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.

[Livingleged]

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?

Yes it’s would still be decentralized even if it’s just two people that are left running the node. So if running bitcoin node become too expensive and just few users are left running the network, there isn’t anything that will change in the bitcoin ecosystem and it’s transactions. I think where bitcoin can suffer transaction is only when mining becomes so difficult and expensive that only very few user can afford to mine the bitcoin.

However it’s even unlikely that the cost of running a bitcoin node becomes very expensive such that ordinary people can’t afford. It’s not more than having a computer that meets the specifications that required to run bitcoin core and good internet connections it’s not more than this actually so do you foresee a time will come when owning any of those devices comes very expensive?

[stompix]

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.

As I said it , put a fork in it.
It's always the same example: the people of Bumbogolo Dumgolo who have no internet, no water, no electricity...so how could they afford a a 10TB ssd!
The people you talk about would not have run a node even at 1kb blocks!

This is a perfect example of incentive problem. ARK is hardware that people purchase because they want to run it, for fun or whatever.

Unlike node operators who are ordere to run one; otherwise is gulag time!

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.

Because people live in the past and still think this is marvelous technology!
Litecoin is doing fine with twice the block speed, doge is doing fine with 10 times the block speed, but Bitcoin will break if we double or triple the block size.

There are 100 times more internet users with 10 times more porn on their hard drives than the entire blockchain but no, space is a problem because it costs $200 bucks to run your own bank. You know what this means, it means failure! If you can't get 80,000 people so that is 0.01% of the population to run a node with a bit more storage space than a fucking game then how in the name of god are you planning to revolutionize the world economy?

[Cleanshit]

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.

A fair point storage has always been gotten cheaper day by day and bandwidth too, and possibly if that thread continues in many years to come running a full node would not have to take forever it becomes even more easier not harder even as the chains grows.

Yeah you are correct pruned nodes do have inconvenience and one of the annoying part is that you can’t do some deep rescans easily.

And for most user who are only interested in their own transactions so they try to enforce the rules while the pruned node do the main validation.

[Leon Zimmer]

The people you talk about would not have run a node even at 1kb blocks!

OP’s question is relevant for people in the middle that currently can afford to run nodes, but would find it increasingly difficult as blocks get much bigger, e.g. because of a capped or slow connection.

At the current block size, you only need a one-off investment in a drive, and pay few bucks per month for power, so I dont see how energy/internet prices affect decentralization.

People without any internet connection at all are not what I meant, no.

Litecoin is doing fine with twice the block speed, doge is doing fine with 10 times the block speed, but Bitcoin will break if we double or triple the block size.

Argument is not that Bitcoin will break, but that its costs to run a node will remain relatively low. The block weight limit is the only aspect of costs to run a node which protocol decisions can have an affect on. There is no reason to believe that raising the limit on chains where blocks are mostly empty (Litecoin/Doge) will have any appreciable costs.

Bitcoin’s blocks are full. Block sizes on all blockchains increase as usage increases.

If you can't get 80,000 people so that is 0.01% of the population to run a node [...]

That count only includes nodes that accept incoming connections, so its a floor. What matters for the OP's question is that the option stays cheap enough for anyone to verify their own coins, and at today's block size it is.

[ABCbits]

Imagine a future where electricity bills, internet expenses keep increasing.

If such future truly exist, many of us probably would worry more about general living expense than Bitcoin decentralization. But on many country, overall cost of internet become cheaper over time. Trend of electricity price is more varied, but electricity usage to run laptop or mini computer that capable to run full node is quite lower than air conditioner or refrigerator.

The people you talk about would not have run a node even at 1kb blocks!

OP’s question is relevant for people in the middle that currently can afford to run nodes, but would find it increasingly difficult as blocks get much bigger, e.g. because of a capped or slow connection.

I don't expect we'll see any soft or hard fork that raise maximum block size anytime soon. Bigger part of Bitcoin community don't think it's necessary change and may even resist it with reason such as past Ordinal hype or how Bitcoin fork (with bigger block size) failed.

