People who run Bitcoin Nodes, what's your opinion about the Ordinals/NFT?

[Rayser]

Your HD/SSD space is being used by Ordinals/NFT users right now. Do you like this? Do you consent?

[Upgrade00]

Ordinals suck for the strain it puts on the network causing higher fees, but nodes do not have to consent to anything when they are the ones keeping a record of the blockchain. It might not be ordinals and could be spammers flooding the network with little dust transactions and nodes would still keel a record of that for validity.

The disk space used is not significantly higher and if it's a bother, they can run a pruned node.

[EL MOHA]

The only bitcoin node owners or say runners that would actually be happy to with this ordinals and it’s likes been stored on bitcoin blockchain would be the miners because the storage actually creates congestion of transactions in the bitcoin network which also result in a higher transaction fee and a bigger reward for them. The last time the transaction fee was so high, a transaction fee accumulate for a block was even higher than the current block reward of 6.25 bitcoin.

As for a Node runner who doesn’t mines then this will certainly be frustrating as they will definitely have a high larger size of blockchain to actually store on there device which is more frustrating with them having to pay higher for transaction fees too if they want to broadcast a transaction. The cost of storing this data without earning from it will definitely not sit well with many of them.

[Rayser]

The only bitcoin node owners or say runners that would actually be happy to with this ordinals and it’s likes been stored on bitcoin blockchain would be the miners because the storage actually creates congestion of transactions in the bitcoin network which also result in a higher transaction fee and a bigger reward for them. The last time the transaction fee was so high, a transaction fee accumulate for a block was even higher than the current block reward of 6.25 bitcoin.

As for a Node runner who doesn’t mines then this will certainly be frustrating as they will definitely have a high larger size of blockchain to actually store on there device which is more frustrating with them having to pay higher for transaction fees too if they want to broadcast a transaction. The cost of storing this data without earning from it will definitely not sit well with many of them.

This disincentivizes people to run Bitcoin Nodes, and the network will be less decentralized, hurting the higher pillar of the Bitcoin Network.

[Upgrade00]

This disincentivizes people to run Bitcoin Nodes, and the network will be less decentralized, hurting the higher pillar of the Bitcoin Network.

It doesn't

With a hard drive of 2-4 Tb, you'll have no issue storing blockchain data for a long, long time. And it doesn't cost you up to $50

[Rayser]

This disincentivizes people to run Bitcoin Nodes, and the network will be less decentralized, hurting the higher pillar of the Bitcoin Network.

It doesn't

With a hard drive of 2-4 Tb, you'll have no issue storing blockchain data for a long, long time. And it doesn't cost you up to $50

Remember on top of that, I'm paying a higher fee on the mempool because of that Ordinals/NFT.

50$ is a lot in poor countries and we need people running nodes in all parts of the world, not only North America and Europe.

[Upgrade00]

50$ is a lot in poor countries and we need people running nodes in all parts of the world, not only North America and Europe.

With a 1Tb hard drive, anyone would be able to run a full node now. Bitcoin has been around 15 years and the total data space it's taking is just above 500gb

I used the 2-4TB to show that what you need to run a full node for many decades to come.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Your HD/SSD space is being used by Ordinals/NFT users right now. Do you like this? Do you consent?

Lots had been talked and discussed already about this ordinals inscriptions, it causes the transaction fee to raise quite alright, but one thing I don't think it would succeeded doing is to attack the network nodes, to me, I see this as a mere competition that they should only be the ones paying higher fees and not the host which are the bitcoiners making transactions, I think we are the landlord but the visitors are taking more space than we do at the expense of paying more, as long as this does not set an attack on the network, we will soon get over it.

[Rayser]

50$ is a lot in poor countries and we need people running nodes in all parts of the world, not only North America and Europe.

With a 1Tb hard drive, anyone would be able to run a full node now. Bitcoin has been around 15 years and the total data space it's taking is just above 500gb

I used the 2-4TB to show that what you need to run a full node for many decades to come.

Yeah, but the spammers are increasing more and more.

When this will stop?

