Does runnin a node in pruning mode count as a node?

[manselr]

If im not mistaking in the next version of core we will be able to run a node in pruning mode, so that's 1GB of blockchain only.

My question is if it count as a node, and what are the differences of not running a full node, in terms of security etc, what are you compromising in exchange a faster download of the blockchain? because im tired of downloading stuff everytime I open the wallet but I dont know at what% it becomes less secure if you run prune mode.

[unamis76]

It counts as a node but probably not in the way you're thinking, as it currently doesn't relay blocks

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0

[tspacepilot]

It counts as a node but probably not in the way you're thinking, as it currently doesn't relay blocks

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0

Very interesting!  Thanks for the link.  I also noticed this in the doc:

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

[unamis76]

It counts as a node but probably not in the way you're thinking, as it currently doesn't relay blocks

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0

Very interesting!  Thanks for the link.  I also noticed this in the doc:

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

I wouldn't say exactly leeching, but it's certainly not really useful at the moment. I have high hopes for the pruning functionality though

[belcher]

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

This is not correct.
Bitcoin is not like Bittorrent where the only scarce resource is bandwidth. The bitcoin p2p network actually has a lot of upload capacity right now.

A pruned node is indeed a full node. It verifies all the rules of bitcoin. Here is a link for why that is so important

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd

Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours.

edit: fixed formatting

[tspacepilot]

I wouldn't say exactly leeching, but it's certainly not really useful at the moment. I have high hopes for the pruning functionality though

Yah, I haven't been able to run a full node on any of my computers for over a year now, mainly because I don't have an extra 50GB of harddrive to dedicate. I would happily dedicate 10GB or so, but I don't see the point if the pruning nodes aren't really helping the network.  Hopefully the future pruning will be such that I can run a node again in order to help with network decentralization/robustness.

[pereira4]

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

This is not correct.
Bitcoin is not like Bittorrent where the only scarce resource is bandwidth. The bitcoin p2p network actually has a lot of upload capacity right now.

A pruned node is indeed a full node. It verifies all the rules of bitcoin. Here is a link for why that is so important

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd

Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours.

edit: fixed formatting

So running prune mode has no compromises in privacy and security whatsoever? I don't quite understand this part

"Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours."

I don't know if you are saying that you have better privacy with full node vs pruned node or you are saying it's the same.

[killerjoegreece]

I think that a prunned node is just like a full node.

[unamis76]

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

This is not correct.
Bitcoin is not like Bittorrent where the only scarce resource is bandwidth. The bitcoin p2p network actually has a lot of upload capacity right now.

A pruned node is indeed a full node. It verifies all the rules of bitcoin. Here is a link for why that is so important

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd

Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours.

edit: fixed formatting

Taking that reddit comment, it says that we should run our own full node for incoming transactions and that SPV nodes and web wallets can be led to believe they've "received 10000000 BTC!", which I know, and is true. For people who run Bitcoin Core as a main wallet, or even Armory and Electrum, this is not an issue, as Armory runs on top of Core and one can build an Electrum server, but what about SPV phone wallets, such as breadwallet? How do we make it connect to a specific node? These wallets connect randomly to the network, and they probably won't be a subject to an attack, so this is all academic discussion... how do you ensure your full security while running an SPV wallet?

Would convincing the devs to put an option to connect to a specific node increase the overall security of the network?

Also, didn't understand your privacy example.

[tspacepilot]

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

This is not correct.
Bitcoin is not like Bittorrent where the only scarce resource is bandwidth. The bitcoin p2p network actually has a lot of upload capacity right now.

A pruned node is indeed a full node. It verifies all the rules of bitcoin. Here is a link for why that is so important

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd

Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours.

edit: fixed formatting

Taking that reddit comment, it says that we should run our own full node for incoming transactions and that SPV nodes and web wallets can be led to believe they've "received 10000000 BTC!", which I know, and is true. For people who run Bitcoin Core as a main wallet, or even Armory and Electrum, this is not an issue, as Armory runs on top of Core and one can build an Electrum server, but what about SPV phone wallets, such as breadwallet? How do we make it connect to a specific node? These wallets connect randomly to the network, and they probably won't be a subject to an attack, so this is all academic discussion... how do you ensure your full security while running an SPV wallet?

Some SPV wallets allow you to connect to a trusted peer, which can be a full node (Andreas' Bitcoin Wallet for Android, eg)

Would convincing the devs to put an option to connect to a specific node increase the overall security of the network?

For core, can't you already do this in the conf file?

Also, didn't understand your privacy example.

SPV wallets only download a subset of transactions, so there's some information there about which transactions you downloaded and which ones you didn't which is revealed if you're using an SPV node to connect directly to an untrusted peer.

[unamis76]

For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.

So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.

This is not correct.
Bitcoin is not like Bittorrent where the only scarce resource is bandwidth. The bitcoin p2p network actually has a lot of upload capacity right now.

A pruned node is indeed a full node. It verifies all the rules of bitcoin. Here is a link for why that is so important

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd

Plus theres the other benefits of a full node, even if its pruned. You have better privacy for example, because you've downloaded the entire blockchain nobody knows which addresses are yours.

edit: fixed formatting

Taking that reddit comment, it says that we should run our own full node for incoming transactions and that SPV nodes and web wallets can be led to believe they've "received 10000000 BTC!", which I know, and is true. For people who run Bitcoin Core as a main wallet, or even Armory and Electrum, this is not an issue, as Armory runs on top of Core and one can build an Electrum server, but what about SPV phone wallets, such as breadwallet? How do we make it connect to a specific node? These wallets connect randomly to the network, and they probably won't be a subject to an attack, so this is all academic discussion... how do you ensure your full security while running an SPV wallet?

Some SPV wallets allow you to connect to a trusted peer, which can be a full node (Andreas' Bitcoin Wallet for Android, eg)

Would convincing the devs to put an option to connect to a specific node increase the overall security of the network?

For core, can't you already do this in the conf file?

Also, didn't understand your privacy example.

SPV wallets only download a subset of transactions, so there's some information there about which transactions you downloaded and which ones you didn't which is revealed if you're using an SPV node to connect directly to an untrusted peer.

Didn't know Android wallet already allows that

For Core, you can in fact point it to certain peers, but I was referring to SPV clients only.

And thanks for clarifying the privacy explanation