Will the size of Bitcoin core full-node be too big to run on a normal computer?Bitcoin-QT: which external memory (connected via USB2.0 + TrueCrypt) would work?Security risk(s) in running bitcoin core full nodePruning a Bitcoin full nodeHelp with bitocin.conf - how to configure a testnet full node in a safe way?Bitcoin Full Node + Lightning running on single-board-computer, possible?I run a full node. Is there a desktop client to connect to this full node?Bitcoin core full node won't start on mac reboot!Under what circumstances will a full node disconnect a peer?Possible to run a Lightning node on same computer as Bitcoin Core node?

Legal aspects of the HackRF one / SDR in Switzerland?

Giving a character trauma but not "diagnosing" her?

Can I use both 気温 and 温度 when asking for the weather temperature?

Disrespectful employee going above my head and telling me what to do. I am his manager

Does my code handle negative numbers or zero when summing squared digits?

Is it plausible that an interrupted Windows update can cause the motherboard to fail?

Match the blocks

Java creating augmented array of size 400,000,000

What does "drop" mean in this context?

SSD or HDD for server

Diamondize Some Text

Suspicious crontab entry running 'xribfa4' every 15 minutes

How safe is using non-RoHS parts?

How much income am I getting by renting my house?

Which collation should I use for biblical Hebrew?

What is the word for things that work even when they aren't working (e.g. escalators)?

Are there any rules around when something can be described as "based on a true story"?

Can the Bountiful Luck halfling racial feat be used multiple times in one round?

Is Having my Players Control Two Parties a Good Idea?

Island of Knights, Knaves, Spies

The colors in Resident Evil 7 are *completely* off

Are There 3D Rules for Flying and Distance?

How can AnyDVD destroy a DVD drive?

Big Bracket for equations



Will the size of Bitcoin core full-node be too big to run on a normal computer?


Bitcoin-QT: which external memory (connected via USB2.0 + TrueCrypt) would work?Security risk(s) in running bitcoin core full nodePruning a Bitcoin full nodeHelp with bitocin.conf - how to configure a testnet full node in a safe way?Bitcoin Full Node + Lightning running on single-board-computer, possible?I run a full node. Is there a desktop client to connect to this full node?Bitcoin core full node won't start on mac reboot!Under what circumstances will a full node disconnect a peer?Possible to run a Lightning node on same computer as Bitcoin Core node?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









3

















I am a Bitcoin enthusiast, with no background knowledge in computer science and cryptography. I once ran Bitcoin core on my laptop but realized that it occupied too much space in my computer.



I understand the idea that Bitcoin network is secure as long as any individual can run the full node of Bitcoin core. However, what concerns me is that one day the full node may become too large to run on a normal computer. Do Bitcoin developers have any solutions to the problem? Or is it really a problem?



I would like to hear some responses from cryptocurrency developers or specialists in computer science.










share|improve this question


































    3

















    I am a Bitcoin enthusiast, with no background knowledge in computer science and cryptography. I once ran Bitcoin core on my laptop but realized that it occupied too much space in my computer.



    I understand the idea that Bitcoin network is secure as long as any individual can run the full node of Bitcoin core. However, what concerns me is that one day the full node may become too large to run on a normal computer. Do Bitcoin developers have any solutions to the problem? Or is it really a problem?



    I would like to hear some responses from cryptocurrency developers or specialists in computer science.










    share|improve this question






























      3












      3








      3








      I am a Bitcoin enthusiast, with no background knowledge in computer science and cryptography. I once ran Bitcoin core on my laptop but realized that it occupied too much space in my computer.



      I understand the idea that Bitcoin network is secure as long as any individual can run the full node of Bitcoin core. However, what concerns me is that one day the full node may become too large to run on a normal computer. Do Bitcoin developers have any solutions to the problem? Or is it really a problem?



      I would like to hear some responses from cryptocurrency developers or specialists in computer science.










      share|improve this question
















      I am a Bitcoin enthusiast, with no background knowledge in computer science and cryptography. I once ran Bitcoin core on my laptop but realized that it occupied too much space in my computer.



