From 370,000 Full Bitcoin Nodes to 6,000: What happened?

[Denker]

Guys please help me out. What if 21 inc. starts to bring out it's embedded mining chips for smartphones, routers, and several other devices? To mine some dust of coins these devices have to run a full node client right? I mean this COULD mean an explosion of network nodes or how will they be able to mine otherwise?

This isn't correct. First of, I don't see the benefit in this. Anyone who mines with any of these devices would be doing so at a loss. Essentially the people that would mine like that are the ones that truly support the network.
You don't understand this correctly. There are 2 cases:
If you're solo mining, then you need the entire blockchain. If you don't have the last block yet, the network will most likely reject your mined blocks since you're already behind the chain.
If you're mining in a pool, then you don't need to download the blockchain. You just point your miner at a pool and start mining.

I hardly doubt that there is going to be enough storage in those devices to run full nodes as the blockchain is already at ~40GB.

Thanks for your answer. Of course I did not understand this correctly. That's why I askded!
But now I got it.

[1714959497]

1714959497

[1714959497]

1714959497

[1714959497]

1714959497

[1714959497]

1714959497

[1714959497]

1714959497

[iram66680]

WOW! With their 102 Nodes and decreasing, I now see why Gavin and Hearn are having a hard time tryin' to convince the Chinese... 

I think the main problem with China are connections to the rest of the world -- in China the internet seems to be about as fast as in Germany or Canada according to netindex.com

It should sync faster if you configure your node to connect to 6 nodes in China and 3 in other countries.

Incorrect. Download speed tends to decrease directly with distance. This means that if you are going to connect your Bitcoin core to a node at the other side of the world, the synchronization speed will not be as fast as choosing a slower but a node nearer to you. Netindex test the speed based on the best server to the test computer so it is fairly inaccurate if the test is conducted in a datacenter where both of the servers are at the same place. You shouldn’t look at the download speed but rather the upload speed since the node is uploading data to you.

[Lauda]

Thanks for your answer. Of course I did not understand this correctly. That's why I askded!
But now I got it.

The sole reason for pointing that out is because some people actually tend to read some posts and understand things wrongly. I guess question marks sometimes do not get noticed.

Incorrect. Download speed tends to decrease directly with distance. This means that if you are going to connect your Bitcoin core to a node at the other side of the world, the synchronization speed will not be as fast as choosing a slower but a node nearer to you. Netindex test the speed based on the best server to the test computer so it is fairly inaccurate if the test is conducted in a datacenter where both of the servers are at the same place. You shouldn’t look at the download speed but rather the upload speed since the node is uploading data to you.

You're correct. Even though the ping gets noticed usually (gamers and such), the download speed goes down significantly. This is because in a TCP connection the data transfer is done in packets rather than a continuous stream. Each packet has to be acknowledged by the receiver, and this round trip takes time. Distant servers will require more hops, hence the decrease in throughput. As the number of hops increase the chances of packets dropping are also higher. This is going to further reduce the speed.

[coins101]

Thanks for your answer. Of course I did not understand this correctly. That's why I askded!
But now I got it.

The sole reason for pointing that out is because some people actually tend to read some posts and understand things wrongly. I guess question marks sometimes do not get noticed.

Incorrect. Download speed tends to decrease directly with distance. This means that if you are going to connect your Bitcoin core to a node at the other side of the world, the synchronization speed will not be as fast as choosing a slower but a node nearer to you. Netindex test the speed based on the best server to the test computer so it is fairly inaccurate if the test is conducted in a datacenter where both of the servers are at the same place. You shouldn’t look at the download speed but rather the upload speed since the node is uploading data to you.

You're correct. Even though the ping gets noticed usually (gamers and such), the download speed goes down significantly. This is because in a TCP connection the data transfer is done in packets rather than a continuous stream. Each packet has to be acknowledged by the receiver, and this round trip takes time. Distant servers will require more hops, hence the decrease in throughput. As the number of hops increase the chances of packets dropping are also higher. This is going to further reduce the speed.

