Total Number of full nodes operating. Less than 10k.

[bitmover]

I just discovered this website:
https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes

There are only 9624 full nodes operating right now.
I had no idea that the number was so low.

How many people know about bitcoin? There are millions of coinbase/bitstamp/bitfinex/binance/etc accounts!!

How come only less than 10 thousand people in the whole world decided to run a full node?
Near 25% of the network is in the US, with 2322 full nodes operating

Few months ago I decided to run a full node...  It was like an experiment.

Unfortunately, I had to give up, because my old 2010 notebook could not handle 200Gb of space.
I would have to delete some personal stuff, and as it was just and experiment, it was easier to just give up the idea.

Then, I looked at this website, how many people are running a full node in Brazil:
https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=Brazil
Only 34...

Running full nodes is important so that more people are contributing to the decentralization of the network, validating transactions.

Don't you guys think this number is too low? I know that probably the number is increasing over the years, but I was quite impressed with that number.
People talk a lot about total hash power, but isn't that number very important as well?

[gmaxwell]

There are many more full nodes running, that page only lists ones that accept inbound connections.

Estimates put the number at about 84,000 although a significant number of nodes are spy node run only for the purpose of tracing transactions though we don't know how many.  In the past there was a higher rate of node running relative to the user base but the resources required to run a node increased substantially along with many other factors.

I know that probably the number is increasing over the years,

Listening node count was higher in the past; but UPNP being disabled by default due to repeated security problems with it, increased listening specific resource usage, and other factors have decreased the count even in absolute terms.

[gentlemand]

Most people after a couple of minutes of googling will be utterly turned off by the idea of running a full node, especially as there are ever more options that don't require you to ever go near the raw blockchain. Not many have that much hdd space to play with or spare bandwidth.

Throw in the lack of financial incentive and it's a slam dunk. Obviously there's a security incentive but it's human nature to let someone else do the heavy lifting until it bites you in the arse.

That current figure is pretty healthy compared to the past.

https://bitnodes.earn.com/dashboard/?days=730

[d5000]

Running full nodes is important so that more people are contributing to the decentralization of the network, validating transactions.

Don't you guys think this number is too low? I know that probably the number is increasing over the years, but I was quite impressed with that number.
People talk a lot about total hash power, but isn't that number very important as well?

The number has definitively increased a lot, because in mid-2017 we had about 6000-7000 (from those that were visible on the earn.com website). I was actively following the big "Segwit debate" then, that's why I remember that number relatively well.

However, I don't think the current number is a problem. Full nodes are definitively important. But it's not important to have millions or even hundreds of thousands. Remember that validation work is mainly done by miners, and in simple terms non-mining full nodes become important mainly if there is something wrong with their work - apart from their importance for (bigger) users themselves, as they are more secure against some kinds of attacks.

From what I think to know as a non-programmer having read many forum threads and some other articles about that topic, it's important that there are enough nodes with some economic "weight" to work as a backup of the blockchain if a mining cartel attacks the chain. For example, if miners wanted to steal coins from Segwit addresses using a custom upgrade going back to old rules, full nodes could refuse to accept these transactions, and if there are no exchanges between the attackers, then the miners wouldn't have anyone to sell their stolen coins to (and the mined coins on their forked chain, so their loss would be even bigger).

From this point of view, it's mostly important that exchanges and (bigger) merchants run full nodes, to avoid being scammed with these worthless "non-consensus-obeying" coins.

It also helps if nodes are relatively well distributed, but it's probably enough that we have three big "centres" (oversimplified, the US, the EU and Eastern Asia) and some other small regional "hubs" so no government action or anther regional catastrophic event could shut the network down, and "regional sybil/hashrate attacks" cannot lure some nodes into accepting 1-conf transactions which will later be double spent.

[gmaxwell]

The number has definitively increased a lot,

Only after falling a lot.  E.g. on Jan 3rd 2012 there were over 16500 listening nodes tracked by sipa's seeder.

[vit05]

From this point of view, it's mostly important that exchanges and (bigger) merchants run full nodes, to avoid being scammed with these worthless "non-consensus-obeying" coins.

I believe the key to increasing and diversifying the number of Full Nodes is exactly the adoption. But not just curious users. We need more companies using Bitcoin and to increase confidence in the project it would be natural for them to opt for a full node as well.

[bitmover]

The number has definitively increased a lot,

Only after falling a lot.  E.g. on Jan 3rd 2012 there were over 16500 listening nodes tracked by sipa's seeder.

Probably due to to the increase of blockchain size since 2012...

[gentlemand]

Probably due to to the increase of blockchain size since 2012...

That was a period in time before mining centralisation and ASICs so there would've been thousands of people with small mining rigs. That's why ETH has more nodes of that nature than BTC these days.

These days Bitcoin nodes will either be industrial mining operations, exchanges or other services that need a full node or enthusiasts.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>
Unfortunately, I had to give up, because my old 2010 notebook could not handle 200Gb of space.
I would have to delete some personal stuff, and as it was just and experiment, it was easier to just give up the idea.
<...>

You could give it a go on an external USB Hard Drive. I've got a full node on one with no issues. I guess that you've probably got USB 2.0, which is pretty slow compared to what i'm using (usb 3.x is over 10 times faster), but still it may be worth a try for experimental purposes.

[ABCbits]

Only those who've small bitcoin technical knowledge and care about decentralization or privacy/anonymity when using SPV wallet who would run full nodes.
Even though you could use low-end/barebone devices to run Bitcoin full nodes since Bitcoiner/Bitcoin developer care about anyone can run full nodes with low cost, majority don't want to do it because they think they don't earn anything and only wasting their money by doing it.

The only way to increase the number are by encourage merchants with high volume to run full nodes and make people realize/remember why decentralization (specifically run full nodes in this case) matters.

