Bitcoin's blockchain size

[brainactive]

Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future? If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications? Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?

[NeuroticFish]

Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future? If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications? Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?

This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum?
As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing.
Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper.
So... do you see any real problem? Cause I don't.

[Upgrade00]

In addition to what NeuroticFish said above, one does not necessarily need to download the entire gigabyte of data to run a node, that's the reason pruned nodes exist;
Not everyone even now wishes to run a full node, or have the capacity too, they can instead run a pruned node  As a pruned node; you only store the most recent transactions history, based on your configuration. But they still contribute to the Network

[brainactive]

This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum?
As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing.
Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper.
So... do you see any real problem? Cause I don't.

Sorry I didn't mean to come off ignorant. I also think there are no serious problems with the blockchain size but I just wasn't sure if (a) I was missing anything and (b) if there's any merit to having a smaller blockchain size.

This came about when I looked at what the Mina blockchain was doing. They use zk proofs to keep blockchain size fixed at 22kb but it obviously has a lot of trade-offs and can lead to problems if the full history needs to be accessed. And their archived full chain is currently stored on Google Cloud lol.  

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future? If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications? Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?

This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum?

As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing.

Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper.

So... do you see any real problem? Cause I don't.

The counter-argument to that is, not everyone has the same access to large bandwidth, or would care to upgrade their internet connection, or their hardware, just to run a node.

Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future?

If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications?

Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?

It's always better to overshoot the decentralization/security of the network, than undershoot. The Bitcoin blockchain should also be made as redundant as possible for new nodes.

[ranochigo]

This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum?
As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing.
Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper.
So... do you see any real problem? Cause I don't.

Increasing the on-chain capacity will result in an exponential increase in the block size over a given period of time. Going by the general usage of it's user, it is very likely that as the database size gets bigger, we'll see fewer users running full nodes. Reason being, no one wants to synchronize for hours or days to use Bitcoin, adding another hour of synchronization every time they open their client.

The problem isn't really about how expensive the storage is. Yes, it is getting cheaper but no one would realistically get a new HDD every now and then solely for Bitcoin when there is a far more convenient alternative available. I can see it being a problem if bootstrap synchronization is still the modus operandi in the future and thus discouraging the general userbase to be running Bitcoin nodes.

It is possible for certain compression to be used on block data or transaction size. Problem being that there is also a certain degree of tradeoff for your CPU as well.

[NeuroticFish]

I also think there are no serious problems with the blockchain size

That's good. And I would have loved to see you start with that. There are plenty of people on this forum trying to spread FUD on various topics, including this one, and one of the methods seems to be by asking "innocent questions" like this.

but I just wasn't sure if (a) I was missing anything and (b) if there's any merit to having a smaller blockchain size.

Smaller blockchain would mean less information is stored and from what I know all the information there is important, or some sort of compression for storage and transfer. But compression would bring no real benefit (HDD is cheap, remember?) and it would mean a need for more computational power here and there (while some run nodes on Raspberry Pi today) and would mean identical data size to be transferred after the initial sync ends.

This came about when I looked at what the Mina blockchain was doing. They use zk proofs to keep blockchain size fixed at 22kb but it obviously has a lot of trade-offs and can lead to problems if the full history needs to be accessed. And their archived full chain is currently stored on Google Cloud lol.  

I am not familiar with Mina, but the Google cloud part doesn't look much reassuring  


It's as simple: underlying hardware is advancing, getting bigger and cheaper, hence if this is not a big problem now, it should also not be in the future.

It is possible for certain compression to be used on block data or transaction size. Problem being that there is also a certain degree of tradeoff for your CPU as well.

It's interesting that we both thought on compression. But I don't think that it can make that much of a difference...
And yes, I agree that the size can scare the users. But on the other hand those who need 1h for sync at each start don't matter that much for decentralization, right? The users we need would keep their nodes running closer to 24/7...

[ranochigo]

It's interesting that we both thought on compression. But I don't think that it can make that much of a difference...
And yes, I agree that the size can scare the users. But on the other hand those who need 1h for sync at each start don't matter that much for decentralization, right? The users we need would keep their nodes running closer to 24/7...

It will but whether it is worth it for the additional strain on CPU is a whole other question.

Actually every little bit helps. I personally don't think Bitcoin benefits substantially from having nodes within datacenters because that creates some centralization within the network as the node operators don't really have any control over it. I run a node within a datacenter because I have other uses for the server as well and I'm using the node for analytics. I would prefer for a network that comprises of regular users running nodes (albeit sporadically) than to have them distributed around the DCs.

