{"id":24219,"date":"2017-03-09T19:00:59","date_gmt":"2017-03-09T19:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci027cfe65601c26c3"},"modified":"2017-03-09T19:00:59","modified_gmt":"2017-03-09T19:00:59","slug":"you-really-should-run-full-bitcoin-node-heres-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/culture\/you-really-should-run-full-bitcoin-node-heres-why","title":{"rendered":"You Really Should Run a Bitcoin Full Node: Here’s Why"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
<\/figure>\n

On day one of the 2017 MIT Bitcoin Expo<\/a>, Sia<\/a> Co-Founder David Vorick<\/a>, who has contributed to Bitcoin Core<\/a>, gave a presentation on the important role played by full nodes<\/a> in digital currency networks. In his view, economically relevant full nodes are the ones that have \u201cvoting\u201d power (for lack of a better term) in attempted hard-forking<\/a> changes to the rules of Bitcoin.<\/p>\n

What Is the Role of the Full Node?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Early in his talk, Vorick focused on the general role played by full nodes on the network. \u201cFull nodes validate transactions on the Bitcoin network,\u201d he stated. \u201cBitcoin has this longest-chain rule where the chain with the most work in it is the one that everybody follows, except this chain also has to follow all of the rules that the network has. The full nodes are the ones [that] check that the chain follows the rules, and if a chain doesn\u2019t follow the rules, it doesn\u2019t matter how much hashrate is behind it, that chain is ignored.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Vorick, of all the different types of Bitcoin users, full nodes are the only ones that check that the rules are followed. Those who run an SPV node<\/a> or use some sort of web wallet are putting their trust in others to verify that certain rules are being followed correctly on the most-work chain.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re faster,\u201d Vorick said in terms of SPV nodes. \u201cThey download all the headers. They make sure that they are on the chain with the most work, but they don\u2019t actually check that the chain with the most work is legal or is valid.\u201d<\/p>\n

Vorick went on to state that SPV nodes are essentially betting that the rest of the network will sufficiently handle the validation process for them.<\/p>\n

\u201cSPV nodes just blindly have faith in the broader network to do this process that makes sure that the longest chain is always valid,\u201d Vorick continued. \u201cThey don\u2019t actually know. They\u2019re just assuming that the broader network is going to keep them safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without full nodes, Vorick says, miners are given the ability to do whatever they want. \u201cIf people can spend each other\u2019s money [or] if miners can [produce] money out of nowhere, you have a useless system,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Upgrades in Bitcoin<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vorick also talked about how upgrades are made to the Bitcoin network. When talking about upgrades, he was referring to hard forks specifically. He also referred to soft forks<\/a> as patches.<\/p>\n

\u201cSoft forks don\u2019t actually change the rules; they just are more creative about how they use the rules,\u201d Vorick explained.<\/p>\n

In terms of attempted hard forks, Vorick claimed there are three potential outcomes. In one, the hard fork could fail and everyone may decide to ignore the failed chain. Vorick pointed to the recent block larger than 1 million bytes accidentally mined by Bitcoin.com<\/a> as an example of a failed upgrade.<\/p>\n

Another possible outcome from an attempted hard fork is that economic activity continues to take place on both chains. Vorick referred to this as a \u201cpartially successful upgrade,\u201d and he used the split between Ethereum<\/a> and Ethereum Classic<\/a> as an example of this outcome.<\/p>\n

The third possible outcome mentioned by Vorick is a successful hard fork with new rules where the new chain becomes the only chain people use and everyone ignores the old chain. Besides the hard fork that resulted in the split between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, the Ethereum chain has also had multiple successful hard forks.<\/p>\n

Economically Relevant Full Nodes Have the Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

When determining the level of success achieved by an attempted upgrade, Vorick claimed that it ultimately comes down to the desires of the full nodes. \u201cIf you\u2019re not running a full node, sort of your opinion on whether or not you like a hard fork is less relevant because, ultimately, if you\u2019re not validating the rules and someone gives you a transaction following a different rule set, you don\u2019t have a way to detect that,\u201d he explained. \u201cSo you can\u2019t actually weigh in on an attempted hard fork, an attempted upgrade.\u201d<\/p>\n

Vorick then compared full nodes to representatives in a democracy; however, he also pointed out that some full nodes are much more economically relevant than others. BitPay<\/a>, for example, has a bigger say in what happens than a full node sending and receiving one small payment per month.<\/p>\n

According to Vorick, users can be dragged along with miners and large businesses if the cost of running a full node is too high. \u201cIf full nodes are expensive to run, only people who are capable of running nodes really have any say in what happens in a contentious upgrade,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

As an example, Vorick pointed out that Ethereum Classic may not have ever existed if it cost too much for the original Ethereum chain\u2019s early supporters to run full nodes.<\/p>\n

\u201cI would advocate that, right now, full [Bitcoin] nodes are too expensive,\u201d Vorick concluded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On day one of the 2017 MIT Bitcoin Expo, Sia Co-Founder David Vorick, who has contributed to Bitcoin Core, gave a presentation on the important role played by full nodes in digital currency networks. In his view, economically relevant full nodes are the ones that have \u201cvoting\u201d power (for lack of a better term) in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3445,"featured_media":24220,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[143,3573,124],"class_list":{"0":"post-24219","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-culture","8":"tag-decentralization","9":"tag-mit-bitcoin-expo","10":"tag-nodes"},"author_data":{"id":3445,"name":"Kyle Torpey","nicename":"kyle-torpey","avatar_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/kyle-torpey-promo-image-96x96.jpg"},"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/you-really-should-run-a-bitcoin-full-node-heres-why.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3445"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24219\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24220"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}