Why do average people run full nodes

[pandalion98]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

[1715431953]

1715431953

[1715431953]

1715431953

[1715431953]

1715431953

[1715431953]

1715431953

[1715431953]

1715431953

[OnkelPaul]

Because they can!

Actually many tech-savvy people do things not for profit but just because they can be done and are interesting from a technical perspective.

Onkel Paul

[ensurance982]

I don't think it consumes that many CPU cycles! Sure, it does consume them continuously, but merely verifying transactions isn't that processor consuming. I guess people like the idea of Bitcoin and like to be part of it, support it, and thus can also be proud of its success.

[williamj2543]

They want to support the bitcoin network, and in the long run they will profit off it. If bitcoin gets a "better" network, it will be trusted more and it will become more valuable.

[shorena]

Because they can!

Actually many tech-savvy people do things not for profit but just because they can be done and are interesting from a technical perspective.

Onkel Paul

This. I had the chance to get a cheap VPS with enough RAM and a good enough connection and I just did it. I got to know several linux tools I didnt knew before, how easy upstart is and I am currently learning how to visualise information with rddtool.

[ensurance982]

They want to support the bitcoin network, and in the long run they will profit off it. If bitcoin gets a "better" network, it will be trusted more and it will become more valuable.

Well, I don't exactly know if additional full nodes will be a reason for the Bitcoin network to gain more trust for the regular people out there. I guess it's more a question of infrastructure and I still don't exactly know whether additional nodes do make the network that much better!

[BCwinning]

Really average people?  

[EndlessStory]

This is because it does not consumes CPU cycles. Or simply they like doing it.

[Lauda]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

Exactly what is the problem here? It doesn't use a lot of RAM nor CPU cycles for me.
I actually hate it when I exit my client and have to start it up again.
There are people who just want to help the system.

[bornil267645]

It's like their habit...they try to make it better for the "Bitcoin Community"

[Rocky X]

There is no harm running full node, actually that's good for decentralization. Satoshi think about it when he invent this. Besides big miners, everybody have ability to use core client without a hassle.

[pandalion98]

I'm really learning a lot here.

So basically, they do it because they can. They want to do it. And as a result, it makes the Bitcoin infrastructure more decentralized than ever.

Amazing 

[pandalion98]

There is no harm running full node, actually that's good for decentralization. Satoshi think about it when he invent this. Besides big miners, everybody have ability to use core client without a hassle.

"Without a hassle"

What about the really huge blockchain? Some people are complaining about it (not me) and are slowly switching to SPV wallets.
What about those with limited bandwidth?

Just asking 

[pandalion98]

I don't think it consumes that many CPU cycles! Sure, it does consume them continuously, but merely verifying transactions isn't that processor consuming. I guess people like the idea of Bitcoin and like to be part of it, support it, and thus can also be proud of its success.

I agree. Not much CPU. But ram and disk space. yeah.

[Connor936]

This is because it does not consumes CPU cycles. Or simply they like doing it.

It takes up a lot of bandwidth as many people are downloading the blockchain from you. Also you must keep the computer on at all times which uses up electricity.

[PenAndPaper]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

[minerpumpkin]

People want to be part of the whole experiment. They love Bitcoin and thus want to contribute to it. Running a full node is the easiest way of doing that. If you want to mine, you have to invest a lot in mining hardware, also you're paying a lot for electricity. Running a full node is the perfect trade-off for many people, I guess!

[Marlo Stanfield]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

[PenAndPaper]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

[Sindelar1938]

It's the collegiality, selflessness and public spirited ness that characterises the crypto community
Self interest alone cannot explain why it works

[Lauda]

I don't think it consumes that many CPU cycles! Sure, it does consume them continuously, but merely verifying transactions isn't that processor consuming. I guess people like the idea of Bitcoin and like to be part of it, support it, and thus can also be proud of its success.

I agree. Not much CPU. But ram and disk space. yeah.

Right now it's taking up 24,6 GB (one of the folders) of space for me.
I have 4x4TB configuration.
How is this a lot of disk space? The RAM usage was less than 10% at any time.

[Justin00]

Not arguing or anything, but can you explain why it harms the network ??

