Reason for Running a Full Node (Not Mining)

[sabreok]

I ran a full node 24/7 for about half a year, but then my external HDD broke and I lost the entire blockchain. Since then, I've switched to Electrum because it's so much more lightweight and I appreciate the deterministic qualities.

So my question is, does a full node have any consensus power regarding things like block size or other developments? I don't mine, and considering that miners have so much power with the creation of blocks, I didn't see any concrete incentive to keep my full node up.

Considering that the blockchain will grow immensely (especially with an probable block size increase), in the future, will there be any infrastructure changes to reward full nodes despite not mining?

Maybe, in addition to a transaction fee, there could also be a transmission fee as well that is split up and sent to the nodes directly connected to the origin-node that receive the transaction hash and rebroadcast it. Just a rough idea.

[tsoPANos]

I can see how you feel.
Bitcoin core played a major role in killing my hard drive last year.
I have been on multibit since then. Running a full node is more secure as you don't rely on a remote blockchain.
Also it enhances privacy. (On multibit you need to constantly connect to a different server)
bitcoin core a a heavy program, hdd intensive with lots of read and write requests.
Things will get worse as it scales to tens of transaction per second.
We hope that the devs will handle the scalability issues in the near future, and the recent introduction in the much speculated pruning feature is a
great step in that direction.

[DannyHamilton]

I ran a full node 24/7 for about half a year, but then my external HDD broke and I lost the entire blockchain. Since then, I've switched to Electrum because it's so much more lightweight and I appreciate the deterministic qualities.

So my question is, does a full node have any consensus power regarding things like block size or other developments?

I don't mine, and considering that miners have so much power with the creation of blocks, I didn't see any concrete incentive to keep my full node up.

Yes.  Full nodes validate every transaction and block that they receive.  If a block (or transaction) does not meet the consensus rules of the full node, then the node will refuse to relay the information to other nodes.  The more nodes there are on a particular set of consensus rules, the more robust the relaying of information that matches those rules.  In the end, the miners have to pay for their resources. They will therefore mine where they feel they'll get the most revenue per hash.  As such, it's really the economic majority that has all the power in the decisions.  If all the merchants and active consumers refuse to use a blockchain with a particular set of consensus rules, then the miners won't be able to get enough revenue for any coins they mine on that blockchain.  By using a full node (and actively using your bitcoins for purchases), you express a preference to merchants on which set of consensus rules you desire them to support.

Considering that the blockchain will grow immensely (especially with an probable block size increase), in the future, will there be any infrastructure changes to reward full nodes despite not mining?

Not enforced within the bitcoin protocol.  Perhaps it might become possible for users to volunteer to pay nodes if they choose to do so out of the charity in their hearts.

Maybe, in addition to a transaction fee, there could also be a transmission fee as well that is split up and sent to the nodes directly connected to the origin-node that receive the transaction hash and rebroadcast it. Just a rough idea.

How would you know who the origin-node is?  Couldn't every node simply pretend to be a relaying node so that they could avoid paying the fee?

[sabreok]

Yes.  Full nodes validate every transaction and block that they receive.  If a block (or transaction) does not meet the consensus rules of the full node, then the node will refuse to relay the information to other nodes.  The more nodes there are on a particular set of consensus rules, the more robust the relaying of information that matches those rules.  In the end, the miners have to pay for their resources. They will therefore mine where they feel they'll get the most revenue per hash.  As such, it's really the economic majority that has all the power in the decisions.  If all the merchants and active consumers refuse to use a blockchain with a particular set of consensus rules, then the miners won't be able to get enough revenue for any coins they mine on that blockchain.  By using a full node (and actively using your bitcoins for purchases), you express a preference to merchants on which set of consensus rules you desire them to support.

Thanks for clarifying, I think I'll consider running a full node again.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[ObscureBean]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

[Amph]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

not this again please, the size of the blockchain is nothing at the moment any old hdd can store it without a problem, if you take into account the possible damages that your hdd may take in the future, simply do a back up of the entire blockchain

with this you will be able tor restore everything in few minutes if you have an ssd, really there is zero problem with the weight of the blockchain, the problem are more in the security department when working with a full node

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin nodes are quite cheap to run, even a raspberry pi with an old HDD can run Bitcoin Core without issues. If you do port forward port 8333, you are helping the network by relaying nodes and transactions to connected incoming peers. Bitcoin Core also helps to enforce the network rules and form the backbone of Bitcoin. Without Bitcoin nodes, Bitcoin would not exist.

