📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:Anecdotally I've seen two primary reasons posed for not running a node:
1) For enthusiasts who want to altruistically run a node at home, it's
usually a bandwidth / quality of service problem. There are tools to help
work around this, but most users aren't sysadmins and would prefer a simple
configuration option in bitcoind and a slider / selector in the QT client
to throttle the total bandwidth usage. This issue has been open for years:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273 - if you want to make it
easier for enthusiasts to run nodes, I'd start there.
2) For businesses, it's not so much an issue with the resources of
installing / running / maintaining a node, it's an issue with the lack of
indexing options offered by bitcoind. Thus the business will also need to
run their own indexing solution - an out-of-the-box solution such as
Insight or Toshi might work, but for more custom indexing you have to roll
your own software - this is where it actually becomes expensive.
Depending upon the query volume / latency needs of the business, it may not
make sense to bother administering bitcoind instances, the indexing
software, and its databases - using a third party API will probably be more
efficient.
- Jameson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
>> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the
>> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental
>> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe
>> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute
>> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite
>> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.
>
>
> Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide
> to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)
> there is a problem?
>
> If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've
> misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience
> tradeoffs in the past.
>
> I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs,
> and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs.
>
> And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that
> using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even
> two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig
> up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet
> providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using
> centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly
> believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a
> full node or not.
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/312ab280/attachment-0001.html>;
Jameson Lopp [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gh…akqmn
2023-06-07 15:45:35
in reply to nevent1q…e0g8
Author Public Key
npub1ghgfr3aumwuxwnwghywxpaejxpf6k9pjcnyg9lfdnztlu5pwa0ksyakqmnPublished at
2023-06-07 15:45:35Event JSON
{
"id": "3e3391e4eb1fe6fe7c67813a2c56f31dde667a1598e397c3d352d53aed18ea01",
"pubkey": "45d091c7bcdbb8674dc8b91c60f7323053ab1432c4c882fd2d9897fe502eebed",
"created_at": 1686152735,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50c911df082783911027ab79f3fd32f039fbc37c0ccd368cea5a4f38710a1714",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2aeb7aecbf2ed4302e2913789246c37f43db64207e453314b7d244b4d3be6713",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:Anecdotally I've seen two primary reasons posed for not running a node:\n\n1) For enthusiasts who want to altruistically run a node at home, it's\nusually a bandwidth / quality of service problem. There are tools to help\nwork around this, but most users aren't sysadmins and would prefer a simple\nconfiguration option in bitcoind and a slider / selector in the QT client\nto throttle the total bandwidth usage. This issue has been open for years:\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273 - if you want to make it\neasier for enthusiasts to run nodes, I'd start there.\n\n2) For businesses, it's not so much an issue with the resources of\ninstalling / running / maintaining a node, it's an issue with the lack of\nindexing options offered by bitcoind. Thus the business will also need to\nrun their own indexing solution - an out-of-the-box solution such as\nInsight or Toshi might work, but for more custom indexing you have to roll\nyour own software - this is where it actually becomes expensive.\n\nDepending upon the query volume / latency needs of the business, it may not\nmake sense to bother administering bitcoind instances, the indexing\nsoftware, and its databases - using a third party API will probably be more\nefficient.\n\n- Jameson\n\nOn Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the\n\u003e\u003e cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the\n\u003e\u003e ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental\n\u003e\u003e improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe\n\u003e\u003e that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute\n\u003e\u003e terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite\n\u003e\u003e trend, and that is worrying IMHO.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide\n\u003e to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)\n\u003e there is a problem?\n\u003e\n\u003e If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've\n\u003e misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience\n\u003e tradeoffs in the past.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs,\n\u003e and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs.\n\u003e\n\u003e And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that\n\u003e using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even\n\u003e two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig\n\u003e up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet\n\u003e providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using\n\u003e centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly\n\u003e believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a\n\u003e full node or not.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/312ab280/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "c5898f827b12b9ad7b5ff4e91582009a674d9ba5e2c6b2aab5c4fda4729629b95b62d56c3a385f0dc0c5d068d64638041834c334f5fa7750b0d6b66a98ec0da0"
}