Full relay : cost and benefits

[unixux]

Good day all,

Maintaining the entire blockchain ledger and running a full relay by general public is a crucial, foundational aspect of BTC. It's also a substantial commitment in storage, bandwidth and increased need for security. While IMHO those who can, should do it as a public service, there's also a possibility of network somehow compensating those who maintain full ledger. I wonder if this has ever been pondered : can it be done in a way that would incentivize it for individual, independent users vs corporate agents with quasi-unlimited resources ? What are the downsides and upsides beyond obvious ? What does the future hold - what will full ledger look like in a decade from now and how viable will it be then for Joe Internet to keep it on his home network ? Has anyone considered a compression algo that would specialize in good blockchain performance ?

Currently (2023) full ledger is about 435 Gb.  Bandwidth consumption of 200G/month in UPLOADS is reported norm, if left unchecked. I feel a systemic risk to the network that may drift momentum towards large users with unlimited storage and bandwidth in a way that may jeopardize security and decentralized nature of the network.

On other hand, how critical is most of that data to stability and security of the blockchain ? Perhaps my concerns are out of ignorance and it will do just fine when less then 0.01% of all self-hosted nodes maintain a full copy.

With respect
unixux

[1714484822]

1714484822

[1714484822]

1714484822

[1714484822]

1714484822

[1714484822]

1714484822

[1714484822]

1714484822

[1714484822]

1714484822

[Findingnemo]

Running full Node doesn't give any incentives like mining and also it has been discussed in the past about incentivizing full node operators but implementing such changes would require careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences. So all the nodes running are driven in the sense of contributing to the network.

But having your own full node gives you complete privacy, and mitigates the reliance on someone's information.

Alternatively, you can find ways to run nodes in the most efficient ways and already an idea proposed by @n0nce

[Guide] How to run a Bitcoin Core full node for under 50 bucks!

[Z-tight]

Full nodes are major contributors to the BTC network, contributing to the safety and efficiency of the network is incentivizing already. There are other advantages to running a full node, like full 'independence' and privacy; you can validate transactions locally and you don't have to connect to third party servers. If the incentives you are looking for is through earning, there is none, but you can always buy mining gears and try competing for blocks.

[Ucy]

One of the options I have considered in the past is to find a way to distribute the original/full copy of the Bitcoin blockchain on cheap storage devices for offline sharing worldwide. People can just buy or get them for free, install on their computers and join the Bitcoin Network. But I think it would be necessary for the offline copies to be verified as authentic before they are allowed to become part of the Network. Maybe hashing the full copy of the Blockchain and verifying the hash, or/and resyncing would solve this.


Edit: every community, town, city allover the World could do well to have atleast 2 or 3 persons or node runners who can afford to run a fully synced Bitcoin chain on daily basis . These persons can serve as main Blockchain file distributors/sharers, transaction verifiers etc, for the rest of the Community without full nodes

[franky1]

currently storing 14 years of international currency and the next 4years+ requires


the real concern is not storage cost

the cost to store YEARS of data become pennies per day
however if it costs dollars just to make a transaction. people wont want to use the network daily thus wont want to run a node on the network

transaction cost per daily use is more important factor than blockchain storage cost per decade

do the math
if you can by 1tb storage for say $100 knowing you might need to upgrade every 8 years.. (lets use 5 for convenience)
thats $0.06 a day

compare that to doing 1 transaction per day at $2 to warrant having a PC on each day.
the cost of using bitcoin is over 30x more then the cost of storing bitcoins blockchain

so concentrate on debates about bringing the cost of using bitcoin down becasue the cost of storing bitcoin is not unmanageable

[LoyceV]

It's also a substantial commitment in storage, bandwidth and increased need for security.

You need security for your funds, but it's less important if you only run a node to support the network. If it gets compromised, nothing is lost.

there's also a possibility of network somehow compensating those who maintain full ledger. I wonder if this has ever been pondered : can it be done in a way that would incentivize it for individual, independent users vs corporate agents with quasi-unlimited resources ? What are the downsides and upsides beyond obvious ?

This has been discussed before, and my response is the same: I'd spin up thousands of cloud nodes for profit

Currently (2023) full ledger is about 435 Gb.

Actually, it's 100 GB more by now.

Bandwidth consumption of 200G/month in UPLOADS is reported norm, if left unchecked.

I have a full node limited to 0.5 TB per day (as a precaution) in uploads. Since May 8, it has uploaded only 2.17 TB. That's 800 GB per month. This tells me Bitcoin doesn't have a shortage in upload bandwidth.

