Bitcoin's blockchain 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.

[1715179756]

1715179756

[1715179756]

1715179756

[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).