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

[PenAndPaper]

Not arguing or anything, but can you explain why it harms the network ??

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I did a few posts ago...

[Justin00]

Ah yeah sorry... I just saw your post and was intrigued so I clicked the reply button without reading further.

Thanks for that.

Not arguing or anything, but can you explain why it harms the network ??

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I did a few posts ago...

[Cicero2.0]

I do it simply to help the network. It doesn't seem to use a lot of resources on my computer.

[CozyLife]

I do it because it helps to increase the network security. It just feels right.

[Beliathon]

It's the collegiality, selflessness and public spirited ness that characterises the crypto community
Self interest alone cannot explain why it works

Yep, it's an interesting conglomeration of rational self-interest and idealistic altruism.

[TimS]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

I run Bitcoin Core (with limited incoming connections) and Armory. It takes a big one-time download that took a few hours, ~50GB of disk space (with plenty free), ~650 MB of RAM out of 16GB, ~1 CPU hour out of 400 (based on current uptime and CPU time usages), and minimal bandwidth requirements. The last few of those I can pause any time I want to reclaim the extra resources.
In return, I get to use a good, secure client (Armory) that's connected to the network independent of any external service or undue reliance on peers (to tell the truth about the state of the blockchain, or to protect my privacy). And having powerful local clients, instead of overly-simplified ones, helps me learn more about the technologies behind it. I also like helping secure the network.

For me, that's an agreeable trade, so I run a full node. For some people, the requirements are relatively larger, and the rewards are less important to them, so the balance does not tip in the "run a full node" direction.

Self-interest can, in fact, be sufficient, including in my case. Altruism is a small part of why I run a full node, but is not sufficient nor necessary in my case.

And I know how average users can hurt the network. If we had fewer average users, I'm sure I could bump up my max number of connections substantially. I have to keep it low because I'll occasionally have someone want to download a huge number of blocks from me, and I have little upload bandwidth, so it interferes with anything else I'm trying to do.

[BIGbangTheory]

I don't think it consumes that many CPU cycles! Sure, it does consume them continuously, but merely verifying transactions isn't that processor consuming. I guess people like the idea of Bitcoin and like to be part of it, support it, and thus can also be proud of its success.

I agree. Not much CPU. But ram and disk space. yeah.

Right now it's taking up 24,6 GB (one of the folders) of space for me.
I have 4x4TB configuration.
How is this a lot of disk space? The RAM usage was less than 10% at any time.

I think the disk space by today's standards is very small. By 5 years ago standards it would be a lot. At the rate the blockchain is growing and the rate that HD capacity is increasing the blockchain size will never be large in terms of possible hard drive space.

[Kluge]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

I run Bitcoin Core (with limited incoming connections) and Armory. It takes a big one-time download that took a few hours, ~50GB of disk space (with plenty free), ~650 MB of RAM out of 16GB, ~1 CPU hour out of 400 (based on current uptime and CPU time usages), and minimal bandwidth requirements. The last few of those I can pause any time I want to reclaim the extra resources.
In return, I get to use a good, secure client (Armory) that's connected to the network independent of any external service or undue reliance on peers (to tell the truth about the state of the blockchain, or to protect my privacy). And having powerful local clients, instead of overly-simplified ones, helps me learn more about the technologies behind it. I also like helping secure the network.

For me, that's an agreeable trade, so I run a full node. For some people, the requirements are relatively larger, and the rewards are less important to them, so the balance does not tip in the "run a full node" direction.

Self-interest can, in fact, be sufficient, including in my case. Altruism is a small part of why I run a full node, but is not sufficient nor necessary in my case.

And I know how average users can hurt the network. If we had fewer average users, I'm sure I could bump up my max number of connections substantially. I have to keep it low because I'll occasionally have someone want to download a huge number of blocks from me, and I have little upload bandwidth, so it interferes with anything else I'm trying to do.

Just a quip -- you can run armoryd/bitcoind and limit bandwidth consumed to ~8kb/s down, 2kb/s up with it still being fully functional and up-to-date (req's should be significantly lower than that, but I haven't checked in a while and wanted to be conservative) using an application-level bandwidth throttler like NetLimiter.