On other hand, how critical is most of that data to stability and security of the blockchain ? Perhaps my concerns are out of ignorance and it will do just fine when less then 0.01% of all self-hosted nodes maintain a full copy.

I expect a much larger percentage of Bitcoin users to keep a full node. Obviously, I'm not counting the "Bitcoin users" who only buy and keep Bitcoin on exchanges.

One of the options I have considered in the past is to find a way to distribute the original/full copy of the Bitcoin blockchain on cheap storage devices for offline sharing worldwide. People can just buy or get them for free, install on their computers and join the Bitcoin Network. But I think it would be necessary for the offline copies to be verified as authentic before they are allowed to become part of the Network. Maybe hashing the full copy of the Blockchain and verifying the hash, or/and resyncing would solve this.

That would only be useful in places with limited internet access, and for those places, downloading up to 0.5 GB per day just to keep the node updated may be too much already.

so concentrate on debates about bringing the cost of using bitcoin down becasue the cost of storing bitcoin is not unmanageable

It goes hand in hand though: if Bitcoin blocks would be an order of magnitude larger, transactions would be cheap for a while, but the required storage would grow much faster.

[Blitzboy]

The complete blockchain ledger is, indeed, quite large. Yes, a lot of time and money are needed. The majority of the nodes may ultimately be controlled by a few large organizations. Is that truly a negative thing, though? Its easy to get lost in the weeds and start worrying about every little thing. Perhaps major firms will be able to exert more influence. Perhaps they will alter Bitcoin into something completely different. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll aid in its development and steadiness. It has nothing to do with incentives or algorithms, but rather the network's general trajectory. Bitcoin's strength is in the hands of its users. Bitcoin will thrive despite its size, complexity, and skepticism so long as there is a committed user base that believes in its promise.

[franky1]

so concentrate on debates about bringing the cost of using bitcoin down becasue the cost of storing bitcoin is not unmanageable

It goes hand in hand though: if Bitcoin blocks would be an order of magnitude larger, transactions would be cheap for a while, but the required storage would grow much faster.

you dont even need to shout bigger blocks.. (its time you drop the cult narrative)
you dont need to shout its 1999 and storage is limited.. (its time you drop the cult narrative) its 2023

even if you dont want to use a microSD card the size of a fingertip and went for more conventional hard drives. you can get more then 1TB for under $100 in this modern age of post millenial mindset. remember its 2023 not 1990s

anyways

if the byte miscounting cludge and the segregation separation were to be removed and everything went to a lean legacy tx format of utilising the SAME 4mb space per block allowed today.. the storage would grow at the same rate as today.. not faster. and the amount of tx count per day would grow meaning the cost per transaction would come down

also it would stop the ordinal scam tx's from being in blocks meaning even more room for genuine transactors

along with a better fee formulation than the current:  legacy *4. and instead have utxo age <70= *100 would penalise other types of spammers too.. meaning less spammers and only penalise spammers for premium fees. would reduce fees even more and make more room for genuine transactions to take priority thus allowing more people to get priority sooner rather being treated as second class users. thus make people want to be active and help support the network and want to run nodes more regularly.. all without "required storage would grow much faster"

again looking at a 4mb block space as being the equivalent of 208gb per year (1tb /5 year) meaning $0.06 a day storage cost comparing to todays ~$2 per tx FEE cost... its the FEES that make less people want to use bitcoin daily as most people on the internet already paid for a modern device just to get online so the device cost is not really a main thought.. its the utility of a payment system cost per use.
when fees are over 30x more then storage and storage comes as standard with most devices these days.. storage is not the main concern

[jrrsparkles]

Bitcoin's strength is in the hands of its users. Bitcoin will thrive despite its size, complexity, and skepticism so long as there is a committed user base that believes in its promise.

The strength of bitcoin is based on its decentralization so it will be higher if the nodes are higher and scattered into different individuals so if a substantial portion of the network is controlled by a group with opposing values, it may create distrust among users and investors. This loss of trust could result in decreased confidence in Bitcoin's utility and long-term viability.

It is very important to have the more nodes of the network to determine its decentralization or else we may see censorship over the transactions.

[franky1]

Bitcoin's strength is in the hands of its users. Bitcoin will thrive despite its size, complexity, and skepticism so long as there is a committed user base that believes in its promise.

The strength of bitcoin is based on its decentralization so it will be higher if the nodes are higher and scattered into different individuals so if a substantial portion of the network is controlled by a group with opposing values, it may create distrust among users and investors. This loss of trust could result in decreased confidence in Bitcoin's utility and long-term viability.