Realistically, most users don't want to spend so much just for running a node. Bootstrapping on Raspberry Pi takes a week or so, and assuming the HDD doesn't crash. That is about how much most users would spend to run a node. It is terribly slow but there really isn't a choice.

On-chain capacity probably will have to be increased some point in the future. So it will become an issue sooner or later, provided that we don't do anything about it. Moore's law is more or less done for in the near future anyways.

[NeuroticFish]

I personally don't think Bitcoin benefits substantially from having nodes within datacenters because that creates some centralization within the network as the node operators don't really have any control over it.

That's correct indeed.

Bootstrapping on Raspberry Pi takes a week or so, and assuming the HDD doesn't crash. That is about how much most users would spend to run a node. It is terribly slow but there really isn't a choice.

Imho it's a one-time operation and you basically just leave it running. I know that people don't have enough patience though. I don't know how good or bad Pi performs as node though.

On-chain capacity probably will have to be increased some point in the future. So it will become an issue sooner or later, provided that we don't do anything about it. Moore's law is more or less done for in the near future anyways.

This is the part where I can tell "please don't count on that". Since off-chain can bring the heavy load, I think that it's normal for on-chain remain restricted (may need a better word here, I am thinking at block size only, no other restriction) and expensive. If we don't do that we may end up with miners leaving when the block rewards get too small.

[vjudeu]

How much of an issue is this in the future?

Not that much as you may think. Transaction joining is now possible with Pedersen Commitments (not in Bitcoin, but I guess it will be implemented sooner or later). Maybe joining shares will be possible in the future, if so, then everything could be compressed just to one huge block with enormous Proof of Work. But even transaction joining alone could compress a lot of transactions and you could for example receive compressed transactions from the last two weeks, that should speed up verification.

[ranochigo]

Imho it's a one-time operation and you basically just leave it running. I know that people don't have enough patience though. I don't know how good or bad it performs as node though.

Quite bad from my personal experience.

This is the part where I can tell "please don't count on that". Since off-chain can bring the heavy load, I think that it's normal for on-chain remain restricted (may need a better word here, I am thinking at block size only, no other restriction) and expensive. If we don't do that we may end up with miners leaving when the block rewards get too small.

You can introduce some form of scarcity, but only up to a point. Afterwhich, the benefits start to taper off and you're better off increasing the block size to increase both the capacity of the network as well as to help the miners increase their income. Being on ~4vMB blocks for the near future is absolutely not okay and it should not be an option at all. You do need on-chain transactions for second-layer solution. It is impossible to support them without having on-chain transactions, for opening/closing channels for example.

[NeuroticFish]

and you're better off increasing the block size to increase both the capacity of the network as well as to help the miners increase their income.

We are still far from the point (although it's years, not decades), but.. let's see what the hardware brings too in that time, OK?

Being on ~4vMB blocks for the near future is absolutely not okay and it should not be an option at all. You do need on-chain transactions for second-layer solution. It is impossible to support them without having on-chain transactions, for opening/closing channels for example.

Indeed, second layer channels do need on-chain operations. I knew that. But we don't know yet how big will be the need to open and close channels. Well thought channels will not need closing because they'll keep carrying transactions in both directions. Am I missing something there?

[brainactive]

That's good. And I would have loved to see you start with that. There are plenty of people on this forum trying to spread FUD on various topics, including this one, and one of the methods seems to be by asking "innocent questions" like this.

I don't feel the need to preface every question with a reinforcing statement for Bitcoin. The best way to prevent FUD is to provide logical counter-arguments to questions you think is FUD, rather than silence people for asking questions which critique Bitcoin's status quo.

It's as simple: underlying hardware is advancing, getting bigger and cheaper, hence if this is not a big problem now, it should also not be in the future.

Agree that hardware is advancing and getting bigger. So is the size of the blockchain. The question then becomes the relative rate of increase. The graph in the link below shows the increase in the size of the blockchain over the last decade.

In 2015, it was around 40GB. It is now over 300GB. My computer has a hard drive with 500GB. While I would've been happy to download the block in 2015, it is now too big for me. Yes, I could easily fork out another $100 to buy a new hard drive but this is something I wouldn't have needed a few years ago.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/647523/worldwide-bitcoin-blockchain-size/

[ranochigo]

We are still far from the point (although it's years, not decades), but.. let's see what the hardware brings too in that time, OK?