There is currently an incentive for running Bitcoin node. It is a kind of lottery and would at most cover half of your hardware costs.

[ObscureBean]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

not this again please, the size of the blockchain is nothing at the moment any old hdd can store it without a problem, if you take into account the possible damages that your hdd may take in the future, simply do a back up of the entire blockchain

with this you will be able tor restore everything in few minutes if you have an ssd, really there is zero problem with the weight of the blockchain, the problem are more in the security department when working with a full node

Lol did you even read my comment or did you just start typing your response after you reached "The blockchain size..." ?  because your whole argument seems to be addressing only those first 3 words    
Of course the size might not be a problem for Bitcoiners on here or even nerds and tech-savvy people but how many laypeople do you think will be willing to download 50 gb of data onto their hard drives just to use BTC once in a while?  If someone doesn't open the client for a couple of weeks and then suddenly finds somethings he/she wants to buy real bad, they wouldn't be able to do it immediately because they would have to wait for the blockchain to download first. What I'm saying is that I don't think the core client is very practical for regular people.

[Amph]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

not this again please, the size of the blockchain is nothing at the moment any old hdd can store it without a problem, if you take into account the possible damages that your hdd may take in the future, simply do a back up of the entire blockchain

with this you will be able tor restore everything in few minutes if you have an ssd, really there is zero problem with the weight of the blockchain, the problem are more in the security department when working with a full node

Lol did you even read my comment or did you just start typing your response after you reached "The blockchain size..." ?  because your whole argument seems to be addressing only those first 3 words    
Of course the size might not be a problem for Bitcoiners on here or even nerds and tech-savvy people but how many laypeople do you think will be willing to download 50 gb of data onto their hard drives just to use BTC once in a while?  If someone doesn't open the client for a couple of weeks and then suddenly finds somethings he/she wants to buy real bad, they wouldn't be able to do it immediately because they would have to wait for the blockchain to download first. What I'm saying is that I don't think the core client is very practical for regular people.

yes i do and apparently you didn't read my response, because i said that with a back up you can reduce the amount to "download the last part of bitcoin", which can be 1 or two week if you use bitcoin occasionally, you can download 1 or two weeks in few minutes with an ssd

[Xialla]

Bitcoin nodes are quite cheap to run, even a raspberry pi with an old HDD can run Bitcoin Core without issues. If you do port forward port 8333, you are helping the network by relaying nodes and transactions to connected incoming peers. Bitcoin Core also helps to enforce the network rules and form the backbone of Bitcoin. Without Bitcoin nodes, Bitcoin would not exist.

There is currently an incentive for running Bitcoin node. It is a kind of lottery and would at most cover half of your hardware costs.

~0.5% to win 10$ weekly? sorry but you mean this, or we are both looking for something different?

there must be some real motivation to run in, not this useless lottery, which can't even cover electricity costs..and not everybody is good hearted and is fine to rune home charity.

maybe some portion of fees directly to node operators..?

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin nodes are quite cheap to run, even a raspberry pi with an old HDD can run Bitcoin Core without issues. If you do port forward port 8333, you are helping the network by relaying nodes and transactions to connected incoming peers. Bitcoin Core also helps to enforce the network rules and form the backbone of Bitcoin. Without Bitcoin nodes, Bitcoin would not exist.

There is currently an incentive for running Bitcoin node. It is a kind of lottery and would at most cover half of your hardware costs.

~0.5% to win 10$ weekly? sorry but you mean this, or we are both looking for something different?

there must be some real motivation to run in, not this useless lottery, which can't even cover electricity costs..and not everybody is good hearted and is fine to rune home charity.

maybe some portion of fees directly to node operators..?

It would possibly cover the cost, if you have an old raspberry pi and a hard drive, I doubt it would even use more than $0.50 per month. The quantity of Bitcoin nodes are more or less enough, we only need diversed nodes around the globe. If incentive are offered, most would only be running it in datacenters.

