3 ms·

8000 is a misleading number. I do all of my transactions through a full node but my ports are not forwarded and also I only have uptime for about 1/3 of the yea

by Taek 9y ago

8000 is a misleading number. I do all of my transactions through a full node but my ports are not forwarded and also I only have uptime for about 1/3 of the year (most months it is offline because I'm not using it. I only run it to refill my mobile wallet or make big transactions). When the lightning network is up and running you can bet that I'll be using my full node for that too. 120GB of disk space is a big hit. My drive is a 500GB SSD. Bitcoin runs a lot slower on an HDD. But mostly people saying "oh it's only $5 a month" I feel aren't actually running nodes. It's inconvenient already, the sizes are already hurting adoption, and making the chain bigger is definitely going to make that situation worse.

simias 9y ago
I run a full bitcoin node on a USB3 HDD formatted in fat32 so I understand where you're coming from but it's really not that bad. Sure, when I boot it up after a few weeks offline it takes a little while to resync but so what? If I want to check something in a hurry I can use electrum or some website. And once it's actually synchronized HDD or SSD doesn't matter much in my experience. I don't think it's really a factor in adoption, most users don't feel the need to run a node already. People running nodes are enthusiasts first and foremost.
- Taek 9y ago
  > most users don't feel the need to run a node already. That's a big part of the issue. Already people prefer to run lite clients for convenience. There are heavy systemic risks that get worse and worse as the number of full nodes decrease. Back room deals become a lot easier for those who do run full nodes, because there aren't enough people running full nodes to prevent unfavorable network changes. One you have synced your node, an HDD isn't a big deal but if you only run your node every few weeks or months you have thousands of blocks to sync each time. Then it's a pain, and SSDs are nicer. (This is my personal situation). I typically only boot my node if I intend to spend or receive coins, the sync time is already frustrating to me on an SSD and i7. You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions. That's abusable, and if it forms a significant part of the economy it absolutely will be abused.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    >You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions How is that now? Who are the non-enthusiasts that are preventing abuse by running full nodes? For $20 a month someone could easily run a large-block full node and that price will only come down.
    - Taek 9y ago
      Not if you keep doubling the blocksize every time blocks fill up. Also, would you pay $20/mo for a credit card? That's a big expense to participate in a financial system.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        Going to 2, 4 or 8MB doesn't mean other things can't be looked at. It doesn't mean we end up with 256MB blocks. It's a cheap, simple extension for the time being. How many independent nodes do we need to ensure it keeps working?
  - simias 9y ago
    >There are heavy systemic risks that get worse and worse as the number of full nodes decrease. It's true but as I pointed out in a sibling comment those risks are pretty slim as long as it's highly unlikely that all node runners could be colluding. It takes only one "uncorrupted" node to raise the alarm publicly, then anybody can spawn a node and check for themselves if they want. >You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions. That's abusable, and if it forms a significant part of the economy it absolutely will be abused. Okay but that's the way bitcoin works, with or without SegWit, with or without big blocks. There are not enough incentives to run a full node already. I don't think that will change unless you manage to create an incentive somehow.

by Taek 9y ago

simias 9y ago

I run a full bitcoin node on a USB3 HDD formatted in fat32 so I understand where you're coming from but it's really not that bad. Sure, when I boot it up after a few weeks offline it takes a little while to resync but so what? If I want to check something in a hurry I can use electrum or some website. And once it's actually synchronized HDD or SSD doesn't matter much in my experience. I don't think it's really a factor in adoption, most users don't feel the need to run a node already. People running nodes are enthusiasts first and foremost.

Taek 9y ago
> most users don't feel the need to run a node already. That's a big part of the issue. Already people prefer to run lite clients for convenience. There are heavy systemic risks that get worse and worse as the number of full nodes decrease. Back room deals become a lot easier for those who do run full nodes, because there aren't enough people running full nodes to prevent unfavorable network changes. One you have synced your node, an HDD isn't a big deal but if you only run your node every few weeks or months you have thousands of blocks to sync each time. Then it's a pain, and SSDs are nicer. (This is my personal situation). I typically only boot my node if I intend to spend or receive coins, the sync time is already frustrating to me on an SSD and i7. You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions. That's abusable, and if it forms a significant part of the economy it absolutely will be abused.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  >You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions How is that now? Who are the non-enthusiasts that are preventing abuse by running full nodes? For $20 a month someone could easily run a large-block full node and that price will only come down.
  - Taek 9y ago
    Not if you keep doubling the blocksize every time blocks fill up. Also, would you pay $20/mo for a credit card? That's a big expense to participate in a financial system.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      Going to 2, 4 or 8MB doesn't mean other things can't be looked at. It doesn't mean we end up with 256MB blocks. It's a cheap, simple extension for the time being. How many independent nodes do we need to ensure it keeps working?
- simias 9y ago
  >There are heavy systemic risks that get worse and worse as the number of full nodes decrease. It's true but as I pointed out in a sibling comment those risks are pretty slim as long as it's highly unlikely that all node runners could be colluding. It takes only one "uncorrupted" node to raise the alarm publicly, then anybody can spawn a node and check for themselves if they want. >You don't want an ecosystem where only enthusiasts are verifying transactions. That's abusable, and if it forms a significant part of the economy it absolutely will be abused. Okay but that's the way bitcoin works, with or without SegWit, with or without big blocks. There are not enough incentives to run a full node already. I don't think that will change unless you manage to create an incentive somehow.