What to know of Nodes and Running a Node

[JiiBs]

The vastness of Bitcoin leaves me with the question of if I could really grasp what it’s all about. I have come to understand that most individuals have come to like it out of the profits or gains it could accord them and truths be told, I would like that as well but, not having a peep into it’s technology or how it actually works is something I feel is important and a need to know. This gives reasons as to why I dived into this part of the platform. It’s almost a fascination to me as I’m trying to erase hear say and what I might have thought to be over the years of the technology as well as, take up Bitcoin investments.

I beacon on you guys to not mind my language if I get most things wrong but, I’ve been greatly confused reading on here and the more I read, the more lost and complicated it gets as there isn’t a clear definition to things here. Maybe to my layman’s understanding.

One term I have seen reoccurring in this section is the term NODE. Just a glance at this section and you would find it repeating several times. I tried checking it up on the web and this is said about it is that,

A NODE is a physical device such as the computer or a device of its equivalent that participates in the confirmation and storage of Bitcoin data. In essence, this is to mean that, any computer device that is used in Bitcoin confirmation and data storage is a node right?

If that is correct, how then do one gets to link his personal home computer to a sophisticated network such as the blockchain network, in essence, run a node and do confirmation tasks.
Is this achievable with one computer device or one must have more than one device linked by some cable to perform these tasks.

[ranochigo]

Nodes don't confirm transactions, but miners do. They do so by including transactions in blocks and inserting into the blockchain thereafter.

You'd most likely find the term nodes when talking about Bitcoin full nodes. Full nodes are those that validates every single block and transactions before relaying it to their peers. Hence, it is called a node because it is supposed to connect to other full nodes, and optionally allow other nodes to connect to it. Anyone can run a node, you just need to run Bitcoin Core.

[ABCbits]

A NODE is a physical device such as the computer or a device of its equivalent that participates in the confirmation and storage of Bitcoin data. In essence, this is to mean that, any computer device that is used in Bitcoin confirmation and data storage is a node right?

Not confirmation (as in adding transaction into a block), but rather verification of all blocks and transactions. And while node usually store all Bitcoin data, it's possible to only store recent blocks.

Anyone can run a node, you just need to run Bitcoin Core.

As reminder, Bitcoin Core isn't the only Bitcoin full node software out there. Although Bitcoin Core is most popular ones while using computational resource efficiently.

[bitmover]

If that is correct, how then do one gets to link his personal home computer to a sophisticated network such as the blockchain network, in essence, run a node and do confirmation tasks.
Is this achievable with one computer device or one must have more than one device linked by some cable to perform these tasks.

You can find system requirements for running a full node here
You will also find instructions on how to downloAd the proper software (Bitcoin core) and how to setup.

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#special-cases

[apogio]

People above said it all, but I want to make things even simpler.

A node is device that runs bitcoin software. Bitcoin is a piece of software.

If you are absolutely new to the concept and have no idea at all, you can follow this link: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ and download Bitcoin Core.

It will take some time (some days) to sync and then you will be running a node. It's simple as that.

[promise444c5]

Once the node runs a pending tnx,the miners complete the hash and a nonce session  using their minning hardwares for the process to open a new block which is collected by the  node to store  the hashed contents and other datas does forming a blockchain and this is because  previous hash from previous blocks are included in the new blocks successively  to prevent any form of tampering .

 Therefore the nodes collects hashed  to store as a form of  blockchain, anyone can run a node it's  free to run. 
Once the validation  is done, each node runned by each users gets a copy of the block and if another is validated you  get another block forming blocks of transactions  on a blockchain.

Miners are sometimes confused for  nodes and yes they are nodes  but a human node  (a type of full node) ,which take part in the validation process  just as the node does

[Cricktor]

You don't necessarily need to run a Bitcoin node to understand how Bitcoin works. It's a piece of software that runs on your computer and talks to other similar pieces of software over the internet. There's not terribly much to see when such a node is doing its "thing".

Work through beginner and technical pages at https://learnmeabitcoin.com and you'll learn more about Bitcoin, what nodes do and how "Bitcoin works" than running a node yourself with little prior Bitcoin knowledge.

Do I run a node? Yes, and for particular purposes I run more than a single Bitcoin node. The very main reason why I run at least one full non-pruning Bitcoin node and an Electrum server is that I don't want to have my Electrum or Sparrow wallet(s) communicate with foreign Electrum servers. I prefer that my wallet software only talks to my own blockchain data providers. No other foreign computer needs to know details about my wallet's addresses and their history. I value privacy and pay the price for it (running my own node and Electrum server). All I need is a Raspi 4B and a 1TB SSD to run my Bitcoin Core node.