Well, we've experienced quite a few bouts of elevated fees nowadays and probably is discouraging adoption as well. Not as far as you think.

Indeed, second layer channels do need on-chain operations. I knew that. But we don't know yet how big will be the need to open and close channels. Well thought channels will not need closing because they'll keep carrying transactions in both directions. Am I missing something there?

Not really. LN is more suitable for microtransactions due to the liquidity of the channels and you will at some point require on-chain transactions. It's simply impossible for us to function solely on LN, or at least without a fairly huge dependency on it. LN is really not the panacea to the problems that we're facing right now. Yes, it will help to alleviate the issue but it really doesn't do that much. If we want any significant adoption, then a block size increase is the most straightforward method.

There are a few threads, off the top of my head that I've discussed about LN and the need for on-chain transactions as well. I think that would be a better starting point.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation?

There must be a misunderstanding from your side. Running a node compared to mining is a different procedure. The system's decentralization is maintained due to the increase and the distribution of the hashrate. Whether we had ten or a million nodes, but the hashrate and its distribution remained the same, it'd not have any difference.

If you run a node, but do not vote for the security of the network, then you're just doing it for your own good. Thus, you may not even need a full node, but rather a pruned one, which comes cheaper.

[NeuroticFish]

that's your interpretation

You're right and I apologize for that.

It's as simple: underlying hardware is advancing, getting bigger and cheaper, hence if this is not a big problem now, it should also not be in the future.

Agree that hardware is advancing and getting bigger. So is the size of the blockchain. The question then becomes the relative rate of increase. The graph in the link below shows the increase in the size of the blockchain over the last decade.

In 2015, it was around 40GB. It is now over 300GB. My computer has a hard drive with 500GB. While I would've been happy to download the block in 2015, it is now too big for me. Yes, I could easily fork out another $100 to buy a new hard drive but this is something I would've have needed to do a few years ago.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/647523/worldwide-bitcoin-blockchain-size/

Indeed. The thing is that with the current code there's a maximum size that can be added to the blockchain. The 1 TB / 5 years was not reached yet, else we would be some 2.2 TB now. And although 2.2 TB may look a bit big for a download or as space locked on your HDD, is not that expensive or difficult to download, right?

It's simply impossible for us to function solely on LN, or at least without a fairly huge dependency on it. LN is really not the panacea to the problems that we're facing right now.

I expect that the not-so-great current use of LN and the fact that many make only smaller short lived channels may make current calculations not the much correct. (but yeah, I know that I may be wrong)
That's why I said "well thought channels". And increased on-chain fees will make people think twice if they make their own LN channels for each 1 or 10 small transactions or use one on-chain tx and move some funds into a service's wallet, using LN from there. I know that this hurts decentralization big, but this is how I see LN work. If we don't like this, then indeed we need other solutions, including bigger blocks, bigger chain size, better handling of that size...
But for now the only problem I see is that LN is under-used and still labeled as "beta".

[Wind_FURY]

In 2015, it was around 40GB. It is now over 300GB. My computer has a hard drive with 500GB. While I would've been happy to download the block in 2015, it is now too big for me. Yes, I could easily fork out another $100 to buy a new hard drive but this is something I wouldn't have needed a few years ago.

Fair point, but there are 2 alternative if you insist to run full node
1. Use pruned node. Bitcoin Core still download and verify whole blockchain, but only keep few thousand last block.

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

2. Trust third party which prepare pruned snapshot such as https://github.com/ez-org/eznode.

There are another alternative such as UTXO commitment, but so far there's no interest to implement it on Bitcoin.

ALL users should rather run a pruned node, and validate everything themselves.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

And how does a full node (which isn't mining) benefit the network? The only way I can think of is if every other node goes offline and someone wants to download the whole chain.

[DannyHamilton]

And how does a full node (which isn't mining) benefit the network?

This is a bit like asking if a single vote matters in an election where there are thousands (or millions) of voters.  It can seem a bit like that one vote isn't really going to matter much at all, however if EVERY participant thought that way, then nobody would vote and that single vote would be ALL that matters.  As such, it's in the interest of the entire system for everyone to act as if their small contribution really does matter (because it's only when they do so that they can make sure that no single participant has excessive control).

Here are a few ways that a non-mining node benefits the network:
1. It enforces all consensus rules on all transactions and blocks that it receives and forwards.
2. It provides a source of pieces of the blockchain for new nodes which wish to join the network.
3. It provides a list of well-behaved nodes for other nodes to connect to.
4. It increases interconnectivity, reducing the risk that the network becomes fractured.