[franky1]

The disk space used is not significantly higher and if it's a bother, they can run a pruned node.

if you prune you are then offering less network decentralised security service for the peers. as you no longer become a FULL node source of blockdata for new peers.

This disincentivizes people to run Bitcoin Nodes, and the network will be less decentralized, hurting the higher pillar of the Bitcoin Network.

It doesn't

With a hard drive of 2-4 Tb, you'll have no issue storing blockchain data for a long, long time. And it doesn't cost you up to $50

yep hard drives are cheap so keeping the full data is helping the higher pillar of the bitcoin network, and doesnt hurt the individual because hard drives are cheap.. thus non issue.. however pruning hurts the higher pillar of the bitcoin network

[Upgrade00]

if you prune you are then offering less network decentralised security service for the peers. as you no longer become a FULL node source of blockdata for new peers.

But it's better than not being a source of data at all.

[Artemis3]

Then use LukeJr patch and have your node without the spam. Besides, some of that spam can get you in trouble.

[franky1]

if you prune you are then offering less network decentralised security service for the peers. as you no longer become a FULL node source of blockdata for new peers.

But it's better than not being a source of data at all.

in torrent(analogy) terminology:
seeders add to the decentralisation of the torrent network
leechers just take from the network and cause more pressure on the seeders

being a leecher is better then not accessing torrents at all or relying on centralised streaming services..
but being a seeder is best

as for bitcoin
dont pretend to be a full node if you disabled full archive and also not fully validating every byte of all blocks, nor offering full data to peers

reminder: topic is about nodes.. not all types of software with bitcoin access, explore, usage are full nodes
you dont have to be a full node. but if you want to be.. hard drives are not a reason not to be.. hard drives are cheap and not a hindrance

but if you dont want to be. no problem, just dont proclaim to be a full node while not offering full network/peer services. be happy to admit you want to operate one of the other options that offer less network/peer services as default

[ranochigo]

dont pretend to be a full node if you disabled full archive and also not fully validating every byte of all blocks, nor offering full data to peers

Pruned nodes do validate all of the blocks during synchronization. Definition wise, not sure what's the fuss with it. If you can't provide the full blockchain history to your peers, you are already signalling that to others in your network flag.

you dont have to be a full node. but if you want to be.. hard drives are not a reason not to be.. hard drives are cheap and not a hindrance

but if you dont want to be. no problem, just dont proclaim to be a full node while not offering full network/peer services. be happy to admit you want to operate one of the other options that offer less network/peer services as default

Full node has traditionally been used to describe nodes who validates all of the blocks and transactions, and thus by the convention that we have always adopted, it would be considered a full node. Node operators are not compensated for the operation of their nodes, and I wouldn't go as far as to assume that everyone is willing to spend so much of their disk space just to run a full archival node.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Your HD/SSD space is being used by Ordinals/NFT users right now. Do you like this? Do you consent?

Like Ordinals or don't like Ordinals, they are part of Bitcoin on chain transactions and mempools. If you are Bitcoin enthusiast, I am sure you love decentralization and censorship resistance. So you will be against censorship even it is censorship against Ordinals.

The problems are now there is no other better way for Ordinals to operate on so if in future, Bitcoin developers can build up that space for Ordinals, like off-chain, layer 2, Ordinals migrate to their new better homes, Bitcoin mempools and on chain transactions will be better than now.

Generally I am against censorship like Eligius mining pool, Lukedashjr and Jack Dorsey proposed to do.

[franky1]

dont pretend to be a full node if you disabled full archive and also not fully validating every byte of all blocks, nor offering full data to peers

Pruned nodes do validate all of the blocks during synchronization. Definition wise, not sure what's the fuss with it. If you can't provide the full blockchain history to your peers, you are already signalling that to others in your network flag.

yes but if the network explorers like bitnodes is saying there are xx.xxxx nodes. do not suppose they are all "full nodes" you have to look at the useragents service bits to see if they are the top number to offer full servives.. and if the ratio of those that are vs those that are not lean more to those that are not. it means those that are have to service more nodes, slowing each one down fractionally

you dont have to be a full node. but if you want to be.. hard drives are not a reason not to be.. hard drives are cheap and not a hindrance
but if you dont want to be. no problem, just dont proclaim to be a full node while not offering full network/peer services. be happy to admit you want to operate one of the other options that offer less network/peer services as default