It is very important to have the more nodes of the network to determine its decentralization or else we may see censorship over the transactions.

if nodes are of a substantial portion of a cult(brand) that only sees one path.. then only one path is always followed(like sheep).. it works great when that path has benefits for everyone.. but when that path has flaws. the cult will follow it anyway and not want the flaws fixed due to trust and belief of their dev gods. where the blind belief and trust are: delays, avoiding and evading for the good of their cult(blind faith).

decentralisation works best when opposing views can atleast unite and contribute and agree and consent to a fair balance any majority can accept. thus even opposing something even a diverse majority of open minded opposers think are not of benefit. but agreeing to thing even opposers see as benefit of the majority.. and also not depending on god like creatures to blindly believe in. but instead have options to progress to a new path if the cultish path is going down the wrong path

[jrrsparkles]

if nodes are of a substantial portion of a cult that only sees one path.. then only one path is always followed(like sheep).. it works great when that path has benefits for everyone.. but when that path has flaws. the cult will follow it anyway and not want the flaws fixed due to trust and belief of their dev gods are delay, avoiding and evading for the good of their cult(blind faith).

decentralisation works best when opposing views can atleast units and contribute and agree and consent to a fair balance any majority can accept. thus opposing something even a diverse majority of open minded opposers think are not of benefit. and also not depending on god like creature to blindly believe in. but instead have options to progress to a new path if the cultish path is going down the wrong path

Running our own nodes has its own benefits as well not just to the network and also for the users it just provides the opportunity to verify their transactions on their own without needs data from others which means your privacy is preserved while making the overall network to be more resilient and decentralized.

[ImThour]

I never knew the storage space required to manage a full node now is near ~ 500 GB. That's crazy I would say, someone from a third world country with a poor internet connection might not be able to set it up for himself or herself when it's 500 GB, they might get timed out by their Internet Service Provider, doesn't that make it only First World Country ability to run a full node? They should work on it's optimization and make it available for everyone who belives in Bitcoin.

[franky1]

I never knew the storage space required to manage a full node now is near ~ 500 GB. That's crazy I would say, someone from a third world country with a poor internet connection might not be able to set it up for himself or herself when it's 500 GB, they might get timed out by their Internet Service Provider, doesn't that make it only First World Country ability to run a full node? They should work on it's optimization and make it available for everyone who belives in Bitcoin.

its not a <600gb per session
its currently 600GB for 14 years of data. which does not need to be downloaded repeatedly each time you load the software.

funny thing is 600GB is not even 10 PS4 games
its not even 20 HD movies
so if you are worried about bitcoins international currency network of 14 years of existence. then you certainly must worry about a couple weeks worth of HD movies

there are already litenodes that dont need full archiving so its not a pre requisite for everyone to NEED to be a full node. but for those that want and desire to be. those that want to be should not be FUD'ed into scare tactics that it requires a factory of servers just to run bitcoin as a full node. becasue its not a situation of needing to run a server just to be a full node

[LoyceV]

I never knew the storage space required to manage a full node now is near ~ 500 GB. That's crazy I would say, someone from a third world country with a poor internet connection might not be able to set it up for himself or herself when it's 500 GB, they might get timed out by their Internet Service Provider, doesn't that make it only First World Country ability to run a full node? They should work on it's optimization and make it available for everyone who belives in Bitcoin.

What do you suggest "they" do about it? The trivial solution is getting a better internet connection, which will take time. It's much easier just use a light wallet instead of a full node. The blockchain can't be made smaller than it is without being trustless.

funny thing is 600GB is not even 10 PS4 games
its not even 20 HD movies
so if you are worried about bitcoins international currency network of 14 years of existence. then you certainly must worry about a couple weeks worth of HD movies

ImThour isn't talking about the countries where downloading HD movies is the standard. I estimate our household consumes about 500 GB (one Bitcoin blockchain) per month, and that's totally fine even though my internet speed is under the country's average.
But even if you get only 7 Mbit/s in for instance Nigeria, you'll still be able to download the full blockchain in a week if there's no bandwidth limit (I can't find any data on bandwidth limits per country).

I don't think this is much of a problem. If you can't download 500 GB, or don't even have a PC: use Electrum or any other trusted light wallet.

