What happens when major banks become supernodes?

[CoinRocka]

Will this be a good thing?  Adapt and survive right?

[Light]

What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.

[spin]

What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.

A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free.  Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.

[Beliathon]

What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.

A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free.  Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.

Exactly. People don't understand that running a bunch of nodes doesn't gain you access to oodles of free money the same way fractional reserve banking does. Bitcoin strips the power from banks and gives it to We the People.

Banks will want no part of it until they're left with no customers and no choices, and then they'll capitulate.

[BitCoinDream]

What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.

A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free.  Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.

Exactly. People don't understand that running a bunch of nodes doesn't gain you access to oodles of free money the same way fractional reserve banking does. Bitcoin strips the power from banks and gives it to We the People.

Banks will want no part of it until they're left with no customers and no choices, and then they'll capitulate.

By node, OP probably mean miner.

[shorena]

-snip-
By node, OP probably mean miner.

Soooo whats a "Superminer"?

[BitCoinDream]

-snip-
By node, OP probably mean miner.

Soooo whats a "Superminer"?

A big pool owner like GHash.IO is a super miner

[Este Nuno]

Supernode is a concept created by Risto Pietila.

I don't think he's currently operating as a supernode so I don't think a bank could be one either unless he decided to launch the network.

The main reason he didn't launch the supernode network if I recall correctly is that Localbitcoins beat him to the punch. So he put the concept on hold.

[franky1]

a super node is simple a known static IP people can add so that they always have a main connection to th network to relay tx's.

now thats cleared up. all i have to say is
1. Banks are contracted to handle FIAT, being a node is meaning less to them. get over it, you wont see banks handing out bitcoins themselves.
2. people can choose which supernodes they connect to. so the end result of any fantasy Apocalypse scenario some tin foil hatter is about to dream up... wont happen as people will just ignore such nodes

[Lauda]

a super node is simple a known static IP people can add so that they always have a main connection to th network to relay tx's.

So going by this term, nothing special will happen if any bank becomes a supernode.
I don't see a reason for them to become one though.

[shorena]

a super node is simple a known static IP people can add so that they always have a main connection to th network to relay tx's.

So going by this term, nothing special will happen if any bank becomes a supernode.
I don't see a reason for them to become one though.

So all those fallback nodes here [1] are supernodes? I expected a little more than a static IP and a wiki entry from the "super" prefix.

Well but the more fallback nodes the better, I dont see any problems with banks running nodes.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes

[Este Nuno]

a super node is simple a known static IP people can add so that they always have a main connection to th network to relay tx's.

now thats cleared up. all i have to say is
1. Banks are contracted to handle FIAT, being a node is meaning less to them. get over it, you wont see banks handing out bitcoins themselves.
2. people can choose which supernodes they connect to. so the end result of any fantasy Apocalypse scenario some tin foil hatter is about to dream up... wont happen as people will just ignore such nodes

Isn't that just a full node?

I thought there was no actual 'supernode' designation for nodes running on the bitcoin network.

Supernode was rpietila's concept that he brought to this forum. He ran his 'bitcoin supernode' text on his account for a long time.

[Meuh6879]

we don't need supernodes.
skype crash regulary because of this (bandwidth hole) ... actually.

all users must be at the same level ... like miners.

[brian_23452]

What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.

A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free.  Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.

Exactly. People don't understand that running a bunch of nodes doesn't gain you access to oodles of free money the same way fractional reserve banking does. Bitcoin strips the power from banks and gives it to wealthy ASIC manufacturers running massive datacenters.

Banks will want no part of it until they're left with no customers and no choices, and then they'll capitulate.

Fixed that for you.

[jbreher]

a super node is simple a known static IP people can add so that they always have a main connection to th network to relay tx's.

Is this meant to merely guard against being 'cast out' of the DNS system? Seems like a fragile solution. Could not an attacker just put up dozens or hundreds -- or even thousands -- of low-cost nodes that implement the same IP?

[crazyearner]

When backs become supernodes than Bitcoin will be concurrence and FIAT will be a thing of the past and will lead the way of the future.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Will this be a good thing?  Adapt and survive right?

Less nodes is always a bad thing since it means that Bitcoin is more centralized
Full nodes relay transactions and the decentralized aspects of full nodes are important to keeping Bitcoin transactions confirmed and stored safely

[Justin00]

so you mean a bank basically loading a bitcoin client on there server ?
i don't get it ?

what is the concern ? they will block transactions ? the other 100000000 nodes should pass them though, right ?

[Swordsoffreedom]

so you mean a bank basically loading a bitcoin client on there server ?
i don't get it ?

what is the concern ? they will block transactions ? the other 100000000 nodes should pass them though, right ?

The concern is a decreasing amount of full nodes that relay Bitcoin transactions and that banks will control most of the full nodes in operation
Meaning that all transactions are relayed through their nodes due to mining concentration and the costs increasing to host Bitcoin nodes in time and bandwidth.
At least that is how I interpreted the OP's question hence the banks become supernodes controlling most of the nodes in the network.

[Stinky_Pete]

If a bank runs a supernode they will charge people to use it. How, I don't know, but they will find a way.