[Leon Zimmer]

I don't expect we'll see any soft or hard fork that raise maximum block size anytime soon.

Agreed, but block limit is not the only thing that can change node costs.

A change in block contents can also raise node costs. Ordinals transactions took advantage of the witness discount to cram more data into blocks than might be expected given their fees, and pushed block sizes closer to the weight limit without there being any consensus rule change.

[gracreavix]

Let's dive into lecture. Running a node is way different from mining. Theo seperate thing. So what then is running a node looks like. In simple terms this is just to verify the transactions and blocks against Bitcoin rule. The miners are the once building those blocks.

What if then running a node becomes expensive? I think there is always a way we can do something about it. We wouldn't let some government be the one doing most of the work.

Even at that there is still one more thing. Instead of it being two separate things. Let's go for three. The node, the miners and Bitcoin rules. There are separate but work together. You can't get one and think you can rule the rest.

Having fewer miners doesn't mean you can change the rules. The beauty of Bitcoin. Built to perfection.

[stompix]

OP’s question is relevant for people in the middle that currently can afford to run nodes, but would find it increasingly difficult as blocks get much bigger, e.g. because of a capped or slow connection.

No it's not relevant, and in reality nobody should give a fuck!

Back when Satoshi created Bitcoin only 10% of all of Africa had internet connection! Did he give a fuck and change it to a pigeon-by-mail blockchain? No!
When the internet was invented, did they care that half of the world didn't have running water? Nope! When the first personal computer was made, did they care it would need 25 years of wages in Africa to buy one? Nope! When they were building Ferraris did they care that it would take more than a lifetime of work in Eastern Europe to buy one? Nope!

If it were for this stupid thinking of no: the poorest of the poorest of the poor of the poorest can't afford it we would still be a stick-and-stone civilization!

And this aspect actually shows the ugliness of some Bitcoiners.
Do you care that much about those poor guys when the average tx back in 2017 was a week's work in South Asia? Oh, yeah, crickets!!!
I'm one of the most narcissistic persons on this board; I sometimes would rather die than admit I was wrong , but boy I was wrong to side with the small cocks  (< not a typo) movement!

You say that oh my god, the cost for running a node...so let's do the math for the sake of decentralization
100 000 8tb ssd I'm taking even the top brand so be it 150 millions, oh ...wow, impossible...
Let's see what this 150 million will also buy, it will buy you exactly 10 000 S23E, that will generate 6 exahash....lol...so...1% of the global hasharte!
Why aren't you applying the $ and W when it comes to decentralized mining also while the biggest bitcoin mining farms consume more power than small countries!

It will be year 2070, your Iphone 718SEXXXLLL will have 1Exabyte of space and 1 Petahash of ram, but bitcoiners will be: No!!!!!! 10MB blocks will break decentralization!

People without any internet connection at all are not what I meant, no.

You don't even know what you mean yourself!

[Leon Zimmer]

Why aren't you applying the $ and W when it comes to decentralized mining also while the biggest bitcoin mining farms consume more power than small countries!

Let's not get personal. Its not necessary for the argument.

Yes, centralization of mining is a problem. But its a different problem. Miners do not control the rules, they control the ordering of transactions. Their control over the ordering of transactions is checked by other nodes. If the rules are changed in any way, other nodes will reject blocks mined under the new rules. For this to be meaningful, validation has to remain relatively cheap so the average user can perform it. This is not about making mining more decentralized, its about ensuring that miners cannot act dishonestly.

When the first personal computer was made, did they care it would need 25 years of wages in Africa to buy one? Nope!

An expensive PC means there is only one person locked out, the potential buyer.

An expensive node means anyone that cannot validate must trust others’ nodes, shrinking the validating base.

I am not saying blocks should never get bigger, just that cost is a tradeoff and should be considered and not handwaved.