[HELP.org]

I have DNS servers and such that run 24/7 and running a Bitcoin node doesn't make any noticeable difference.

[Meuh6879]

bitcoin-core "node" request :
- less than 180Mo of RAM
- with a 10Mb of cache (setting)
- restricted to 12 connexions (usually 8 )
- less than 10ko/s in Upload bandwidth
- at this day, 25Go of space disk
- less than 5% of CPU power (on 2,9GHz dual core style)

To alive an network ... that it can not be shutdowned (or controled) ... it's a gift.

[Velkro]

Because they believe in Bitcoin project and they are enthusiast... just because of that
not everything has profit reason

[rackcityb1]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

I run Bitcoin Core (with limited incoming connections) and Armory. It takes a big one-time download that took a few hours, ~50GB of disk space (with plenty free), ~650 MB of RAM out of 16GB, ~1 CPU hour out of 400 (based on current uptime and CPU time usages), and minimal bandwidth requirements. The last few of those I can pause any time I want to reclaim the extra resources.
In return, I get to use a good, secure client (Armory) that's connected to the network independent of any external service or undue reliance on peers (to tell the truth about the state of the blockchain, or to protect my privacy). And having powerful local clients, instead of overly-simplified ones, helps me learn more about the technologies behind it. I also like helping secure the network.

For me, that's an agreeable trade, so I run a full node. For some people, the requirements are relatively larger, and the rewards are less important to them, so the balance does not tip in the "run a full node" direction.

Self-interest can, in fact, be sufficient, including in my case. Altruism is a small part of why I run a full node, but is not sufficient nor necessary in my case.

And I know how average users can hurt the network. If we had fewer average users, I'm sure I could bump up my max number of connections substantially. I have to keep it low because I'll occasionally have someone want to download a huge number of blocks from me, and I have little upload bandwidth, so it interferes with anything else I'm trying to do.

Just a quip -- you can run armoryd/bitcoind and limit bandwidth consumed to ~8kb/s down, 2kb/s up with it still being fully functional and up-to-date (req's should be significantly lower than that, but I haven't checked in a while and wanted to be conservative) using an application-level bandwidth throttler like NetLimiter.

I would think that these limits would prevent you from relaying unconfirmed TXs as your node would spend much of it's time downloading recently found blocks (if the average block is close to the limit).

[xrobesx]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

what are the correct ports to open? That will up the connections from about 8 to many more correct?

[Dimelord]

I know that it helps the ecosystem. It verifies transactions, keeps a full copy of the blockchain, etc...

But it consumes a lot of ram and CPU cycles.

BECAUSE WE CAN!!!!!!!!!

[Soros Shorts]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

It is not true that they are entirely leechers. A "half-node" can still relay transactions between 2 full nodes.

[onezerobit]

Most people do it...for the sake of it (you should be thankful of them). And they do it to support BTC, so more people would be attracted by it.

And i am glad that they are doing it for free (i hope). That is the best part of it.

[tl121]

On my PC, running bitcoind uses about 26 GB of disk storage ($2.60 worth of storage at $100 / Terabyte), about 500 Mb of RAM storage ($6.25 at $100 for 8 GB) and about 10 minutes of processor time per day. (A fraction of a penny per day for extra electricity given that I already run the machine 24/7.) My machine has 4 TB of disk storage and 12 GB of RAM, so running bitcoin is not a big deal.  The only downside is the impact on network bandwidth, which may be significant if you have a pathetic ISP. Even this can be mitigated by limiting bandwidth made available for bitcoin.

[doggieTattoo]

Full nodes aren't for average users. Most average users that are running the reference client actually harm the network.

99.9% of the people should stick with a light version as their wallet and never care about how the network works.

I agree that thin clients are much better for 99.9% of people. I think that is clear and also intended considering it was in the Satoshi's white paper as well.

But I'm not clear on how an average user running bitcoinqt actually harms the network. How so?

Because they don't open all the necessary ports to run a full node and so they end up being leechers slowing down the hole network.

It is not true that they are entirely leechers. A "half-node" can still relay transactions between 2 full nodes.