[LiteCoinGuy]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

not this again please, the size of the blockchain is nothing at the moment any old hdd can store it without a problem, if you take into account the possible damages that your hdd may take in the future, simply do a back up of the entire blockchain

with this you will be able tor restore everything in few minutes if you have an ssd, really there is zero problem with the weight of the blockchain, the problem are more in the security department when working with a full node

have fun when the next 1 million users will join 

[Xialla]

It would possibly cover the cost, if you have an old raspberry pi and a hard drive, I doubt it would even use more than $0.50 per month. The quantity of Bitcoin nodes are more or less enough, we only need diversed nodes around the globe. If incentive are offered, most would only be running it in datacenters.

it is lottery. so it means, that you may not ever win until end of your life. considering this, your calculation is pretty much useless + you have to buy RPi and HDD and provide internet connection.

not just in datacenters but everywhere, because there will be reason, so far and don't see any except "good feeling" and this is wrong.

[tyz]

simple answer: to support the network.

it is better to run the Bitcoin core on a VPS instead using your personal hard drive. it really could kill your hdd when bitcoin core running for a long time.

[Xialla]

simple answer: to support the network.

it is better to run the Bitcoin core on a VPS instead using your personal hard drive. it really could kill your hdd when bitcoin core running for a long time.

yes, but there is any VPS out there with unlimited network bandwidth and at least 60GB of high I/O storage, which can be covered by 0.5$ per month? (let's use this calculation..)

if you are volunteering and support good think, you usually receive something as gift. from t-shirt and stickers to some discount or something. but doing this "for free" and donate it from own pocket is not sustainable at all..

[kholdbladez]

It contributes to the bitcoin network making it safer and stronger thats all you need to know and that means it will be pushing up the price of bitcoin due to the increased stability of the network

[puppydawg517]

I wish people running nodes would get a small fee from the miners full nodes are valuable and without them bitcin would be nothing it would be virtual dust and there arent many incentives for running a full node

[dothebeats]

Bitcoin nodes are quite cheap to run, even a raspberry pi with an old HDD can run Bitcoin Core without issues. If you do port forward port 8333, you are helping the network by relaying nodes and transactions to connected incoming peers. Bitcoin Core also helps to enforce the network rules and form the backbone of Bitcoin. Without Bitcoin nodes, Bitcoin would not exist.

There is currently an incentive for running Bitcoin node. It is a kind of lottery and would at most cover half of your hardware costs.

~0.5% to win 10$ weekly? sorry but you mean this, or we are both looking for something different?

there must be some real motivation to run in, not this useless lottery, which can't even cover electricity costs..and not everybody is good hearted and is fine to rune home charity.

maybe some portion of fees directly to node operators..?

It would possibly cover the cost, if you have an old raspberry pi and a hard drive, I doubt it would even use more than $0.50 per month. The quantity of Bitcoin nodes are more or less enough, we only need diversed nodes around the globe. If incentive are offered, most would only be running it in datacenters.

I also see this possibility. If incentives are offered in running a node, for sure only those who already are into the mining scene would put up more nodes to also get that incentive. Data centers could also set their own so that they also get a share of that incentive. One solution that I see fit (which is already posted before this one) is getting some share of the fees from each block. Yes, it would only be a tiny amount, but as time passes by and the supply of the soon-to-be-mined bitcoins are diminishing, the value of these 'dust' could rise.

Btw, I'm not aware of that lottery thing. Haven't heard of it until now.

[Amph]

The blockchain size could definitely become a very real problem as more people embrace Bitcoin. There are advantages to running a full node but the blockchain is already too big for most people to be comfortable with/consider downloading it. Plus if you're away for some time, you could potentially have to wait a while before you can use your coins. I myself use Multibit whenever I need to store Bitcoin locally and I don't plan on changing to core unless the team solves this problem.

not this again please, the size of the blockchain is nothing at the moment any old hdd can store it without a problem, if you take into account the possible damages that your hdd may take in the future, simply do a back up of the entire blockchain

with this you will be able tor restore everything in few minutes if you have an ssd, really there is zero problem with the weight of the blockchain, the problem are more in the security department when working with a full node

have fun when the next 1 million users will join 

i'll simply buy a bigger ssd no problem with that, we have already 1 tera evo, then you only need to do a backup every months or so