[JiiBs]

Oh it isn’t confirmation but validation. While confirmation is subject to miners, validation has got to do with anyone running nodes. Okay, I get that although, I can’t help it but notice a lot of similarity in these words confirmation and validation. I’ve had to check them up while,

Confirmation talks about having to confirm that there is something and with respect to the context of discussion, I’ll say confirming that there is a Bitcoin transaction been sent… is that it?
Does this have to do with arranging it in blocks too?

Validation on the other hand talks more about, having to approve or making something official and in this case, I understand it to be, making the blocks a legal document by storing the confirmed blocked transactions… (hope am getting this right though).

If you are absolutely new to the concept and have no idea at all, you can follow this link: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ and download Bitcoin Core.

It will take some time (some days) to sync and then you will be running a node. It's simple as that.

Well, this talks about having to download, install, set up and have it running on your system which seems rather simple to archive but, after reading through this:

You can find system requirements for running a full node here
You will also find instructions on how to downloAd the proper software (Bitcoin core) and how to setup.

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#special-cases

It doesn’t seem like a very simple thing to do with the systems to breakdown as per data limits, upload limits, means to wallet protection and many other instructions or requirements that needs to be followed. I get it that it ain’t something that would be grasped all at once and it is something that wouldn’t be all understood from a theoretical approach but, I really hope to be grounded enough to take up the task should I wish to.

The article provided didn’t talk more on what could result as per breakdowns in terms of the disruption of the data upload by limits of due to the network providers.
What effect could this have on me and on the network if any?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Confirmation talks about having to confirm that there is something and with respect to the context of discussion, I’ll say confirming that there is a Bitcoin transaction been sent… is that it?

Read this:

• Confirmation of a transaction: the act of including the transaction in a block, and mining on top of it. If the most recent block contains your transaction, it has 1 confirmation. If somebody mined a block on top of that, it now has 2 confirmations.
• Validation of a transaction: the act of verifying if a transaction complies with the consensus rules.

- In validation, you validate the authenticity. If someone tries to counterfeit bitcoins, for instance by spending non-existent inputs, the Bitcoin software will treat this as invalid.
- In confirmation, you confirm that it's been included in the chain with the most work. Mining is what increases the confirmation of a transaction.

The article provided didn’t talk more on what could result as per breakdowns in terms of the disruption of the data upload by limits of due to the network providers.

Can you give us an example of a breakdown that would disrupt the network?

[JiiBs]

I just did a quick read at what you already provided but am sure to take a second and more calm look at I later though, I can say it seems to be worth the read and clears things up a bit, having to read on the Consensus rule (softfork and hardfork) as highlighted in your quote response, it’s good you did bring this up to my notice, thanks.

The article provided didn’t talk more on what could result as per breakdowns in terms of the disruption of the data upload by limits of due to the network providers.

Can you give us an example of a breakdown that would disrupt the network?

About this,
The article as provided by Bitmover (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#special-cases) which i did quote in my early response talked about problems that could occur in terms of running a full node and some of those was,

Bandwidth limit: this had to do with having a defined limit for your bitcoin core and might be over run at times due to excessive usage and when your service provider or internet plan doesn’t support, it could result in a sudden halt or disruption. The article also talked about,

Attack targets: where Bitcoin core users are being attacked with an intention to disrupt the network as Bitcoin core powers Peer to peer services which would in a way limit bandwidth limits.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Usually, Internet providers don't enforce bandwidth limits that influence the operation of such a non-expensive protocol. There are protocols like BitTorrent that work flawlessly, and with much greater bandwidth. These policies vary based on region and specific providers; it has never been a problem for the Bitcoin network as far as I'm concerned. You can also choose to not accept incoming connections (which is the default) and reduce your total bandwidth by a lot.

Attack targets: where Bitcoin core users are being attacked with an intention to disrupt the network as Bitcoin core powers Peer to peer services which would in a way limit bandwidth limits.

There are over 50,000 nodes as we speak, 20%+ of them operating under a hidden service. I very much doubt you can effectively disrupt the network in that way.

[ABCbits]

Bandwidth limit: this had to do with having a defined limit for your bitcoin core and might be over run at times due to excessive usage and when your service provider or internet plan doesn’t support, it could result in a sudden halt or disruption. The article also talked about,

Bitcoin Core have maxuploadtarget to limit upload size every 24 hours. As for download, there's upper limit following maximum block size which can be used to estimated total download size.

Attack targets: where Bitcoin core users are being attacked with an intention to disrupt the network as Bitcoin core powers Peer to peer services which would in a way limit bandwidth limits.

Bitcoin Core (which have feature to ban misbehaving peers) and firewall (to prevent DDoS and close most network port) should mitigate such attack.