      I understand the idea that Bitcoin network is secure as long as any individual can run the full node of Bitcoin core. However, what concerns me is that one day the full node may become too large to run on a normal computer. Do Bitcoin developers have any solutions to the problem? Or is it really a problem?



      I would like to hear some responses from cryptocurrency developers or specialists in computer science.







      bitcoin-core full-node block-size-increase storage-footprint cost-of-node-option






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question



      share|improve this question








      edited 4 mins ago









      Raghav Sood

      9,7812 gold badges12 silver badges29 bronze badges




      9,7812 gold badges12 silver badges29 bronze badges










      asked 8 hours ago









      Libertarian Monarchist BotLibertarian Monarchist Bot

      1285 bronze badges




      1285 bronze badges























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4


















          Bitcoin has to maintain some balance to be able to maintain the ability to be decentralized. As you've correctly established, this is partly down to making sure that the resource requirements of fully validating the block chain are not unreasonable. There's a push form the consumer side of things to constantly increase the resource usage of Bitcoin for convenience or lower transaction fees, but this comes at the cost of decentralization. What the limits for this are is debatable to some extent, but there are clearly hard limits to avoid.



          Most notably it's difficult to undo mistakes in this area of the system design, going too far with resource usage is effectively a permanent decision so you will find that choices have been made as conservative as reasonable.



          We have the following limitations to contend with:




          • Size of the block chain. It is often advantageous to store previously validated information, even if it is not immediately required for the operation of the system. It makes wallet management easier and allows for easy re-synchronization if required. The limit of this can not be above reasonable cost or the size of volumes available to the mass-market.



            Growth of the block chain size on dish currently is bounded by the block size limit. Knowing that 6 blocks happen on average per hour, and they can be a maximum of 4MiB when fully saturated with Segwit transactions, we have a bounded growth of 210 GiB per year.



            Nodes can disgard these blocks once validated to avoid storing them, but the entire set must be transmitted to them in some form, typically over the internet but could be done via Bluray, Fedex, or carrier pigeon if this was cheaper or required. This is a limit for the size of the growth, as it must not exceed the ability of users to obtain the data needed to validate.



          • Size of the UTXO. The Unspent Transaction Outputs database is the storage of units of Bitcoin that have not been spent. This is consensus critical and must be stored by all nodes in the network who are fully validating. This database has looser restrictions on its growth, and is effectively bounded by the block size as well, as it implicitly limits the number of entries which can be added to the database. Unfortunately there is not much to be done to reduce the impact of this 4 GiB storage on disk without much larger economic changes to Bitcoin to allow for entries to be "archived".


          • Validation complexity. The transactions within the chain have a cost associated with their validation. ECDSA is used in Bitcoin due to it being extremely space efficient and suitable for the task, but it is not particularly fast even with completely optimized implementations. Synchronizing the Bitcoin chain involves billions of individual SHA256 and ECDSA operations which puts a hard limit on the number which can be performed by a consumer processor in a reasonable amount of time. The growth of the chain should not exceed the ability for reasonable, consumer hardware to complete validation.






          share|improve this answer



























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "308"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );














            draft saved

            draft discarded
















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f90819%2fwill-the-size-of-bitcoin-core-full-node-be-too-big-to-run-on-a-normal-computer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown


























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4


















            Bitcoin has to maintain some balance to be able to maintain the ability to be decentralized. As you've correctly established, this is partly down to making sure that the resource requirements of fully validating the block chain are not unreasonable. There's a push form the consumer side of things to constantly increase the resource usage of Bitcoin for convenience or lower transaction fees, but this comes at the cost of decentralization. What the limits for this are is debatable to some extent, but there are clearly hard limits to avoid.



            Most notably it's difficult to undo mistakes in this area of the system design, going too far with resource usage is effectively a permanent decision so you will find that choices have been made as conservative as reasonable.



            We have the following limitations to contend with:




            • Size of the block chain. It is often advantageous to store previously validated information, even if it is not immediately required for the operation of the system. It makes wallet management easier and allows for easy re-synchronization if required. The limit of this can not be above reasonable cost or the size of volumes available to the mass-market.



