How much would you pay per month to run a full node?

[Amph]

$1 i think it's ok, since i can find vps for $1 dollar i don't see the reason to pay more for a full node

[Amph]

$1 i think it's ok, since i can find vps for $1 dollar i don't see the reason to pay more for a full node

I wonder if $1 VPS is good enough to run full nodes?
Some has very low specification or don't give lot high bandwitch or quota.

bandwidth is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=760094.0

this is 2 euro vps https://billing.internetovizija.com/cart?a=checkout

[davedx]

I'm paying 8 EUR a month to run a Classic node on a German VPS at the moment. It feels pretty reasonable to me, I get a ton of HDD and unlimited bandwidth.

[morantis]

Less than ten for sure.  And that VPS could run Bitcoin and several less popular coin nodes.

[countryfree]

I don't understand why would you pay someone else to run a full node and don't just run it yourself for free?

Well, you 'd need to keep your computer on 24/7 and have comfortable bandwidth, so there's definitely a cost to run a node. I'd probably consider it if I were a merchant, but the big problem would be to find a company whom I could trust.

I chose $7.5.

[ATguy]

I don't understand why would you pay someone else to run a full node and don't just run it yourself for free?

Well, you 'd need to keep your computer on 24/7 and have comfortable bandwidth, so there's definitely a cost to run a node.

Full node doesnt need to be up 24/7, and if you set maximum 16 connections or so the bandwidth required is fine for home connection. At least this is how I run full node, only when my computer is on anyway, so it can be considered almost free. I look at full nodes like torrent, where peers just come on and off only when they are online and not running computers 24/7 as well. In future full nodes will not necessary have all historical blocks available for other peers to save storage space, making the torrent analogy obvious...

[richardsNY]

I'm paying 8 EUR a month to run a Classic node on a German VPS at the moment. It feels pretty reasonable to me, I get a ton of HDD and unlimited bandwidth.

I assume running a full node isn't the sole reason why you pay €8 for your VPS, right? So it basically doesn't cost you anything. I was running several full nodes but I stopped doing so as I didn't need the several VPS's that I had anymore, so I have let them expire. They were costing me €5 per server.

[jonald_fyookball]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

[ShrykeZ]

I would prefer a how should we pay people who run full nodes post although as for how much, anywhere around $10 would be okay, depends on certain needs though such as bandwidth, capacity etc.

[criptix]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

[wikenpp]

I would allow upto 2.5 dollar per month max. Reason why is that i believe having a VPS or something where i can use the server resources also for hosting makes more sense to me.
So 2.5 dollar is a good price.

[jonald_fyookball]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

I never said that.  There's many datacenters in the world and each datacenter has many machines and IP addresses. 

[criptix]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

I never said that.  There's many datacenters in the world and each datacenter has many machines and IP addresses. 

You need to understand that a datacenter is nothing else then one single computer regarding decentralisation.

Tbh hosting multiple full nodes in datacenters decrease the network security.

[franky1]

I'm paying 8 EUR a month to run a Classic node on a German VPS at the moment. It feels pretty reasonable to me, I get a ton of HDD and unlimited bandwidth.

(facepalm)

dont be a fake node.. doing the same sybil attack game as the core devs..

having 100 people run a node on the same data center is the equivalent distribution of just using 1 node..
the purpose of bitcoin is to spread the distribution. not plant it all on just 10 data centers.

for euro150 you can run a raspberry Pi with a 2tb hard drive.. if every block was full thats 20 years of full 2mb block data..(more then 20 years as not all blocks will be full)

which works out as euro0.63 a month. giving you euro7.37 spare to put towards getting a better internet package deal for our home connection

[jonald_fyookball]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

I never said that.  There's many datacenters in the world and each datacenter has many machines and IP addresses. 

You need to understand that a datacenter is nothing else then one single computer regarding decentralisation.

Tbh hosting multiple full nodes in datacenters decrease the network security.

You'll have to explain that.   How is a datacenter a "single computer"?
Datacenters can host for thousands of companies.

[criptix]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

I never said that.  There's many datacenters in the world and each datacenter has many machines and IP addresses. 

You need to understand that a datacenter is nothing else then one single computer regarding decentralisation.

Tbh hosting multiple full nodes in datacenters decrease the network security.

You'll have to explain that.   How is a datacenter a "single computer"?
Datacenters can host for thousands of companies.

and one or two persons have access to every single one of them - in terms of decentralisation this is not more then one single computer.

[jonald_fyookball]

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

Not really.

If I want to run a node to support the network, then using blockchain.info isn't going to accomplish that at all.  And if my intentions are to support rather than attack the network, whats the problem with hiring a data center to do it?  I don't really necessarily feel like complicating my home office with running a bitcoin node.

So you think running multiple full nodes on a single computer increases the network security?

No just no.

I never said that.  There's many datacenters in the world and each datacenter has many machines and IP addresses. 

You need to understand that a datacenter is nothing else then one single computer regarding decentralisation.

Tbh hosting multiple full nodes in datacenters decrease the network security.

You'll have to explain that.   How is a datacenter a "single computer"?
Datacenters can host for thousands of companies.

and one or two persons have access to every single one of them - in terms of decentralisation this is not more then one single computer.

I don't think that matters much.  For one thing, the likelihood of some administrator messing with your bitcoin node is pretty small. More importantly, if they were nefarious enough to try to launch a sybil attack in that manner, wouldn't it be much easier for them to set up their own nodes?  Why would they bother with or take the risk of trying to hijack someone elses?

[Cconvert2G36]

I'm paying 8 EUR a month to run a Classic node on a German VPS at the moment. It feels pretty reasonable to me, I get a ton of HDD and unlimited bandwidth.

(facepalm)

dont be a fake node.. doing the same sybil attack game as the core devs..

having 100 people run a node on the same data center is the equivalent distribution of just using 1 node..
the purpose of bitcoin is to spread the distribution. not plant it all on just 10 data centers.

for euro150 you can run a raspberry Pi with a 2tb hard drive.. if every block was full thats 20 years of full 2mb block data..(more then 20 years as not all blocks will be full)

which works out as euro0.63 a month. giving you euro7.37 spare to put towards getting a better internet package deal for our home connection

No need to facepalm.

Also, don't fall for the lie that NMN (non-mining-nodes) do anything for the security of the network. If they were important for the network's security, it would be a huge attack vector... it would cost a comparatively trivial amount for an attacker to spin up 50,000 malicious NMN's.

NMN's are important for the security of the user, not the network.

That said, I run them both ways. One on hardware I own and on a network I control for my own security in making transactions... and on a VPS that has 1 Gbps speeds up and down with SSD storage and 6 TB of bandwidth per month, to help other peers on the network. I have over 40 incoming connections on the VPS node currently. It costs $20 a month, which is comparable to a sandwich and a couple beers where I live.

[jonald_fyookball]

Cconvert2G36,

interesting distinction between user security and network security.

But, so then, by your logic: really the only need for any NMN is SPV, since
if you're running your own node, you don't need any further "user security".
Would you agree?

[Cconvert2G36]

Cconvert2G36,

interesting distinction between user security and network security.

But, so then, by your logic: really the only need for any NMN is SPV, since
if you're running your own node, you don't need any further "user security".
Would you agree?

I run the NMN at home to have "better than" SPV security and privacy, a fully validated record of all transactions and an interface to make new ones, that I control. I run the NMN on VPS to help other peers on the network, which is in my own self interest as an investor and user of the system. My home node, that doesn't accept incoming connections, is a net drain on the network's resources. This is more than compensated for by my VPS node which will happily dish out terabytes of data to whomever wants/needs it.