Unfortunately, I had to give up, because my old 2010 notebook could not handle 200Gb of space.
I would have to delete some personal stuff, and as it was just and experiment, it was easier to just give up the idea.

HDD is cheap today and you can run both OS and full nodes with a HDD, so i suggest you to try run full nodes if you want buy another HDD.

[bitmover]

HDD is cheap today and you can run both OS and full nodes with a HDD, so i suggest you to try run full nodes if you want buy another HDD.

At Brazil nothing is cheap lol
Also it is not worth investing im this old notebook anymore

You could give it a go on an external USB Hard Drive. I've got a full node on one with no issues. I guess that you've probably got USB 2.0, which is pretty slow compared to what i'm using (usb 3.x is over 10 times faster), but still it may be worth a try for experimental purposes.

This is an interesting solution. Maybe I will try later, I have one old external hd.

[gmaxwell]

We need more companies using Bitcoin and to increase confidence in the project it would be natural for them to opt for a full node as well.

That is something I believed in, say, 2011 -- even the whitepaper says that merchants should run a node even with lite clients available...

But the norm for companies these days, especially small companies and startups, is aggressive outsourcing of all technical infrastructure even in their core domain.  So for example, there have been many bitcoin exchanges that don't run their own nodes, but outsource their transaction handling to third parties, and those third parties don't even operate their own equipment, but rent VPS service by the hour from companies like amazon.  As a result, it turns out that companies, even specialist "bitcoin companies" can't be counted on to operate nodes even where a simple risk analysis would say it was in their best interest to do so.  

That was a period in time before mining centralisation and ASICs so there would've been thousands of people with small mining rigs.

Sorry, that is simply untrue. By mid 2011 almost everyone mining was using pools and not running nodes to mine.

That's why ETH has more nodes of that nature than BTC these days.

Ethereum has _vastly_ fewer "nodes" than Bitcoin. You've been fed misinformation that comes from comparing the total number of ethereum nodes (listening or not) to just the listening bitcoin nodes.  Right now the numbers are 15,277 total ethereum vs 83,096 bitcoin nodes.  Moreover, the common ethereum configuration has security properties a lot more like Bitcoin SPV: they don't validate the history when they join they just blindly trust the hash power for it.

[Wind_FURY]

That was a period in time before mining centralisation and ASICs so there would've been thousands of people with small mining rigs.

Sorry, that is simply untrue. By mid 2011 almost everyone mining was using pools and not running nodes to mine.

That's why ETH has more nodes of that nature than BTC these days.

Ethereum has _vastly_ fewer "nodes" than Bitcoin. You've been fed misinformation that comes from comparing the total number of ethereum nodes (listening or not) to just the listening bitcoin nodes.  Right now the numbers are 15,277 total ethereum vs 83,096 bitcoin nodes.  Moreover, the common ethereum configuration has security properties a lot more like Bitcoin SPV: they don't validate the history when they join they just blindly trust the hash power for it.

They call them "light-nodes". The difference should be known to newbies. Ethereum light-nodes are "nodes" that sync only the block headers, but they are "sharing" those headers with other "light-nodes", but still only tethered to the "core" network of full nodes.

Maybe some people who are running light-nodes believe that their "node" is propagating information in the Ethereum network?

[bitmover]

There are many more full nodes running, that page only lists ones that accept inbound connections.

Estimates put the number at about 84,000 although a significant number of nodes are spy node run only for the purpose of tracing transactions though we don't know how many.  In the past there was a higher rate of node running relative to the user base but the resources required to run a node increased substantially along with many other factors.

Listening node count was higher in the past; but UPNP being disabled by default due to repeated security problems with it, increased listening specific resource usage, and other factors have decreased the count even in absolute terms.

Where can I find more information about the total number of listening nodes?

[vit05]

Where can I find more information about the total number of listening nodes?

I think the best source for this is Luke Dashjr website. The number in there is 80659 Bitcoin Core nodes

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

And on coin.dance you could check more charts.

[Wind_FURY]

That is still a big fall. What happened? I believe I read from a blog somewhere that was written on May 2018, only four months ago, that said Bitcoin had 115,000 full nodes in the network.

[hase0278]

That is still a big fall. What happened?

Most of those numbers you have seen from the blog you are referring to might have just tried to run a full node temporarily and lost interest. People probably lost interest in running a full node because of plummetting bitcoin price. Also, most people just simply cannot afford to run full bitcoin nodes because of the bandwidth limit on some countries(like in the Philippines for example).

[ranochigo]

That is still a big fall. What happened? I believe I read from a blog somewhere that was written on May 2018, only four months ago, that said Bitcoin had 115,000 full nodes in the network.

It's not wrong to say that there could be more than 100k full nodes in the network. Full nodes validate all of the blocks in the blockchain but they can either be a "listening" node, or not. Bitnodes measure the number by attempting to find IPs with the port open and send a message to validate their client version. They can't do this to listening nodes unless the listening nodes willingly connect to them. Its totally possible that there could be many many more nodes which doesn't have port 8333 open.

[RGBKey]

There are only 9624 full nodes operating right now.
I had no idea that the number was so low.
...
Unfortunately, I had to give up, because my old 2010 notebook could not handle 200Gb of space.

That's the answer. Most people just don't want to go through the setup required, and those that do don't always have the spare resources to allocate 24/7 to running a node.

[Kakmakr]

Why can we not have services where people make donations to a global company with enough resources to host these full nodes for them. <Not virtual servers in the cloud>, like we have with Cloud mining.

I know there are big Bitcoin supporters out there, that might be living in areas where there is weak internet infrastructure or they might lack the technical knowledge to run these full nodes, but they will gladly donate some money to further the cause.

Is there currently services like this?