Can bitcoin accomplish these things if YOU don't run a node?  Probably.  But, if too many people feel that way, then any or all of these begin to break down. Simply to exist, bitcoin NEEDS some threshold number of participants to perform these actions.  As additional nodes are added above that threshold, it improves the durability of Bitcoin and reduces the power that any other participant has.

If you feel you are benefitting from the very existence of bitcoin, then you may want to consider doing your part to ensure its continued existence.  You get to decide what "doing your part" means. This is a voluntary system and nobody is forcing you to participate in any particular manner.  It's only your own sense of responsibility and community that can motivate you.  If running a node feels too expensive to justify for the amount of benefit you're receiving from bitcoin's existence, then there are other ways you can contribute to the community. Some great ways to give back are:

1. Encourage others to use bitcoin when they are going to pay you for some reason.
2. Encourage others to accept bitcoin when you need to pay them for some reason.
3. Learn more about how bitcoin works, and what its benefits are.
4. Participate in discussions (both online and in your daily life) about bitcoin and educate others about how bitcoin works and what its benefits are.
5. Run a pruned node
6. Learn to program, and write code or test cases for Bitcoin Core.
7. Support those politicians that are not hostile to the concept of Bitcoin.

[ranochigo]

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

Archival nodes are needed for bootstrapping and that is about it, pruned nodes can do everything except to serve those pruned block data. It is only important, in the event that we're hitting a point where we are at the risk of losing those data completely. So, IMO the requirement for that can be quite overblown, especially given that we're not in shortage of those.

I do believe that the importance of archival nodes is overblown to a huge extent, where we have no shortage of those for now and in the near future. If anything, we should be exploring ways to either preserve the history, or employ some scheme to truncate the size.

[NotATether]

Arguably a bigger issue than the blockchain size is the intensity that Bitcoin Core, wallet software, and other programs that make use of it, use the CPU.

I stopped the bitcoind node running on my web server some time ago, despite having ample capacity to run one, because sometimes, I would test such supporting programs but they instantly stun the CPU at startup - not memory or disk, as I have excess amounts of those - which freeze SSH connections and force me to reboot from my web interface (unacceptable for the website running on it).

It mainly has to do with the multithreaded nature of such programs and how they spawn as many threads as they want. If they're going to do that then they should be making more use of sleep() calls and yield the CPU.

I have not encountered stalls running bitcoind or bitcoin-qt by itself, not even during IBD.

[DaveF]

...
In 2015, it was around 40GB. It is now over 300GB. My computer has a hard drive with 500GB. While I would've been happy to download the block in 2015, it is now too big for me. Yes, I could easily fork out another $100 to buy a new hard drive but this is something I wouldn't have needed a few years ago.
...

Except in 2015 low end / middle spec PCs were coming with 256GB drives. So although it was a smaller percentage of it, it was still a large percentage.

You really seem to be running around this forum looking for ways to prove BTC is not viable. No idea why.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

-Dave
 

[BlackHatCoiner]

This is a bit like asking if a single vote matters in an election where there are thousands (or millions) of voters.

It doesn't sound like this to me. The users vote with their computational power, not by running node(s). Someone could achieve having the majority of the nodes and act maliciously very easily, but the system would be unaffected from such attack. The so-called “Sybil attack” works if your vote matters, which means that you need to mine along with having lots of nodes.

There are some ways it benefits the network, but 'til there. You aren't voting for anything if you run your own node.

[NotATether]

There are some ways it benefits the network, but 'til there. You aren't voting for anything if you run your own node.

You are forgetting that by running a node, you are enforcing, or "voting" in this terminology, on the consensus rules, the chain tip, etc.

True there's no danger threshold like mining has, but if a significant percentage of nodes are "voting" on a different chain tip or different rules then that's a sign of a big consensus problem.

[DannyHamilton]

There are some ways it benefits the network, but 'til there. You aren't voting for anything if you run your own node.

I never said anyone was voting by running a node.  I was offering an analogy.

At least here in the U.S. there are a lot of people that are apathetic about making an effort to go to the polls and vote in elections.  One of the more frequent excuses is that their vote doesn't matter (since it's just one out of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of votes, depending on the election).  However, if everyone were to have that attitude, then nobody would vote, and then a single vote would suddenly have a LOT of power.  The only way democracy works is if people participate.  You limit the power of any single individual by participating along with the multitudes so that, not only your vote but, EVERY vote is limited in power.

