pull down to refresh

Cloud-hosted Bitcoin Node: What is most important to you?
100 sats \ 7 comments \ @gd 22 Sep 2022 bitcoin

Disclaimer: Yes, we should encourage self-hosted nodes as much as possible.

Cloud-hosted nodes are useful for online and offline businesses, as well as consumers who can't or don't want to self-host their own nodes.

There are a couple of options available on the market which vary in price, from shared solutions to dedicated full nodes ranging from $10p/m to $200p/m.

For those of you who currently run a cloud node, are in the market for one or are just generally interested. I'd like to know what is a priority to you:

Lower cost, shared blockchain0.0%
Higher cost, full blockchain100.0%
1 vote \ poll ended
write
preview
related posts
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep 2022

For a cloud node these are important aspects to offer:

  • kinda "one click" install system or already VM instances with all node dedicated software ready (bitcoin core + LND/CLN/Eclair), Electrum Server, Tor/clearnet option. More additional software for businesses is welcomed (LNbits, BTCpay server, RTL, TH)
  • dedicated machines designed for running full nodes (blockchain data is over 500GB right now), so the model offering now, with low storage space is kinda not practical for full nodes (devs, businesses etc).
  • option to have a redundant copy of the blockchain data, ideal from a local datacenter copy or a backup sync.
  • support team that understand what is a Bitcoin node and don't put it into the shit pot with all crapto "mining".
reply
1 sat \ 5 replies \ @gd OP 22 Sep 2022

These follow my assumptions pretty closely. A large premise for my question was based on the offerings from Voltage, with no dedicated "full node" until the $200/month tier.

My core assumption is that a full node is preferable, but I wonder if some research from the community might suggest otherwise.

reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep 2022

All depends what are you looking to achieve with that node.
Voltage is ok offering for tiers of use.
A full node with a big SSD drive is more for users that really need that full node in public or also for their private use.

Nowadays you can have just a full bitcoin node in the cloud and sync your mobile LN nodes towards to it. And is working just fine.

reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gd OP 22 Sep 2022

I would certainly be interested in which of those two options you'd prefer if you were looking to buy a cloud node subscription.

reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep 2022

Need more details about that "shared blockchain".
Could be:

  • a powerful NAS in the same datacenter that ONLY offers a shared repository for direct access to read the BTC blockchain.
  • a BTC node in the same datacenter that provide LAN sync to other nodes in the same datacenter
  • a local shared folder from where node operators could copy the data and don't wait for sync

On all situations, you will need to trust the source as being the real BTC and not a forked shit. But I supposed this could be verified easily and/or offer a verification tool to users.

reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @gd OP 22 Sep 2022

I imagine either something like a pruned node or neutrino would be the most likely alternative to a full node. LAN-based syncs would also be possible, but I guess in this specific scenario, it wouldn't solve block storage costs.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep 2022

indeed. Neutrino is also a good solution.

reply