While we are grumbling over other things, we might just loose Bitcoin!! \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

While we are grumbling over other things, we might just loose Bitcoin!!

1212 sats \ 18 comments \ @standard_sats 20h bitcoin

I was scrolling through Bitcoin X when I came across a post that drew my attention. I ran a quick online check, and multiple reports indicate a similar issue.

Global Bitcoin Nodes seem to be stalled in growth or just growing very slowly. Visible Bitcoin nodes count between 20 to 23k nodes, while a total estimate of active nodes (visible and private) is pegged around 45k to 50k. Assuming these are the correct figures, it is still a bit concerning that the rough ratio of Bitcoin nodes to Bitcoin users (read: Bitcoiners) across the globe is evidently low.

This is concerning, and the major issue is obviously the technicality and cost involved in running and managing a node.

But 50K is too small a number given what is at stake, and I'm sure there are over a million Bitcoiners across the globe, and we do not have at least 1/10 of that number in nodes up and running.

I equally haven't seen many discussions or emphasis around this topic.

Bitcoiners!!!!!!

view all related items

10 sats \ 8 replies \ @chovyfu 20h

blockchain too big to store.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @huw 13h

You can fit it on a £50 SSD, it’s not too big

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19h

Bitcoin is ultimately reliant upon some altruism from participants. Similar to democracy... If the ratio of altruistic participants falls below a certain threshold the entire system becomes unstable and insecure.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @daolin 18h

I don't believe the node-runner is acting altruistically. The work he contributes without pay is only going towards other Bitcoiners, so he's not making a sacrifice to just anyone. The service he provides goes towards his own circle of chosen friends.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 18h

Many nodes are available to anyone who wants to use them therefore they are quite explicitly providing a service free of charge. The network would struggle to be functional if there were no node providers providing this free service to friends in some cases, and in many cases, anyone who wants access.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @daolin 17h

There's a lot more to altruism than just doing something for free. If I clean up someone else's trash at a park, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asserting a moral obligation to sacrifice my entire life to keeping the park clean. The node runner voluntarily chooses to contribute work without monetary gain, mostly for the benefit of a network of which he himself is a member. It's not a sacrifice in the way democratic socialism asks us to throw away our whole lives for people we don't know.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 14h

I think it is rather similar actually.

Democracy may not be perfect but given that it gives all citizens a voice in governance and that good governance is crucial to the wealth of nations, its probably better than the alternatives.

Nodes operate along similar principles and although as in democracies most people are largely freeloaders, as long as there are enough nodes, the system functions as intended.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @daolin 8h

But the system that the node is upholding is not altruistic. When you opt-in to the Bitcoin ledger, you're agreeing to play by rules that are based on merit and individual achievement. I could see why the single act of running a node could be considered altruistic in isolation, but it exists in the context of a network that has zero tolerance for freeloading (that is, you can't acquire Bitcoin unless you work, or someone who does work voluntarily gives it to you). The benefits to society are a secondary side effect, whereas democracies explicitly demand that people work for the benefit of others for nothing in return.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4h

The node is an integral part of the protocols proper as designed functioning. Without the voluntary constructive participation and contribution of enough node operators the protocol could not provision the decentralised, censorship resistant, p2p payments it was designed to enable. If Satoshi was still the sole node operator we would not have a useful protocol. I do not currently operate a node, but can still enjoy the utility of p2p payments due to the generous provision of nodes, by others. You might argue neither democracy nor Bitcoin protocols are altruistic in their outcomes, although they both do seek to treat all participants equally and without fear or favour. But to function both fundamentally require that some 'people work for the benefit of others for nothing in return'...ie that some people act altruistically....by running a node or participating in good faith in the contest of ideas that is core to a functional democracy, or at the very least, voting on the merits of the contestants. In a similar manner node runners can and do choose to adopt and enforce the rules of the protocol, or not, at their own expense. Fiat money in contrast might be compared to a one party state autocracy/kleptocracy...where a small elite enjoy huge privilege and power at the expense of the majority who are forced to participate.

reply on another page

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @000w2 19h

If you just download bitcoin core, run it, connect a wallet, and use it to verify your own transactions, your node won't show up in these counts.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h

Why would there be fewer nodes when subsidy goes to zero?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @moptosh 16h

A new BIP to remunerate network nodes in Sats to thank them for their active participation in maintaining sovereignty

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standard_sats OP 12h

This sounds like it. Just like lightning routing fees for lightning nodes, right?

I wonder if such a BIP is on the desk already.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @dgdhr335 18h

Is it really "too small" a number though?

You can have millions of people using bitcoin and potentially billions on the various other layers eventually...but does that necessarily require a large percentage of them running nodes?

Is the number really growing slowly or stalled?

Bitnodes.io has the number of nodes online being somewhat flat around 10,000 for several years before 2021 and then the growth has been reasonably steady in the ~4.5 years since. Now over 23,000 in over 100 countries. Seems fine enough from where I'm sitting.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @standard_sats OP 12h

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of what is at stake, really. Bitcoin's protocol security is dependent on how decentralized the network is, and much of the power of protocol decision-making lies with the nodes. Think of the nodes here like the U.S. Senate.

For a system that is rapidly and drastically becoming economically valuable, the number of decision makers (a.k.a nodes that protect the integrity of the network) seems really small, especially when weighed side by side with the number of people using that network and the value vested in it.

If your numbers are accurate, then the growth rate of the nodes post 2021 is reasonably cool, cos it means there are 7+ new nodes every day from 2021 till date. However, my attention is on the general number.

We should have the least 100k nodes accounted for, while hoping that there are numerous other ones not accounted for.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @dgdhr335 9h

My concern would be more focused on the real centralization on the mining side. That’s to say you essentially rely on bitmain for your ASIC and most hashrate goes through a handful of pools.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standard_sats OP 6h

Bitcoin mining centralization is a cause for alarm, no doubt.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 20h bot

https://xcancel.com/ewstevenson/status/1962495016284442628