[JiiBs]

Bitcoin Core (which have feature to ban misbehaving peers) and firewall (to prevent DDoS and close most network port) should mitigate such attack.

Responses so far gives the idea that nothing could really go wrong and any possible flaw that could have result have been prepared or mitigated for. Hence, an attack through the exploitation of limits by sending several requests to initiate a Distributed Distribution of Service isn’t possible, I get that.
It’s a perfect system after all, that seems to be the case!

[ABCbits]

Bitcoin Core (which have feature to ban misbehaving peers) and firewall (to prevent DDoS and close most network port) should mitigate such attack.

Responses so far gives the idea that nothing could really go wrong and any possible flaw that could have result have been prepared or mitigated for. Hence, an attack through the exploitation of limits by sending several requests to initiate a Distributed Distribution of Service isn’t possible, I get that.
It’s a perfect system after all, that seems to be the case!

What i actually imply is such attack is very unlikely to succeed. And FYI, there's no thing such as perfect system or perfect security.

[JiiBs]

What i actually imply is such attack is very unlikely to succeed. And FYI, there's no thing such as perfect system or perfect security.

Does this have to do with the consensus rule, in the sense that, it’s very unlikely to succeed given that the majority is still with the lot of users running nodes and as such, an attacker can’t hope to override everyone and have a majority consensus on there side.

[NotATether]

Does this have to do with the consensus rule, in the sense that, it’s very unlikely to succeed given that the majority is still with the lot of users running nodes and as such, an attacker can’t hope to override everyone and have a majority consensus on there side.

Mainly, you cannot possibly hope to spawn the thousands of servers required to carry out such an attack without spending millions of dollars on hosting costs first.

I guess if someone wanted to, they could try that. But Bitcoin Core has a built-in feature to ban peers as ABCbits just said, so it's highly likely that someone will be able to find most of the attacker's IP addresses and make a script that bans them all and upload it to the internet for other people to use.

[ABCbits]

What i actually imply is such attack is very unlikely to succeed. And FYI, there's no thing such as perfect system or perfect security.

Does this have to do with the consensus rule, in the sense that, it’s very unlikely to succeed given that the majority is still with the lot of users running nodes and as such, an attacker can’t hope to override everyone and have a majority consensus on there side.

Not related with consensus rule, i was talking about attack which disrupt network connectivity. But if someone want to change consensus rule of running node, they need to take control over the server first and replace the full node software.

I guess if someone wanted to, they could try that. But Bitcoin Core has a built-in feature to ban peers as ABCbits just said, so it's highly likely that someone will be able to find most of the attacker's IP addresses and make a script that bans them all and upload it to the internet for other people to use.

Or they could pay someone to find vulnerability on either Bitcoin Core or certain firewall about performing network attack without getting banned.

[Wind_FURY]

Attack targets: where Bitcoin core users are being attacked with an intention to disrupt the network as Bitcoin core powers Peer to peer services which would in a way limit bandwidth limits.

There are over 50,000 nodes as we speak, 20%+ of them operating under a hidden service. I very much doubt you can effectively disrupt the network in that way.

Plus one of the main strengths of the system is, although OP's concern that a disruption of the network is probable, the nodes could always connect back to the network and sync to the current state of the blockchain, then continue like the disruption didn't happen.

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin Core (which have feature to ban misbehaving peers) and firewall (to prevent DDoS and close most network port) should mitigate such attack.

Actually firewalls doesn't stop DDoS, or at least to the extent that you think it does. ISPs and server providers are more keen to blackhole your traffic than to deal with the traffic.

Does this have to do with the consensus rule, in the sense that, it’s very unlikely to succeed given that the majority is still with the lot of users running nodes and as such, an attacker can’t hope to override everyone and have a majority consensus on there side.

Consensus rules isn't defined by the proportion of the nodes. Each node would have the set of consensus rules to follow, and you can't change the rules by spawning a whole bunch of nodes enforcing another rule. It'll just be labelled as misbehaving and they would have their own fork.

[Wind_FURY]

Does this have to do with the consensus rule, in the sense that, it’s very unlikely to succeed given that the majority is still with the lot of users running nodes and as such, an attacker can’t hope to override everyone and have a majority consensus on there side.

Consensus rules isn't defined by the proportion of the nodes. Each node would have the set of consensus rules to follow, and you can't change the rules by spawning a whole bunch of nodes enforcing another rule. It'll just be labelled as misbehaving and they would have their own fork.

And the difference between that, and BIP-148 as proposed by shaolinfry, is that it has no upgrade - Segwit- that the majority of the community wanted to be activated. The "fork" would just be ignored by both the miners and the economic majority. Exchanges today won't waste precious resources to list the forked shitcoin.