How Many Full Nodes Does Bitcoin Need?

[Namiks]

It's a shame running a node doesn't actually hold any incentives aside from a 'feeling good for helping' feeling.

I run a full node, and I'm not even sure why. It's obvious why so many people don't even bother.

[Lauda]

I think that in total we're going to need in excess of 16,000 nodes, similar to what the survey is saying, however for now I think having between 1,000 and 2,000 is pretty good overall for the network. If we can kick it up a notch from there it'll be even better, but it will make sure nothing is getting overworked.

The numbers that you think are "pretty good overall" are useless as they aren't based on any testing methodology, but rather a 'gut feeling'.

It's a shame running a node doesn't actually hold any incentives aside from a 'feeling good for helping' feeling.

You're thinking from it from a limited perspective though. I think that being able to use a decentralized network such as Bitcoin should be considered an incentive from the user-perspective. Then you have businesses, tech-savy users, hobbyists, etc. who all have different *incentives* to run a node.

I run a full node, and I'm not even sure why. It's obvious why so many people don't even bother.

There is no incentive to buy a machine for the sole purpose of running a node, indeed. However, if you have a spare and resources to run one, why not?

[Lauda]

It's not about quantity, but about quality, even though we can't let total bitcoin full nodes is too few.

In past, we can see lots of full bitcoin nodes because blockchain size was very small and bitcoin qt was the most popular wallet, but most of them weren't good nodes because they're average user and don't run full nodes 24/7.

The thing is that those nodes are still helpful to the network, even if they operate only for a few hours per day (assuming that they have their port forwarding properly set up).

Also, in future i think numbers of bitcoin full nodes will be decreased because there'll more transaction which means full nodes needs faster computing, internet connection and good storage capacity as well.

Obviously everything runs better on workstations, servers and such. However, that doesn't mean that we need to limit the decentralization to such.

So, i think total full nodes about few hundreds to few thousands are fine as long as all of those full nodes runs smoothly and ready to handle more transaction after blockchain size have been solved.

"Few hundreds" is definitely way under what I'd consider acceptable.

[calkob]

i run a full node the cost in ireland is minimal.  it is basically dirt cheap as long as you have a new computer.  like 90gb is nothing these days when you are getting 2 TB of drive space

[coins101]

i run a full node the cost in ireland is minimal.  it is basically dirt cheap as long as you have a new computer.  like 90gb is nothing these days when you are getting 2 TB of drive space

Can you report back your bandwidth use, outgoing in particular?

[jacafbiz]

I don't think there should be a number, the higher the number the better it is for me

[franky1]

lauda still hasnt thought outside of the box.

2,5000,000,000 nodes all running one code base is far worse than just 1250 codebase A,  1250 codebase B, 1250 codebase C, 1250 codebase D,
with none of the 4 codebases getting above 50% dominance

its not just distribution that needs to be thought about, its diversity too.
the distribution is more about removing the chance of DDoSing, data loss and viral manipulation.. by taking out all nodes at once.
the diversity is more important as it decentralizes the ownership and control of bitcoin code from internal attackers/manipulators

but if we must talk only about the numbers.
well there are 200 countries, worse case having just 4 nodes(different codebases) per country, is still attackable.. interpol can just ask each country to raid 4 locations each so totals of 1000 nodes is not a good plan.

so we need enough nodes to ensure that a single/sustained attack in the network or physical world cannot take all the nodes out at once. so thats a many thousands of nodes spread out over many countries, where those nodes also diversify what codebase they are using too

at the moment with 5000 nodes, diversity is more critical than distribution... which my first point proves. because at 5000 nodes with a majority using one code base.. the single codebase becomes the weak point of attack

[Meuh6879]

Thanks to Lauda for reminding me about this post from Gavin:


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

I don't agree with this.



All P2P network start (and work flawless) with many alone users.

Bitcoin is like all P2P network, i don't work with datacenters (or miners).
That's why you can not shutdown (or down a datacenter by the law).

That's why Wallets without blockchain work now (mobile phone).
Because of the 8 connexions on full blockchain node.

And the BAN function (with timing) on the Bitcoin Core is a good tool to acheive this.