Full node has traditionally been used to describe nodes who validates all of the blocks and transactions, and thus by the convention that we have always adopted, it would be considered a full node. Node operators are not compensated for the operation of their nodes, and I wouldn't go as far as to assume that everyone is willing to spend so much of their disk space just to run a full archival node.

fully validate and archive(aswell as visible connections to seed peers and other stuff).. yep "full node" was a term used before pruning option was even an option

also, you do know the rules got softened right!!.
its how junk data (extra bytes) get to be in the blockchain without causing nodes to reject the junk..
the lack of care/concern by nodes that just allow uncertain/unchecked bytes to be allowed.. is a exploit that should not have happened

nodes dont validate every byte meets a purpose/format/function of a transaction. they instead see an opcode that just says "yea its valid, just accept it, dont check it"

emphasis bitcoin full nodes used to VALIDATE .. EVERY.. BYTE.
every byte used to have a purpose because previous generation of devs actually cared about lean transactions

you are not a full node if you are just adding junk without the node checking each byte has a purpose and then pruning said data

[BitPuzzle]

my ssd is being used by crackers/ miners for so many years that i really dont know what to do

[ranochigo]

you do know the rules got softened right!!.
its how junk data (extra bytes) get to be in the blockchain without causing nodes to reject the junk..
nodes dont validate every byte meets a purpose/format/function of a transaction. they instead see an opcode that just says "yea its valid, just accept it, dont check it"

emphasis bitcoin full nodes used to VALIDATE .. EVERY.. BYTE.
every byte used to have a purpose becasue previous generation of devs actually cared about lean transactions

Then what is the difference between an archival full node and a pruned full node? Remember, you seemed to have taken issue with labelling pruned nodes as full nodes, while retaining that term exclusively for full nodes which stores the entire blockchain. So what gives? Don't both of them act in a similar manner?

[blckhawk]

my ssd is being used by crackers/ miners for so many years that i really dont know what to do

You can probably stop hosting right? I don't know what's the deal with nodes so I'm being ignorant here and saying what's obvious in that situation. If I were running a node though, I think I will probably get frustrated because it's a really stupid reason for why the node that I run is being used for that, kind of like you're allowing people to take a picture in your wall but some choose to carve or do some vandalism on it and you can't do anything about it.

[franky1]

you do know the rules got softened right!!.
its how junk data (extra bytes) get to be in the blockchain without causing nodes to reject the junk..
nodes dont validate every byte meets a purpose/format/function of a transaction. they instead see an opcode that just says "yea its valid, just accept it, dont check it"

emphasis bitcoin full nodes used to VALIDATE .. EVERY.. BYTE.
every byte used to have a purpose becasue previous generation of devs actually cared about lean transactions

Then what is the difference between an archival full node and a pruned full node? Remember, you seemed to have taken issue with labelling pruned nodes as full nodes, while retaining that term exclusively for full nodes which stores the entire blockchain. So what gives? Don't both of them act in a similar manner?

the difference is YOU are foolishly adding in the word FULL to nodes that are not offering full network service
the emphasis is the word FULL  means FULL
YOU imply something less then full service is still full


there are full nodes..... (do all network services)
       then below that, there are pruned nodes (DONT do all network services)
and then if they dont do validation then they are software/wallets (just communicate to network or server then to network) for users benefit, not network benefit

the emphasis is the word FULL  means FULL
YOU imply something less then full service is still full

you do need to realise the difference between a software/wallet on a network vs a node of the network..
a node does things FOR THE NETWORK, where as software is on a network just doing things FOR THE USER

thus a full node does full network service
then depending on what services are switched off becomes lower levels of descriptions until its just features that only benefit the user(not network peers). which then become software describers

pruning is a "less than" full network service
other peers cannot bloom filter/request certain blocks/transactions in history from you
other peers cannot initial block download startup the history from you