User:
AssiduousAdditional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65771118#msg65771118.
List of post:
Running a node on older hardware is definitely possible, but it’s good that you’re asking these questions first.
Hardware:
2GB RAM and an HDD will work, but don’t expect smooth performance. Initial sync will be slow and the system may feel sluggish. If upgrading RAM to 4GB or using an SSD (even externally) is an option, it will improve things a lot. Still, for learning purposes, your current setup is usable.
Full vs pruned node:
A pruned node still fully validates the blockchain, it just doesn’t keep all old blocks. On limited hardware, pruning makes much more sense. You get the security and learning benefits without stressing your disk and system. A full node is nice, but not essential in your case.
Linux choice:
If you’ve never used Linux before, stick to something simple and stable. Ubuntu LTS or Linux Mint are both good options. They have strong community support and plenty of guides specific to Bitcoin Core.
Tor:
Tor isn’t required, but it’s a plus for privacy and censorship resistance. I’d suggest running the node normally first, then enabling Tor later once everything is working and you’re more comfortable.
Overall, the most important thing is reliability, not raw power. A modest node that stays online and verifies its own transactions is already a meaningful contribution to the network.
1. Both full node and pruned node still stress the device. On device with small RAM capacity, massive read/write (due to UTXO/chainstate) still happens. In addition, both still download and verify whole blockchain.
2. The one who asked question already mentioned he could upgrade the RAM, so saying " If upgrading RAM to 4GB ... is an option" isn't exactly helpful.
3. Other part of his port already mentioned by other member.
But I could also just upgrade the ram of the other laptop that I've mentioned to 8GB.
This is one of the better explanations I’ve seen on the OP_RETURN discussion lately. A lot of the panic seems to come from treating this change as something fundamentally new, when in reality it mostly reshuffles incentives.
The key point, in my opinion, is that OP_RETURN has always been the least harmful way to store non-financial data. The real damage to nodes and decentralization comes from fake pubkey outputs and, to a lesser extent, Taproot witness abuse. Making OP_RETURN more flexible doesn’t open a new door — it just makes the safest door more visible.
I also agree with the economic argument. NFTs don’t appear out of thin air just because a policy default changed. As long as fees remain the same, profitability remains the same. Anyone claiming Bitcoin Core 30 will suddenly flood the chain with junk seems to ignore this.
The only realistic risk I see is social, not technical: a short-term hype cycle around “OP_RETURN-based NFTs”, similar to what happened with Ordinals. That could temporarily increase data usage, but it wouldn’t change the long-term equilibrium.
A gradual increase in standardness limits might have avoided some controversy, but overall this looks more like damage mitigation than spam enablement. Good post, and thanks for keeping it accessible without oversimplifying.
1. This reply isn't exactly helpful since it mostly summarize and rephrase thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559215.02. NFT based on OP_RETURN already exist far before Bitcoin Core v30 released, such as Runes.
3. NFT profitability doesn't really care about TX fee rate. It's proven during past Ordinal hype, where there are many Ordinal TX with very high fee rate.