The post I was responding to was suggesting that there was no benefit to running a node since there were already other nodes on the network to provide a copy of the blockchain.  In otherwords, he was coming off as a bit apathetic about making an effort to participate in the network.  I simply pointed out the parallels of that attitude to the common attitude of citizens that don't bother participating in elections. Then I pointed out the parallels of the repercussions, in that if EVERYONE had that attitude, then there wouldn't be a network. If there were only a few nodes, then those nodes suddenly have a LOT of power.

There is a certain level of personal responsibility and duty that come with choosing to participate in any system that can only exist through the voluntary efforts of the members of that system.  To choose to do NOTHING to support such a system you choose to use is quite selfish, self-centered, greedy, and anti-social.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You are forgetting that by running a node, you are enforcing, or "voting" in this terminology, on the consensus rules, the chain tip, etc.

When you run a node, you're following the voters. If you don't decide to mine, but run a node instead, you have no “opinion” in the consensus, because you have no power on the system. The system is empowered only from those who mine, who provide the security.

By running a Bitcoin node, you vote what other voters do.

I never said anyone was voting by running a node.  I was offering an analogy.

Okay, I just wouldn't choose to account it that way. Mining could be compared with elections garnished with some incentive on top of them, but running your own node seems more as a personal benefit to me.

There is a certain level of personal responsibility and duty that come with choosing to participate in any system that can only exist through the voluntary efforts of the members of that system.  To choose to do NOTHING to support such a system you choose to use is quite selfish, self-centered, greedy, and anti-social.

In my opinion, running a full node without securing the network is a very expensive choice with the least benefit. It'd be better to simply discuss with other people in this forum; that'd be more beneficial to everyone.

Dialogue is democracy.

[DannyHamilton]

In my opinion, running a full node without securing the network is a very expensive choice with the least benefit.

I disagree, but as you've pointed out, that's a matter of opinion.

It'd be better to simply discuss with other people in this forum; that'd be more beneficial to everyone.

I'm not sure that I agree that it's "better", but I did offer that as one of the ways to participate. See here:

4. Participate in discussions (both online and in your daily life) about bitcoin and educate others about how bitcoin works and what its benefits are.

Dialogue is democracy.

Democracy requires more than dialogue.  Regardless, Bitcoin is not a democratic system, it is a consensus system.

You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system.  The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block.  They do not enforce the consensus.  The nodes do.  If a miner creates a block that fails to honor the consensus rules, every node in the entire world will reject it regardless of the amount of hash power that miner has.  The miners do not have the ability to implement any change that would violate the current consensus rules unless they have the support of the nodes.

[ranochigo]

When you run a node, you're following the voters. If you don't decide to mine, but run a node instead, you have no “opinion” in the consensus, because you have no power on the system. The system is empowered only from those who mine, who provide the security.

By running a Bitcoin node, you vote what other voters do.

By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.

There is simply no point about trying to mine. You are only a significant proportion of the miner if you (and those who are in line with your views) are able to mine a block. Even so, being able to mine blocks doesn't entitle you to the rights to amend the rules of the network or otherwise influence it. Full nodes are enforcers of the rules, if you don't want to comply with the economic majority, then you risk mining on the chain that no one follows. The consensus that really matter comes from the economic majority. Miner's signalling only shows that they are compliant with the proposed rules.

If miners really form the bulk of the consensus, then how did we manage to settle the segwit deadlock? There are contingencies for forced activation of rules as well, so I'm not sure how miners really hold that much power if the economic majority are the ones transacting in Bitcoin, not them.

[Wind_FURY]

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

And how does a full node (which isn't mining) benefit the network? The only way I can think of is if every other node goes offline and someone wants to download the whole chain.

Running a full node, it is personally beneficial to me, because I have the ability to validate all my transactions without relying on trusted third-parties. Running an archival node, it would be beneficial to the network to provide the full copy of the blockchain for the process of new nodes’ Initial Block Download. The blockchain must be as redundant as much as possible. Do you agree?

It’s your personal choice, if you don’t want to run a full node, OK. If you want to run a full node, OK. But the ability to run one shouldn’t be taken away.

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

Archival nodes are needed for bootstrapping and that is about it, pruned nodes can do everything except to serve those pruned block data. It is only important, in the event that we're hitting a point where we are at the risk of losing those data completely. So, IMO the requirement for that can be quite overblown, especially given that we're not in shortage of those.

