Why do average people run full nodes

[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.

[1714135118]

1714135118

[1714135118]

1714135118

[1714135118]

1714135118

[1714135118]

1714135118

[1714135118]

1714135118

[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.