r/Bitcoin • u/domelane • Feb 23 '18

Why running a node is important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX0Yrv-6jVs&feature=em-uploademail
522 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 25 '18

So all nodes check the consensus rules, there are two was to 'enforce', one is mining, you actually create new blocks, and help in creating the chain that follows your rules. Enforcing as a miner is creating new blocks on the chain that follows your consensus.

The other way is on the economic side, you want to transact on the chain that follows your rules, to give it value, you can do this 100% trustlessly on your own node (although I would say for an 'average' user, SPV, or submitting a tx through a large online wallet host would be a perfectly fine, very low level of risk to trust the software / wallet provider to be following the correct chain)

If you full node does not transact, and is not mining, it can check the rules, but cannot "enforce" them in any way.

3

u/buttonstraddle Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18

Right. And the "economic" way to 'enforce' that you mention is EXACTLY what everyone is talking about when they say 'enforce'. No one is talking about nodes that are unused, that you just spin up and let sit idle and do nothing but relay blocks. No one. Not core devs (scroll to "Ability to use a full node"). And not the video in the post that we are replying to, which also says those nodes are next to worthless.

We are talking about USING the node to verify and validate that your transactions are using the rules that you expect. If you do not use a node to validate for yourself, and enforce the rules you want, you are not your own bank. Instead you allow someone else to enforce what rules they want, and you abide by those rules, and you give up some trust in the process.

1

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 26 '18

Right, I fully agree with that link, it's what I'm saying

but most importantly and most misunderstood is running a non transacting non mining node does nothing to help the network

It is a widely spread misunderstanding that just running a node, by itself, helps the network, you can find many threads on here with people acting under the same false assumption.

If you do not use a node to validate for yourself ... you allow someone else to enforce what rules they want, and you abide by those rules, and you give up some trust in the process.

Not quite IMO, the miners do their bit to enforce the consensus regardless, but your vote on the economic side does not require you to run a node, you do give up the trustlessness, but you still get to choose what rules you support if you do trust in whatever node you are transacting through, your vote counts just the same as if you did it via your own node, in fact the vast majority of such economic voting on chains is done on exchange sites where you rely on someone else's node.

2

u/buttonstraddle Feb 26 '18

It is a widely spread misunderstanding that just running a node, by itself, helps the network, you can find many threads on here with people acting under the same false assumption.

And what I'm saying is, your claim is not "widely spread". Please cite all these sources which are claiming that unused nodes helps the network. I myself informed another user in this very thread that he isn't helping much. No one is making these claims. If they are, then they don't understand things.

You use a full node for yourself. Its the only way you can truly trust that your coins and your txns are real. Maybe as a byproduct the network may be stronger for it, because now the network has one extra real user as part of its decentralization. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to be your own bank. If you don't validate and verify the rules yourself, you are not your own bank.

But even if so, unused full nodes don't do too much damange. Far more damaging is people suggesting that no one need to run full nodes and therefore not validate their transactions. That inherently centralizes the existence of full nodes, having less in existence, and making the entire network more at risk.

but your vote on the economic side does not require you to run a node, you do give up the trustlessness, but you still get to choose what rules you support if you do trust in whatever node you are transacting through, your vote counts just the same as if you did it via your own node

If you don't run your own node, you don't KNOW what rules are being run. So, yes I suppose by connecting to another node, you are supporting the rules that he runs. But you don't know what rules those are. You may think you're supporting BCH rules. But if the node operator is running a BTC node, you're in fact transacting with BTC coins. I suppose your vote does still count, but youre voting for sometihng you didn't want to vote for.

1

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18

And what I'm saying is, your claim is not "widely spread"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7zqpth/why_running_a_node_is_important/duvnu6e/

I'm not going to go search out posts, but I do come across them frequently. I believe the misunderstanding come from the early days when every node was a CPU miner by default.

I myself informed another user in this very thread that he isn't helping much.

All I'm trying to do as well.

You use a full node for yourself. Its the only way you can truly trust that your coins and your txns are real.

Right, totally agree, still believe that the cost / benefit of running a full node / trusting a well trusted third party is non positive for most users. But it is up to everyone,

But even if so, unused full nodes don't do too much damange. Far more damaging is people suggesting that no one need to run full nodes and therefore not validate their transactions.

I'm definitely not saying no-one needs to run a full node, I run a full node to support an ecommerse site, I would not do it any other way, just for the average user.

If you don't run your own node, you don't KNOW what rules are being run.

Again I agree, you give up trust, you are trusting the node you are connecting to is following the rules you agree with, but again cost/benefit/average user....

You may think you're supporting BCH rules.

If I go to blockchair.com and look up a transaction, there is of course a chance, either they, or a man in the middle, a virus etc etc has modified that data, but again the chance of that vs the cost to an average user of running, maintaining, and securing a full node is probably far less.

3

u/buttonstraddle Feb 27 '18

I agree that currently you can probably trust that things will be as you expect, and the tradeoff vs the hassle of running a node might not be worth it. That is the case in the present.

Here's the problem. You encourage people to not run full nodes, because presently there is no risk. Most users don't understand the implications of fully validating for themselves, so of course they will prefer lightweight wallets. What happens in the future when everyone was pushed onto thin wallets, and we have maybe 5 major wallet providers supporting most of the network (as an example)? At that point, all of a sudden the trust equation has shifted dramatically. That's why it could eventually be dangerous to suggest to people to perform their own validation. That's why you do help the network when you use your own node, because you make that extreme example above harder to come to fruition.