I do believe that the importance of archival nodes is overblown to a huge extent, where we have no shortage of those for now and in the near future. If anything, we should be exploring ways to either preserve the history, or employ some scheme to truncate the size.

Then the more copies of it in the network, the better. It’s always better to overshoot the network’s robustness and security than undershoot it.

[ABCbits]

Fair point, but there are 2 alternative if you insist to run full node
1. Use pruned node. Bitcoin Core still download and verify whole blockchain, but only keep few thousand last block.

But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.

See @DannyHamilton reply, except pruned-node only share last few thousand block. Additionally more ways to run full node (even if it's pruned node) is better than nothing.

2. Trust third party which prepare pruned snapshot such as https://github.com/ez-org/eznode.
There are another alternative such as UTXO commitment, but so far there's no interest to implement it on Bitcoin.

ALL users should rather run a pruned node, and validate everything themselves.

True, i never say it's ideal or good option.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Democracy requires more than dialogue.  Regardless, Bitcoin is not a democratic system, it is a consensus system.

These consensus changes are taken democratically, aren't they? No one enforces us to do anything, but if most of us believe that we should upgrade to SegWit/Taproot, we do. There's even a website which used to show how many have voted for the taproot activation.

Bitcoin may not be a democratic system, surely not an authoritarian one, but the people of its ecosystem seem to behave democratically.

You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system.  The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block.  They do not enforce the consensus.  The nodes do.

They don't have all the power, but they're responsible for the security of the network. They don't just choose the order of the transactions. Take for example the voting for the taproot activation. If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered.

The Bitcoin Cash “team” didn't want to adopt SegWit as far as I know. Who cares about Bitcoin Cash! Bitcoin is securer than that and thus, it's been seen as the official, beloved and securest cryptocurrency among all.

By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.

The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion.

Do you agree?

I agree that it helps the network. I don't agree that it helps it significantly.

[ranochigo]

If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered.

The Bitcoin Cash “team” didn't want to adopt SegWit as far as I know. Who cares about Bitcoin Cash! Bitcoin is securer than that and thus, it's been seen as the official, beloved and securest cryptocurrency among all.

Would you live in a climate where miner wields a greater power than the actual users and having it their way? I wouldn't. Majority of the miners did not want to adopt Segwit and  were proposing a block size increase. Miners started to signal for Segwit after it became apparent there was a threat for a UASF in the upcoming days. Bitcoin is better than Bitcoin Cash because the economic majority (ie. the users) favors it, which is why miners prefer to mine on Bitcoin rather than Bitcoin Cash.

There are plans for LOT=True, or at least as a contingency if miners want to veto Taproot.

The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion.

Miners are primarily dependent on the crypto's users. If no one wants to use Bitcoin, then there is no point for them to continue mining Bitcoins. In effect, the users have an influence over the decisions the miners make as well.

[Wind_FURY]

You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system.  The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block.  They do not enforce the consensus.  The nodes do.

They don't have all the power, but they're responsible for the security of the network. They don't just choose the order of the transactions. Take for example the voting for the taproot activation. If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered.

I believe BIP-148/UASF/block size drama showed that it was not up to the miners to decide YES or NO.

By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.

The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion.

I believe we all might have misunderstood POW’s main function in Bitcoin? Mining might not be a consensus mechanism, but a Sybil Attack protection mechanism?

Plus the protocol incentivizes the miners to do their job. It’s not that they are there to secure the network for the network’s own sake.

Do you agree?

I agree that it helps the network. I don't agree that it helps it significantly.

The UASF showed differently, but I respect your opinion.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Would you live in a climate where miner wields a greater power than the actual users and having it their way? I wouldn't.

How does an ordinary user affect the decisions? I simply don't get it. If you're someone who protects the network, you ought to vote for a change, you're the transactions' validator. An ordinary node that doesn't help the network doesn't have an opinion. I could create dozens of nodes from different parts of the world and maybe even dominate in the majority of the tor nodes. What am I doing after all?

Yes, I follow the consensus rules by myself, but the protection of the ecosystem isn't done by me. Why should I vote and how many votes for a change do I deserve?

[ranochigo]

How does an ordinary user affect the decisions? I simply don't get it. If you're someone who protects the network, you ought to vote for a change, you're the transactions' validator. An ordinary node that doesn't help the network doesn't have an opinion. I could create dozens of nodes from different parts of the world and maybe even dominate in the majority of the tor nodes. What am I doing after all?

Yes, I follow the consensus rules by myself, but the protection of the ecosystem isn't done by me. Why should I vote and how many votes for a change do I deserve?