[franky1]

funny thing is 600GB is not even 10 PS4 games
its not even 20 HD movies
so if you are worried about bitcoins international currency network of 14 years of existence. then you certainly must worry about a couple weeks worth of HD movies

ImThour isn't talking about the countries where downloading HD movies is the standard. I estimate our household consumes about 500 GB (one Bitcoin blockchain) per month, and that's totally fine even though my internet speed is under the country's average.
But even if you get only 7 Mbit/s in for instance Nigeria, you'll still be able to download the full blockchain in a week if there's no bandwidth limit (I can't find any data on bandwidth limits per country).

I don't think this is much of a problem. If you can't download 500 GB, or don't even have a PC: use Electrum or any other trusted light wallet.

most developing countries skipped passed the old days of copper wire, and went straight to 5G, where most people stream movies instead of cable..

as for other instances of fake scares.. majority of the world play online games and live stream it, meaning alot of bandwidth. no one is screaming blue murder that the games industry is broke and requires someone to own a server farm

[Ambatman]

The strength of bitcoin is based on its decentralization so it will be higher if the nodes are higher and scattered into different individuals so if a substantial portion of the network is controlled by a group with opposing values, it may create distrust among users and investors. This loss of trust could result in decreased confidence in Bitcoin's utility and long-term viability.

Opposing view is vital in Bitcoin decentralization.
Supporting views might create an hive.
Which would require a queen bee.
Even in the political system it check and balance power.
More opposing nodes would reduce efficiency
But would boost effectives.

But even if you get only 7 Mbit/s in for instance Nigeria, you'll still be able to download the full blockchain in a week if there's no bandwidth limit (I can't find any data on bandwidth limits per country).

I believe its at least more than 15.7million Mbps.
Which was recorded by a company around 2021.
I'm not sure there's any full node user in Nigeria.
Not to mention we kinda skeptical
Towards 5g network.
Due to belief that it releases more radiation
Than other network.
So 4G is more popular here.

I feel a systemic risk to the network that may drift momentum towards large users with unlimited storage and bandwidth in a way that may jeopardize security and decentralized nature of the network.

Yeah I understand your view.
Fortunately technological development isn't stagnant.
The faster the growth the cheaper the previous version's.
As long as technology growth is higher than Bitcoin's.
I would say there's nothing to worry about
I still believe scalability as a bigger issue for Bitcoin currently.

[franky1]

reasons nigerian countries are reluctant to USE bitcoin is the FEE's per transaction
if a transaction is $2 and a nigerians real world income is $0.30 an hour. they would have to work most of a whole day just to pay a fee to use bitcoin..
.. this is why even when other payment subnetworks based on bitcoin tried to adopt nigerians. the nigerians pulled away too becasue even the onramp (lock in fee) from bitcoin to subnetwork was a turn off
it had nothing to do with device cost.

most people with internet access have a device and not everyone is required to be a full node. but if your not even going to USE the network, then your definitely not going to keep your device on to support a network you dont even use.

so the key is to ensure people get to USE the network to then want to SUPPORT the network security

places like el salvador and africa tried the subnetwork that pretends to promote bitcoin . but they fell into traps of never being able to unlock funds out of the subnetwork and didnt like the issues of fee cost of bitcoin when they did unlock(in small occasions) those example countries ended up using centralised exchanges as their fund custodians and just avoiding USING the subnetworks enticing them with lower fees entirely, thus avoided supporting the security and decentralisation of the not only the cheaper subnetwork pretense, but also the actual bitcoin network entirely

[LoyceV]

reasons nigerian countries are reluctant to USE bitcoin is the FEE's per transaction
if a transaction is $2

And if a transaction costs $200 it's difficult everywhere. But currently, a small Bitcoin transaction gets a fast confirmation for only $0.20, so your argument isn't very strong.

[vapourminer]

I never knew the storage space required to manage a full node now is near ~ 500 GB. That's crazy I would say, someone from a third world country with a poor internet connection might not be able to set it up for himself or herself when it's 500 GB, they might get timed out by their Internet Service Provider, doesn't that make it only First World Country ability to run a full node? They should work on it's optimization and make it available for everyone who belives in Bitcoin.

You're exaggerating. Unless the ISP offer very low data cap or FUP, downloading ~500GB blockchain is possible, although it would take some time. When i initially run full node, i remember it took few weeks to download whole blockchain.

youre forgetting those of us who have no wired service. its all satellite/4g in our world. it would take literally many, many months to sync from genesis.

my issue is bandwidth and data caps, not storage. and im sure im not alone. 1st world status means nothing when the nearest infrastructure is miles away.

[LoyceV]

my issue is bandwidth, not storage and im sure im not alone.

How about keeping up with new blocks? That takes about 6-16 GB per month. Isn't that too much already? I wouldn't want to do that on mobile data.