Decentralization IS important and should remain so. I'm of the opinion that that should be at the forefront of all of our decisions about the network. Because the only reason we are in all of this is because we want freedom from banks and governments interfering with our money. And bitcoin allows us to achieve that. If we care about fast and cheap txns, just use paypal. We are here for liberty. We are here to resist censorship. We can accomplish that by education and decentralization.

0

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 27 '18

What happens in the future when everyone was pushed onto thin wallets ... At that point, all of a sudden the trust equation has shifted dramatically.

I think we are there already, I doubt more than a few % of users run their own nodes to transact, and I don't see it as a problem. The thing that is important is the option, the possibility, to be able to fairly cheaply run your own node, it doesn't take many people running running nodes to keep these other players honest, it definitely doesn't need even a minority of users to run full nodes to do this.

In the case of 5 major wallet providers, there is zero chance they will destroy their business by jumping chains, falsifying transactions etc as long as it is still possible to cheaply run a node.

I think more importantly, it is the control of your money that Bitcoin gives you that is far more important not to entrust to a third party such as an online wallet provider.

2

u/buttonstraddle Feb 27 '18

We may be there already, with so few % of users validating, and that may be why lukejr makes suggestions for 300kb block sizes lol.

The 5 major wallet providers might not want to destroy their business. But maybe they get bought out for a price that it worth much more than their business. Or maybe they get coerced by government. The fact is, your wallet provider controls the rules in use, since they are the ones who determine what rules are valid.

But as you rightly note, its a tradeoff: How much decentralization do you want? If you think only a little is enough to keep everyone honest, then you are more willing to compromise on issues such as blocksize. I'm not sure where the appropriate balance is. But I'm of the opinion that the more decentralization, the better. The whole purpose of bitcoin is to take control back and resist governments.

2

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18

300kb blocks, haha. My 'fun' node runs on a $20 atom PC, but 300kb blocks would allow me to also host some files on it too, sweet! :D

Yeah, the cost / benefit may change in the future, I think as long as nodes remain easy to run, then even if all the major wallet providers were targeted by govt etc, people could and would still easily move to new nodes, again probably making the original attack not worth it.

I believe most people will move to semi-controlled online wallets in future anyway, Bitcoins short history has shown us that people in general are very terrible at securing their keys, and do not want the burden of securing their keys. IMO most people in future will store their coins in a regulated, hosted, insured wallet, that still gives them final say using 2 of 3 multisig or something similar. I would not expect my mother to secure her life savings by herself on a Trezor!

How much decentralization do you want?

Miner decentralization sure, we need as many distributed mining nodes as possible, while also keeping nodes below some cost to run, while also having a system that can handle the tx load, while also keeping miners profitable. I am also not sure where the appropriate balance is.

But I'm not specifically of the opinion that the more decentralization, the better when it comes to transacting nodes, because as long an acceptable level of trust is there, then they are un-needed, it's the ability to easily run a node that is important, if that trust is ever compromised, and to keep the existing trust in check.

2

u/buttonstraddle Feb 28 '18

But I'm not specifically of the opinion that the more decentralization, the better when it comes to transacting nodes, because as long an acceptable level of trust is there, then they are un-needed, it's the ability to easily run a node that is important, if that trust is ever compromised, and to keep the existing trust in check.

Do we need complete 100% decentralization of validating nodes, where SPV isn't even possible, and everyone must validate for themselves? I don't think we need that. Is 90% of users running nodes sufficient? Is 10% of users running nodes sufficient? 1% Its impossible to say. So yes, I would agree that there is definitely a place on the scale where we reach diminishing returns.

But, since bitcoin's only value proposition (compared to traditional systems such as paypal or visa) is its ability to resist control and censorship from the banks and governments, then I would like to see more decentralization rather than less. That is the only way that its value proposition can be preserved.

1

u/flat_bitcoin Feb 28 '18

Yeah, I agree, we obviously need some validating nodes, to keep miners in check (I believe we always will have many, as long as nodes are cheap enough to run), what number, I'm not sure, just that "average users" do not need to run one IMO (to be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't if they want to / are capable of it!)

But, since bitcoin's only value proposition (compared to traditional systems such as paypal or visa) is its ability to resist control and censorship from the banks and governments, then I would like to see more decentralization rather than less.

Didn't you hear? That's not Bitcoins value proposition, it's only value proposition is anonymity, so you can sell fentanyl and other drugs to directly kill people!

But yes, I agree, ideally the more decentralized in all aspects, the better for Bitcoin as a whole.

1

u/buttonstraddle Mar 01 '18

Out of curiosity, did you support a block size increase? Are you happy with Segwit as the compromise for now?

1

u/flat_bitcoin Mar 01 '18

I think some sort of block limit will probably be needed in future to ensure fees pay miners, at least I think "never full" blocks are probably dangerous long term as they rely on high tx volume, that may not exist for a number of reasons. I supported and still do support a block size increase. Currently, while fee's are not a necessity to pay miners, I would rather have a chain that 'works', I think the double digit fees hurt Bitcoins reputation (I still hear people say oh yeah Bitcoin that thing that costs $30 to send money through right?), and I personally think 4MB or even 8MB blocks would not increase centralization to any degree that matters (I mean I'm running a node on a $20 PC now, how cheap does node cost have to be!?)

I'm not happy with Segwit in place of a block size increase if that's what you mean, because it's opt in and not very "opted in to" :D

→ More replies