Gavin Andresen indicated that running nodes on a VPS was good solution.


“Most ordinary folks should NOT be running a full node. We need full nodes that are always on, have more than 8 connections (if you have only 8 then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution), and have a high-bandwidth connection to the Internet.

“So: if you've got an extra virtual machine with enough memory in a data center, then yes, please, run a full node.”

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1scd4z/im_running_a_full_node_and_so_should_you/cdw3lrh?context=3

I like the idea of using an incentivised VPS node program, but the diversity of VPSs around the world is the issue.

You would potentially have developing countries running millions of SPVs relaying data between western countries, which makes the system inefficient.

[el kaka22]

Bitcoin is fading out now... As in my city, there was news concerning bitcoin is a new investment and how GOOD it is. However there are very few news left for bitcoin, and all are about how people lost or scammed by bitcoin (which is inaccurate). As a result, less and less people are using bitcoin (and the price drops 80% from the all-time highest point). Also, the blockchain size grows from 10GB when I first heard of bitcoin, to about 35GB now (by blockchain.info). Not too much computers have 35GB of space for storing just a blockchain. Also newcomers are harder and harder to sync (because the blockchain size is big). So, there is a net decrease in the number of full nodes.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin is fading out now... As in my city, there was news concerning bitcoin is a new investment and how GOOD it is. However there are very few news left for bitcoin, and all are about how people lost or scammed by bitcoin (which is inaccurate). More and more people are using bitcoin (and the price drops 80% from the all-time highest point). Also, the blockchain size grows from 10GB when I first heard of bitcoin, to about 35GB now (by blockchain.info). Not too much computers have 35GB of space for storing just a blockchain. Also newcomers are harder and harder to sync (because the blockchain size is big). So, there is a net decrease in the number of full nodes.

Spreading FUD are we? Why are you leaching money from DA DICE then? Everything in this post is wrong.
For the bolded part: FTFY. Your assumption is very wrong. Actually everything that you've said in this post is wrong. I don't even know where to begin.
1) The price wasn't realistic and anyone with any knowledge in economics should know this. The price was a bubble, it was caused by several factors including hype and the bot Willy. The realistic price for Bitcoin could be around $200 at the moment (since it was much stable than in the year before).
2) The blockchain isn't 35 GBs now, it is 40+.
3) Are you telling me that only a few people have HDDs over 120GB?   In 2014 alone there have been roughly 560 million HDDs shipped. This means that about 540 Exabytes have been shipped, which is roughly 566 000 000 Terabytes. Not all of the shipments are for desktops, but the point should be obvious.
4) There are so many lightweight clients to choose from. Read: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet ;pruning is going to be implemented soon anyways.

I could go on, but this is enough. Bitcoin has just started scratching the surface of what is going to be.


Update: Slight corrections.

[el kaka22]

Bitcoin is fading out now... As in my city, there was news concerning bitcoin is a new investment and how GOOD it is. However there are very few news left for bitcoin, and all are about how people lost or scammed by bitcoin (which is inaccurate). More and more people are using bitcoin (and the price drops 80% from the all-time highest point). Also, the blockchain size grows from 10GB when I first heard of bitcoin, to about 35GB now (by blockchain.info). Not too much computers have 35GB of space for storing just a blockchain. Also newcomers are harder and harder to sync (because the blockchain size is big). So, there is a net decrease in the number of full nodes.

Spreading FUD are we? Why are you leaching money from DA DICE then? Everything in this post is wrong.
For the bolded part: FTFY. Your assumption is very wrong. Actually everything that you've said in this post is wrong. I don't even know where to begin.
1) The price wasn't realistic and anyone with any knowledge in economics should know this. The price was a bubble, it was caused by several factors including hype and the bot Willy. The realistic price for Bitcoin could be around $200 at the moment (since it was much stable than in the year before).
2) The blockchain isn't 35 GBs now, it is 40+.
3) Are you telling me that only a few people have HDDs over 120GB?   In 2014 alone there have been roughly 560 million HDDs shipped. This means that about 540 Exabytes have been shipped, which is roughly 566 000 000 Terabytes. Not all of the shipments are for desktops, but the point should be obvious.
4) There are so many lightweight clients to choose from. Read: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet ;pruning is going to be implemented soon anyways.