Okay, so firstly, miners are dependent on the users that are using Bitcoin, because they are the ones that sustains the market for Bitcoin, agree?

Users do not vote using nodes, I've never mentioned that. If users do not run their own full nodes, then whatever rules that they're enforcing is dependent on the server that they are relying on. Full node always have a say in whatever rules that they want to follow, which can be defined by their user. If there isn't a point in running full nodes, then no one is really validating for themselves and the economic majority would rather just go with whatever rules the miners want to implement.

There is a misconception that miners actually vote to implement any new rules or not. They essentially are signalling support for it, or rather compatibility but do not decide which rules get implemented or not. The full nodes which comprises of the economic majority are directly responsible for the set of rules being implemented. As I have said, again Segwit would've never happened if users have no say, or if there isn't a way for users to implement the rules that they want (which, in Segwit's case was for UASF and Taproot which would've been forced LOT).

Which really brings me to the point that most users should ideally be running full nodes, and actively use it.

[brainactive]

Potentially a dumb question but... if node operators have the most power (as some are suggesting), what happens if someone or some party does a 51% node attack (ie control 51% of nodes) and then changes the concensus rules. Wouldn't that be easier to accomplish than the 51% mining attack since in order to run a node you don't need as much computing power as mining?

[ranochigo]

Potentially a dumb question but... if node operators have the most power (as some are suggesting), what happens if someone or some party does a 51% node attack (ie control 51% of nodes) and then changes the concensus rules. Wouldn't that be easier to accomplish than the 51% mining attack since in order to run a node you don't need as much computing power as mining?

Each nodes enacts their own set of rules and do not influence each other. Having control of the majority of the nodes does not give you any more control than you already have, Sybil attack would probably be on the table given a huge proportion of the nodes being under the control of the miners. Having a huge proportion of the network's hashrate also doesn't allow you to change the protocol rules at all.

[pooya87]

Potentially a dumb question but... if node operators have the most power (as some are suggesting), what happens if someone or some party does a 51% node attack (ie control 51% of nodes) and then changes the concensus rules. Wouldn't that be easier to accomplish than the 51% mining attack since in order to run a node you don't need as much computing power as mining?

What you have to realize is that Bitcoin is not just one group. It is not only nodes, or only miners, or only developers or only the economy. It is a combination of all of them. It is true that miners are the only ones with signalling/voting power but they can't change anything without the rest of the network following them.

2017 is an excellent example of how one group alone can't do anything. For example BIP148 had a lot of support from the "community" (ie. people on social media) but didn't have more than 10% support from nodes or miners so it didn't go anywhere. Or SegWit2x had >95% support of miners but the developers and consequently most of the community were against it so it also didn't go anywhere.

This is also why in every fork that bitcoin had there was a very long period to let everyone upgrade and get onboard. For example there is more than half a year between Taproot lockin and its activation and that so far had let nearly half of nodes upgrade to core v. 0.21.1 to be able to verify Taproot transactions.

[BlackHatCoiner]

There is a misconception that miners actually vote to implement any new rules or not. They essentially are signalling support for it, or rather compatibility but do not decide which rules get implemented or not. The full nodes which comprises of the economic majority are directly responsible for the set of rules being implemented.

I think that the verb “signal” is overused in this community and may have misled what miners actually do by “signaling support” for a change. A more preferable wording would be that they agree upon the change; they authorize the change. They may not decide which rules get implemented without the people's permission, but neither the opposite.

Here's an example:  If a change was proposed which would incentivize the miners to authorize it, but wasn't in agreement from the side of the people, what would happen? I guess that the people would split the chain, but if they hadn't enough power to secure it, wouldn't they come to a dead end? Or to change it a little bit, if there were two forks of Bitcoin, wouldn't the people prefer the one that is the most secure?

Food for thought.

[NotATether]

Here's an example:  If a change was proposed which would incentivize the miners to authorize it, but wasn't in agreement from the side of the people, what would happen? I guess that the people would split the chain, but if they hadn't enough power to secure it, wouldn't they come to a dead end? Or to change it a little bit, if there were two forks of Bitcoin, wouldn't the people prefer the one that is the most secure?

As long as it wasn't deployed as a User Activated Soft Fork i.e. BIP9 and not BIP8 then the rules (on the main chain, not whatever fork the community decides to make) are enforced as long as a majority of miners are signaling from it.

If it was a User Activated Soft Fork then users can override miners and force a change to consensus rules (which might include removing existing rules).

