If Running a Bitcoin Node Became Too Expensive, Would Decentralization Suffer

[Christopher336]

Bitcoin decentralization depends on people been able to verify transactions and enforce networks rules independently. Imagine a future where electricity bills, internet expenses keep increasing. If only wealthy individuals, large companies could afford to run nodes, would Bitcoin still be decentralized as it is today?

[Leon Zimmer]

Pruned node downloads and validates every block from genesis, enforcing all consensus rules exactly like a full node, but it just deletes old block data afterwards, so storage requirements are only a fraction of full node. So even if hardware costs increased, the cheapest way to run a validating node would remain accessible to most people.

Relevant costs are the ones which the Bitcoin protocol can control: bandwidth, disk space and CPU. This is why its important to defend the block weight limit, because if it was increased a lot then its likely that only datacenters could run validating nodes, as you describe. It would not be because of electricity prices, but because of protocol change.

Running a node on a Raspberry Pi or similar small/mini PC costs roughly the same in electricity as leaving a router on. If that becomes unaffordable for a significant portion of the network then they have more pressing problems than whether they can continue to run Bitcoin node.

[Charles-Tim]

Who knows if SSD and HDD will be getting cheaper as it has always been. Also there is possibility of cheaper online network for downloads and uploads. These should be considered.

Pruned nodes have some inconveniences, but it is an alternative.

We do not know what will happen in the future, but I still think bitcoin will remain decentralized.

[stompix]

Relevant costs are the ones which the Bitcoin protocol can control: bandwidth, disk space and CPU. This is why its important to defend the block weight limit, because if it was increased a lot then its likely that only datacenters could run validating nodes, as you describe.

Oh god, just put a fork in it!

Seriously, sometimes I can't understand the way some bitcoiners think.
One moment is bragging how one Bitcoin would allow you to rule from your castle the fiat plebs, then it's screaming about how they can't afford a fucking 2tb drive.

Right now, as we speak, there are barely as many nodes as there are online players for ARK, a stupid game full of bugs, unoptimized, for which you need at least 16gb of RAM and at least a 3060  or anything with upwards of 8 gb of VRAM and at least a 2 TB SSD, because the way the update works from the stupid team that created this game you basically re-download every single damn file every time.

So if the Bitcoin community can't afford the same hardware as some guys who like to ride dinos to battles in some game, how in the name of god are we going to crush the banks, re-write the economic system and all the other bla bla bla...
Wait, revolution cancelled; a 2 TB SSD that would be enough for 4 years of blocks is $200....the banks won!!!!

Join the lukechaincoin, they made their blocks 30% the size, or even better, let's have blocks only 1 kb in size, so even after 100 years you can run your one tx per block chain on a 166 mmx with a 2.3 gb hdd.

[EL MOHA]

Oh god, just put a fork in it!

Seriously, sometimes I can't understand the way some bitcoiners think.
One moment is bragging how one Bitcoin would allow you to rule from your castle the fiat plebs, then it's screaming about how they can't afford a fucking 2tb drive.

Sometimes I do think that questions like this are should revolving round the OP looking for answers like bitcoin wouldn’t survive in future when so and so happens because there are certainly more or less indications that bitcoin will most certainly survive future growths like this. Would any body had believe that bitcoin would have had miners if it started using sophisticated mining equipments like this? Many would have answered that it won’t be decentralized but here we are.

When many people write about storage concern for bitcoin mining in the future I usually redirect the question to is it only bitcoin that is currently having that concern for the future because it’s certainly not, even common pictures and other media storage on phones have been growing and there has been adaption to it with even phones now having 2TB as storage means, so if this aren’t a concern then bitcoin mining shouldn’t also be

[un_rank]

If only wealthy individuals, large companies could afford to run nodes, would Bitcoin still be decentralized as it is today?

In such a world wouldn't it be that only those individuals or companies can afford to hold all of the bitcoins so it is decentralized among them even with limited nodes?
I wonder what a cup of coffee will be worth in that world or how much an mBTC will be.

Adjustments can be made on the network along the way to ensure decentralization.

- Jay -

[legiteum]

That's a far-fetched scenario, but nobody truly cares about decentralization anyhow. If it became a problem then the major holders of Bitcoin and the major industry players would form a pact to change the code to just make Bitcoin run by a consortium of centralized servers that were fully trusted. This would drop the PoW requirement and allow for massive optimization, making Bitcoin suitable for everyday transactions and making tx fees nearly zero (like they are for other optimized cryptos). BTC holders would have a choice between holding a nearly worthless coin that could not be traded hardly anywhere, and joining the consortium and keeping their investment. It's obvious what 99% of holders would choose. Hence a major change could happen to Bitcoin's codebase at any time it's truly necessary (which, right now, it's not necessary).

There's too much money in Bitcoin for the big holders of BTC to just let it die...

[Leon Zimmer]

Oh god, just put a fork in it!

Seriously, sometimes I can't understand the way some bitcoiners think.
One moment is bragging how one Bitcoin would allow you to rule from your castle the fiat plebs, then it's screaming about how they can't afford a fucking 2tb drive.

Right now, as we speak, there are barely as many nodes as there are online players for ARK, a stupid game full of bugs, unoptimized, for which you need at least 16gb of RAM and at least a 3060  or anything with upwards of 8 gb of VRAM and at least a 2 TB SSD, because the way the update works from the stupid team that created this game you basically re-download every single damn file every time.

So if the Bitcoin community can't afford the same hardware as some guys who like to ride dinos to battles in some game, how in the name of god are we going to crush the banks, re-write the economic system and all the other bla bla bla...
Wait, revolution cancelled; a 2 TB SSD that would be enough for 4 years of blocks is $200....the banks won!!!!

Join the lukechaincoin, they made their blocks 30% the size, or even better, let's have blocks only 1 kb in size, so even after 100 years you can run your one tx per block chain on a 166 mmx with a 2.3 gb hdd.

For instance, people in countries with slow or expensive or metered internet connections will find it more difficult to keep up with sync times and block downloads or uploads. None of those problems are solved by having a $200 2 TB SSD.

This is a perfect example of incentive problem. ARK is hardware that people purchase because they want to run it, for fun or whatever. A node costs nothing, so if people arent running them its probably for lack of incentives, not the cost of hardware.

And yes, the fact that a 2 TB SSD can be had for $200 speaks to the point exactly: price is only so low because the block size limit hasnt changed. Nobody called for 1 kb blocks. Had the limit been raised by even a factor of a few, that would be a different story, and it would mean that those priced out of running a full node would be those least able to throw money at better hardware.