This is better then nothing. IMO the blockchain is propagated enough right now that it would be just fine if most additional nodes were half nodes, as they provide the most important functions of nodes.

[Kluge]

I would think that these limits would prevent you from relaying unconfirmed TXs as your node would spend much of it's time downloading recently found blocks (if the average block is close to the limit).

It seems to prioritize bandwidth for this, or it's just that unconfirmed Txs are so relatively small in size, it's not an issue, but this is how I've run Core in the past. Since, they've upgraded a cell tower nearby, so I let it upload without limits unless I'm doing something where I need a bigger share of the 40kb/s up I can snag. NetLimiter's supposedly adding a feature to give programs bandwidth minimum grants, which'd be great since I could let Core run in the background and then give minimums to web browser (as is, it semi-frequently causes timeouts since Core likes to suck everything down unless it's explicitly restricted, with an odd exception to these timeouts being this forum, I'd guess due to an unusual configuration I'd be interested in learning about).

I wouldn't recommend these kinds of limits for a service using the daemon frequently, of course, but for personal use, it's been a great configuration when I've needed it, and also permits those on harshly capped plans to have the advanced functionality a full node client provides since the majority of post-sync bandwidth Core and other full clients use is not strictly necessary.

[pandalion98]

Yes, I just learned from here that disk space, ram, and cpu are no problem for ***some*** people.

I also learned that bandwidth is a big factor here.

I'm seeing people with crappy ISP's that run a full node. Does that hurt the network (no matter how small)?

[Buffer Overflow]

People want to be part of the whole experiment. They love Bitcoin and thus want to contribute to it. Running a full node is the easiest way of doing that. If you want to mine, you have to invest a lot in mining hardware, also you're paying a lot for electricity. Running a full node is the perfect trade-off for many people, I guess!

Yes, I think this is the best reply to thread.

[giveBTCpls]

These profitless nonego driven people is who keep bitcoin alive, not other.

I can't possibly run a node due my shitty PC specs.

[Kluge]

Yes, I just learned from here that disk space, ram, and cpu are no problem for ***some*** people.

I also learned that bandwidth is a big factor here.

I'm seeing people with crappy ISP's that run a full node. Does that hurt the network (no matter how small)?

It shouldn't, if I'm remembering an old discussion right. Core tries to pick the peer with the most unlimited upload bandwidth for downloading since it doesn't download multiple blocks simultaneously (or didn't). If that's correct, then, it should only be downloading blocks from a slow peer if, compared to other options, they're the fastest available (not to be confused with sharing the Txs, where I'd imagine any significant upload bandwidth is helpful).

[stryker]

Also whenever I run a lite client such as on my mobile... I point it exclusively at my own trusted node!

[pandalion98]

People want to be part of the whole experiment. They love Bitcoin and thus want to contribute to it. Running a full node is the easiest way of doing that. If you want to mine, you have to invest a lot in mining hardware, also you're paying a lot for electricity. Running a full node is the perfect trade-off for many people, I guess!

Yes, I think this is the best reply to thread.

I agree here.

[pandalion98]

These profitless nonego driven people is who keep bitcoin alive, not other.

I can't possibly run a node due my shitty PC specs.

I feel ya 

[HELP.org]

Also whenever I run a lite client such as on my mobile... I point it exclusively at my own trusted node!

That is an interesting topic, the concept of a trusted node.  Not sure where it will go in the future but I registered TrustedNodes.com last year for some kind of possible service in the future.

[sandykho47]

I think they think there are no different between full nodes & not (for they have high PC spec & high speed ISP)
Maybe they want to do it, because bitcoin make them rich

Or they mine with ASIC & want to support bitcoin network

bitcoin-core "node" request :
- less than 180Mo of RAM
- with a 10Mb of cache (setting)
- restricted to 12 connexions (usually 8 )
- less than 10ko/s in Upload bandwidth
- at this day, 25Go of space disk
- less than 5% of CPU power (on 2,9GHz dual core style)

To alive an network ... that it can not be shutdowned (or controled) ... it's a gift.

Is this really spec for bitcoin full nodes 
I think the spec are higher