I could go on, but this is enough. Bitcoin has just started scratching the surface of what is going to be.


Update: Slight corrections.

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

[BLKBITZ]

Bitcoin is fading out now... As in my city, there was news concerning bitcoin is a new investment and how GOOD it is. However there are very few news left for bitcoin, and all are about how people lost or scammed by bitcoin (which is inaccurate). More and more people are using bitcoin (and the price drops 80% from the all-time highest point). Also, the blockchain size grows from 10GB when I first heard of bitcoin, to about 35GB now (by blockchain.info). Not too much computers have 35GB of space for storing just a blockchain. Also newcomers are harder and harder to sync (because the blockchain size is big). So, there is a net decrease in the number of full nodes.

Spreading FUD are we? Why are you leaching money from DA DICE then? Everything in this post is wrong.
For the bolded part: FTFY. Your assumption is very wrong. Actually everything that you've said in this post is wrong. I don't even know where to begin.
1) The price wasn't realistic and anyone with any knowledge in economics should know this. The price was a bubble, it was caused by several factors including hype and the bot Willy. The realistic price for Bitcoin could be around $200 at the moment (since it was much stable than in the year before).
2) The blockchain isn't 35 GBs now, it is 40+.
3) Are you telling me that only a few people have HDDs over 120GB?   In 2014 alone there have been roughly 560 million HDDs shipped. This means that about 540 Exabytes have been shipped, which is roughly 566 000 000 Terabytes. Not all of the shipments are for desktops, but the point should be obvious.
4) There are so many lightweight clients to choose from. Read: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet ;pruning is going to be implemented soon anyways.

I could go on, but this is enough. Bitcoin has just started scratching the surface of what is going to be.


Update: Slight corrections.

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

as demand outstrips supply the price will grow and be stable at a even higher price then now.

[Lauda]

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

Your first point is invalid again. It would only be valid if the number of users/investors/etc has remained the same since that price point (I'm not even going to mention supply). I don't use blockchain.info and neither should you. I have roughly ~3600 GB of free space and I come from a 3rd world country. What is your excuse?
You're obviously not familiar with the recent development. Pruning should have already been implemented however it was backported to 0.11 version of Bitcoin QT. A big blockchain will no longer be an excuse.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I remember this being predicted as far back as 2010. As mentioned above, there has been a switch away from running a full node. In 2010 you HAD to run one if you wanted to use BTC. Bitcoin is becoming phone based and a full node on a phone makes little sense.

i think that is the mainreason here too.

you cant force people to run a fullnode when they just want to use bitcoin.

iam pretty confident that when we see the next  price-increase we will see also an increase in nodes. and there are also some nice hardware projects.


@el kaka22

just 39 GB of free drive space? you can buy 1000 GB for 60 Dollar 

[el kaka22]

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

Your first point is invalid again. It would only be valid if the number of users/investors/etc has remained the same since that price point (I'm not even going to mention supply). I don't use blockchain.info and neither should you. I have roughly ~3600 GB of free space and I come from a 3rd world country. What is your excuse?
You're obviously not familiar with the recent development. Pruning should have already been implemented however it was backported to 0.11 version of Bitcoin QT. A big blockchain will no longer be an excuse.

Sorry that I don't go to the Technical board too often. Also, how much does the 3600 GB hard disk cost? We are hard to find a C:\ drive having 4 TB space, and hard disks over 2 TB isn't popular at my place.

@el kaka22

just 39 GB of free drive space? you can buy 1000 GB for 60 Dollar 

At my place buying a '1 TB' (about 931 GB exactly when seen on computer) costs a bit more than $100 USD. My home's computer is mainly used for useless purposes (such as playing with, doing casual works) and we don't need that much space. Also since we love to store things in DVDs instead of in the computer (because some data have lost in previous computer dead), and we have hundreds of DVDs, but not hard disks.

