoin was designed with headroom in mind, and pays out handsome block rewards in exchange for subsidized bandwidth, so the "conservative approach" would not be to run headlong into the block size limit.
DennisP 10y ago
The Classic fork already includes a max transaction size.
aminok 10y ago
>There is no maximum transaction size, other than that imposed by the fact that it has to fit into a block. There is a maximum transaction size: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/35882 http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/35882 It is equal to the maximum block size. One simple fix is to simply decouple the maximum transaction size from the maximum block size and not raise the former when raising the latter.

joosters 10y ago

Why does it need lots of full (non-mining) nodes? Unless you are mining, adding a node to the system just adds network traffic for little benefit. More full nodes don't provide a better service for bit coin, nor do they provide better security. (If your full node spots a double-spend, so will everyone else). It is just duplicating work that is being done elsewhere. Sure, if you really want to analyse all the blockchain, go ahead and run a full node, but IMO it's ridiculous to want to add incentives for people to do this. People talk about how running a full node improves decentralization, but they don't prevent any extra attacks on the currency. If there was/is a worrying concentration of mining power, that is a problem, but adding more non-mining nodes does nothing to alter this.

TD-Linux 10y ago
You're right, full nodes sitting on the network don't do a whole lot. It's important that many economically active users (e.g. wallets) are fully verifying though. Wallets based on a fully verifying node are less susceptible to attacks from miners. >It is just duplicating work that is being done elsewhere. This is the whole point of Bitcoin. If you only want the transaction to be centrally verified, you can use a federated model instead.

orbitingpluto 10y ago

Context: A full node is about 80GB right now. I deleted a full node just the other day that was 94GB, but that had a lot of cruft. Storage is most definitely not an issue unless you're trying to run a full node on your laptop SSD.

TD-Linux 10y ago
You can also use pruning, that's how I run a full node on my laptop SSD. Initial setup still requires a full download though.