[franky1]

All P2P network start (and work flawless) with many alone users.

Bitcoin is like all P2P network, i don't work with datacenters (or miners).
That's why you can not shutdown (or down a datacenter by the law).

That's why Wallets without blockchain work now (mobile phone).
Because of the 8 connexions on full blockchain node.

And the BAN function (with timing) on the Bitcoin Core is a good tool to acheive this.

the reason why nodes with less than 8 connections can be seen as bad, is to do with the 6 degrees of separation theory. or coders use the 8 links of connectivity theory. (where if you know 6/8 people and those people know 6/8 people.. the whole world knows each other within a certain number of hops to each other. the less people you know the more hops of those limited people it requires to find a link to everyone)

lets say each node had 3 connections
M->3->9->27->81->243->729->2187->6561
it takes 8 relays/hops to get to over 6000 nodes.. lets say it took 2 seconds per relay/hop to transfer data. thats 16 seconds before everyone has the data

now say each node has 9 connections
M->9->81->729->6561
it takes 4 relays/hops to get to over 6000 nodes. where with a 2 second per hop/relay. thats 8 seconds before everyone has it

now lets say there was 19 connections
M->19->361->6859
3 hops/relays to get to everyone within 6 seconds

when it comes to block solutions 16 seconds feels like an eternity however, 6 seconds or 8 seconds are better for the network.
in a perfect world. everyone being a supernode of ~ 80 connections which is ideal
M->80->6400
taking 2 hop and only 4 seconds to get to everyone

so the less connections you have the less nodes get the data sooner.
however if there is a FAIR mix of super nodes(80) and casual nodes(3) the average time the whole network getting the data is between 4seconds-16seconds.

but having an entire network of just casual nodes(3) would be 4x slower to cover the network as a supernode(80)

[Meuh6879]

good for all that propagation (in Bitcoin Network) is not a line ... but an octopus.



so, the actual 6000 nodes (7 connexions) can handle 42 000 connexions per second.

and, when you manage a node, you can reach 10 request on the same second (you can see this easly with spam attack on your debug.log).

so, 420 000 connexions per second is the MINIMAL potential of the Bitcoin Network.

You can't shutdown this, now.
And it's good, it's the evolution of real thing that it serve the humanity to have valuable base.

[coins101]

All P2P network start (and work flawless) with many alone users.

Bitcoin is like all P2P network, i don't work with datacenters (or miners).
That's why you can not shutdown (or down a datacenter by the law).

That's why Wallets without blockchain work now (mobile phone).
Because of the 8 connexions on full blockchain node.

And the BAN function (with timing) on the Bitcoin Core is a good tool to acheive this.

the reason why nodes with less than 8 connections can be seen as bad, is to do with the 6 degrees of separation theory. or coders use the 8 links of connectivity theory. (where if you know 6/8 people and those people know 6/8 people.. the whole world knows each other within a certain number of hops to each other. the less people you know the more hops of those limited people it requires to find a link to everyone)

lets say each node had 3 connections
M->3->9->27->81->243->729->2187->6561
it takes 8 relays/hops to get to over 6000 nodes.. lets say it took 2 seconds per relay/hop to transfer data. thats 16 seconds before everyone has the data

now say each node has 9 connections
M->9->81->729->6561
it takes 4 relays/hops to get to over 6000 nodes. where with a 2 second per hop/relay. thats 8 seconds before everyone has it

now lets say there was 19 connections
M->19->361->6859
3 hops/relays to get to everyone within 6 seconds

when it comes to block solutions 16 seconds feels like an eternity however, 6 seconds or 8 seconds are better for the network.
in a perfect world. everyone being a supernode of ~ 80 connections which is ideal
M->80->6400
taking 2 hop and only 4 seconds to get to everyone

so the less connections you have the less nodes get the data sooner.
however if there is a FAIR mix of super nodes(80) and casual nodes(3) the average time the whole network getting the data is between 4seconds-16seconds.

but having an entire network of just casual nodes(3) would be 4x slower to cover the network as a supernode(80)

Bitcoin should have a new president every year. you should be the first.