[bitnanigans]

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

Your first point is invalid again. It would only be valid if the number of users/investors/etc has remained the same since that price point (I'm not even going to mention supply). I don't use blockchain.info and neither should you. I have roughly ~3600 GB of free space and I come from a 3rd world country. What is your excuse?
You're obviously not familiar with the recent development. Pruning should have already been implemented however it was backported to 0.11 version of Bitcoin QT. A big blockchain will no longer be an excuse.

Sorry that I don't go to the Technical board too often. Also, how much does the 3600 GB hard disk cost? We are hard to find a C:\ drive having 4 TB space, and hard disks over 2 TB isn't popular at my place.

@el kaka22

just 39 GB of free drive space? you can buy 1000 GB for 60 Dollar 

At my place buying a '1 TB' (about 931 GB exactly when seen on computer) costs a bit more than $100 USD. My home's computer is mainly used for useless purposes (such as playing with, doing casual works) and we don't need that much space. Also since we love to store things in DVDs instead of in the computer (because some data have lost in previous computer dead), and we have hundreds of DVDs, but not hard disks.

Just out of curiousity, where are you from?

[Lauda]

Sorry that I don't go to the Technical board too often. Also, how much does the 3600 GB hard disk cost? We are hard to find a C:\ drive having 4 TB space, and hard disks over 2 TB isn't popular at my place.

@el kaka22

just 39 GB of free drive space? you can buy 1000 GB for 60 Dollar  

At my place buying a '1 TB' (about 931 GB exactly when seen on computer) costs a bit more than $100 USD. My home's computer is mainly used for useless purposes (such as playing with, doing casual works) and we don't need that much space. Also since we love to store things in DVDs instead of in the computer (because some data have lost in previous computer dead), and we have hundreds of DVDs, but not hard disks.

Then you shouldn't have made a statement with false information if you ask me. There are no "popular" HDDs; people buy them according to their own needs.
A 4TB HDD isn't even [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST4000DM000/dp/B00B99JU4S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1434806743&sr=8-2&keywords=4+TB+HDD]expensive[/url]. It can actually be found for only 130$.
People from the USA can't really complain as it should be cheap for them to run nodes.

I wouldn't recommend storing on so many discs. I don't see how a backup HDD (that isn't being used) would lose your data anytime soon.

[el kaka22]

Then you shouldn't have made a statement with false information if you ask me. There are no "popular" HDDs; people buy them according to their own needs.
A 4TB HDD isn't even [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST4000DM000/dp/B00B99JU4S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1434806743&sr=8-2&keywords=4+TB+HDD]expensive[/url]. It can actually be found for only 130$.
People from the USA can't really complain as it should be cheap for them to run nodes.

I wouldn't recommend storing on so many discs. I don't see how a backup HDD (that isn't being used) would lose your data anytime soon.

Because my computer always out of order and hence the files inside it is lost. Besides, buying DVDs is cheaper than hard disks in my place ($0.05 per GB for DVDs and $0.12 per GB for hard disks). Since I'm not from USA and hard disks need to shipped to my place, extra costs will be there.

Just out of curiousity, where are you from?

I'm from a rural area in Asia so why all computer-related things are expensive.

[1Referee]

6000 nodes is what I find to be a very low number, especially when it once was far over 300,000  I am happy to contribute with 2 full nodes.

Perhaps that a reward program can make things look completely different. For example, full nodes running longer than 2 weeks get 0.001BTC per 24 hours as compensation. (it's just an example) Only not sure how feasible this is.

[Bitcoinpro]

Alt coins would have had an impact

[neurotypical]

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

Your first point is invalid again. It would only be valid if the number of users/investors/etc has remained the same since that price point (I'm not even going to mention supply). I don't use blockchain.info and neither should you. I have roughly ~3600 GB of free space and I come from a 3rd world country. What is your excuse?
You're obviously not familiar with the recent development. Pruning should have already been implemented however it was backported to 0.11 version of Bitcoin QT. A big blockchain will no longer be an excuse.