[ranochigo]

Here's an example:  If a change was proposed which would incentivize the miners to authorize it, but wasn't in agreement from the side of the people, what would happen? I guess that the people would split the chain, but if they hadn't enough power to secure it, wouldn't they come to a dead end? Or to change it a little bit, if there were two forks of Bitcoin, wouldn't the people prefer the one that is the most secure?

Food for thought.

Which side do you think would fold first? Would the users want to follow the majority of the miners, but aren't necessarily in agreement with them? IMO, no. Users are far more pragmatic than just going with whatever the miners says. Unless of course, they are able to reach a compromise but it is hardly true that the community only cares about the decisions that the (majority of the) miners make.

If a hypothetical fork were to happen, and that miners were all insistent on a specific fork that isn't in favour of the community (or were in a sense ridden with hidden motives), who suffers more? Miners who are already surviving on thin margins or the general community which doesn't really stand to lose much? I agree that the best case scenario would be cooperation from both parties, but it really doesn't mean that miners has to "authorize" any changes! That is a flawed system and also why we have backup plans to force activation of soft forks.

I thought the idea of UASF during the peak of the block wars would've been a good example of which party stands to lose more by prolonging the fight. They were so adamant on a block size increase. If miners could've successfully coerced the community into adopting a block size increase, then why didn't they go on with it? FWIW: This encompasses the rationale behind UASF: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Which side do you think would fold first?

Hmm... I think that I now got what you said, but I'll prefer taking this step-by-step.

So the problem you're describing to me is that if the users do not agree with the miners and a fork occurred, one of the followings would happen first:

• People would remain to the fork they accept which isn't incentivizing miners.
• Miners would prefer mining the chain that benefits them the most. (in this case, the new one)

So, if the people migrated to the fork that wouldn't change Bitcoin and most of the miners to the one that benefits them the most, the security of the unchanged fork would decrease, but the money would remain. Thus, it'd be more profitable for the miners to mine what people follow and not what is benefiting them in the protocol level.

Am I correct so far?

[ranochigo]

People would remain to the fork they accept which isn't incentivizing miners.

Not necessarily. People choose the fork that they deem to be better for the community in general. Given the various stakeholders, either you come to a compromise or you choose the best for yourself.

So, if the people migrated to the fork that wouldn't change Bitcoin and most of the miners to the one that benefits them the most, the security of the unchanged fork would decrease, but the money would remain. Thus, it'd be more profitable for the miners to mine what people follow and not what is benefiting them in the protocol level.

Miners don't want the network to split, simple as that. If there comes a day that miners or the community are willing to destroy Bitcoin, by having a hard fork that separate the key stakeholders (or economic agents), then Bitcoin is doomed. It isn't about what chain is more profitable to mine on or which has more security, it is about making the rational decisions for themselves, by looking at the bigger picture. If you tarnish the reputation of Bitcoin and/or otherwise destroy the confidence of the general public and potential investors, then you're just digging a hole for yourself.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Miners don't want the network to split, simple as that. If there comes a day that miners or the community are willing to destroy Bitcoin, by having a hard fork that separate the key stakeholders (or economic agents), then Bitcoin is doomed.

So, this applies:

Thus, it'd be more profitable for the miners to mine what people follow and not what is benefiting them in the protocol level.

They mine what the people want. Thus, their fork will become meaningless if the people say so. That's why they'll never have more power than the people. Because, people are essentially the miners' incentive; the miners' income comes from the people's “vote” in the market. They're dependent from the people.

I think that I know cleared it up, thanks ranochigo!

[Wind_FURY]

Miners don't want the network to split, simple as that. If there comes a day that miners or the community are willing to destroy Bitcoin, by having a hard fork that separate the key stakeholders (or economic agents), then Bitcoin is doomed.

So, this applies:

Thus, it'd be more profitable for the miners to mine what people follow and not what is benefiting them in the protocol level.

They mine what the people want. Thus, their fork will become meaningless if the people say so. That's why they'll never have more power than the people. Because, people are essentially the miners' incentive; the miners' income comes from the people's “vote” in the market. They're dependent from the people.

I think that I know cleared it up, thanks ranochigo!

Yes, the vote is showed through which fork is dumped, and which coin is continued to be HODLed, and given value by the open market. The more valued fork would therefore get more hashing power.

Was it Bitfinex that listed two tokens, one for Bitcoin Unlimited and one for Bitcoin Core to let the market “speak” for itself?