So when 0.11 comes, how big will the blockchain be? Will it be optional to download the full blockchain vs a portion of the blockchain? Are there are any risks in using a slice of blockchain (pruning on) vs the entire downloaded one? Im just wondering what would happen if no one downloads the entire thing anymore.

[Lauda]

So when 0.11 comes, how big will the blockchain be? Will it be optional to download the full blockchain vs a portion of the blockchain? Are there are any risks in using a slice of blockchain (pruning on) vs the entire downloaded one? Im just wondering what would happen if no one downloads the entire thing anymore.

That doesn't even make sense. At least the last part doesn't. Whoever doesn't download the whole blockchain can't be a full relay node. It is actually pretty clear that quite a portion of users are actually already using alternative wallets (I can't find a proper source right now). Besides, just running Bitcoin QT doesn't make you a node even though you download the whole blockchain.

Actually pruning was in consideration for quite some time now, however nobody has implemented it yet (it should be implemented in 0.11). It really just depends on how the developers implement it.
I think that they won't make the next QT download only a portion of blocks by default (last 288 blocks: source ). You will probably have to change a setting or two that would enable pruning.

[el kaka22]

1. The price was stable at few cents at the beginning, will you say that the realistic price of bitcoin be few cents?
2. The data was get from blockchain.info (35,xxx MB), not myself. So if there is any error on the data, then it is blockchain.info's error, not my error.
3. At least my computer only having 39 GB of free space at C:\ drive, not enough for storing the 35 or 40 GB blockchain. Also the blockchain size is increasing drastically, making the size become bigger and bigger, finally not enough...
4. So I'm using blockchain.info wallet now!

Your first point is invalid again. It would only be valid if the number of users/investors/etc has remained the same since that price point (I'm not even going to mention supply). I don't use blockchain.info and neither should you. I have roughly ~3600 GB of free space and I come from a 3rd world country. What is your excuse?
You're obviously not familiar with the recent development. Pruning should have already been implemented however it was backported to 0.11 version of Bitcoin QT. A big blockchain will no longer be an excuse.

So when 0.11 comes, how big will the blockchain be? Will it be optional to download the full blockchain vs a portion of the blockchain? Are there are any risks in using a slice of blockchain (pruning on) vs the entire downloaded one? Im just wondering what would happen if no one downloads the entire thing anymore.

I don't know whether I could download just part of the blockchain only, but I will definitely use the bitcoin core if its size is less than 1 GB. However when everyone just download part of the blockchain then the previous block's data will be lost... So sharing the blockchain to different users is an opinion.

[Bizmark13]

Earlier running a full node was the only way to have a wallet. Now, there are many lightwight clients and online wallets to give people the ease of use. Naturally people have stopped running a full node. Now-a-days full nodes are mainly run by those who need it, i.e. business to verify their Tx and miners. There are few volunteers who run full node though.

Earlier running a full node was the only way to have a wallet. Now, there are many lightwight clients and online wallets to give people the ease of use. Naturally people have stopped running a full node. Now-a-days full nodes are mainly run by those who need it, i.e. business to verify their Tx and miners. There are few volunteers who run full node though.

Very good point. Back then Bitcoin QT was basically Bitcoin within itself, now no one wants to use it because it's a pain in the ass. The increasingly demand on the computer to deal with the ever growing Blockchain doesn't give people an incentive big enough to use it. Plus it's very limit within its features. Has no HD addresses, there's no way to sort out addresses, you need a backup everytime you create a new address.. it needs a lot of work to make people come back to it so we can increase the nodes again.

According to the OP's chart, the change happened between May 2013 and June 2015. Lightweight wallets were already fairly commonplace by 2013. For instance, Electrum and MultiBit - the two most popular lightweight wallets for desktops, as well as Blockchain.info - the most popular web wallet, were all released in 2011.