              Growth of the block chain size on dish currently is bounded by the block size limit. Knowing that 6 blocks happen on average per hour, and they can be a maximum of 4MiB when fully saturated with Segwit transactions, we have a bounded growth of 210 GiB per year.



              Nodes can disgard these blocks once validated to avoid storing them, but the entire set must be transmitted to them in some form, typically over the internet but could be done via Bluray, Fedex, or carrier pigeon if this was cheaper or required. This is a limit for the size of the growth, as it must not exceed the ability of users to obtain the data needed to validate.



            • Size of the UTXO. The Unspent Transaction Outputs database is the storage of units of Bitcoin that have not been spent. This is consensus critical and must be stored by all nodes in the network who are fully validating. This database has looser restrictions on its growth, and is effectively bounded by the block size as well, as it implicitly limits the number of entries which can be added to the database. Unfortunately there is not much to be done to reduce the impact of this 4 GiB storage on disk without much larger economic changes to Bitcoin to allow for entries to be "archived".


            • Validation complexity. The transactions within the chain have a cost associated with their validation. ECDSA is used in Bitcoin due to it being extremely space efficient and suitable for the task, but it is not particularly fast even with completely optimized implementations. Synchronizing the Bitcoin chain involves billions of individual SHA256 and ECDSA operations which puts a hard limit on the number which can be performed by a consumer processor in a reasonable amount of time. The growth of the chain should not exceed the ability for reasonable, consumer hardware to complete validation.






            share|improve this answer






























              4


















              Bitcoin has to maintain some balance to be able to maintain the ability to be decentralized. As you've correctly established, this is partly down to making sure that the resource requirements of fully validating the block chain are not unreasonable. There's a push form the consumer side of things to constantly increase the resource usage of Bitcoin for convenience or lower transaction fees, but this comes at the cost of decentralization. What the limits for this are is debatable to some extent, but there are clearly hard limits to avoid.



              Most notably it's difficult to undo mistakes in this area of the system design, going too far with resource usage is effectively a permanent decision so you will find that choices have been made as conservative as reasonable.



              We have the following limitations to contend with:




              • Size of the block chain. It is often advantageous to store previously validated information, even if it is not immediately required for the operation of the system. It makes wallet management easier and allows for easy re-synchronization if required. The limit of this can not be above reasonable cost or the size of volumes available to the mass-market.



                Growth of the block chain size on dish currently is bounded by the block size limit. Knowing that 6 blocks happen on average per hour, and they can be a maximum of 4MiB when fully saturated with Segwit transactions, we have a bounded growth of 210 GiB per year.



                Nodes can disgard these blocks once validated to avoid storing them, but the entire set must be transmitted to them in some form, typically over the internet but could be done via Bluray, Fedex, or carrier pigeon if this was cheaper or required. This is a limit for the size of the growth, as it must not exceed the ability of users to obtain the data needed to validate.



              • Size of the UTXO. The Unspent Transaction Outputs database is the storage of units of Bitcoin that have not been spent. This is consensus critical and must be stored by all nodes in the network who are fully validating. This database has looser restrictions on its growth, and is effectively bounded by the block size as well, as it implicitly limits the number of entries which can be added to the database. Unfortunately there is not much to be done to reduce the impact of this 4 GiB storage on disk without much larger economic changes to Bitcoin to allow for entries to be "archived".


              • Validation complexity. The transactions within the chain have a cost associated with their validation. ECDSA is used in Bitcoin due to it being extremely space efficient and suitable for the task, but it is not particularly fast even with completely optimized implementations. Synchronizing the Bitcoin chain involves billions of individual SHA256 and ECDSA operations which puts a hard limit on the number which can be performed by a consumer processor in a reasonable amount of time. The growth of the chain should not exceed the ability for reasonable, consumer hardware to complete validation.






              share|improve this answer




























                4














                4










                4









                Bitcoin has to maintain some balance to be able to maintain the ability to be decentralized. As you've correctly established, this is partly down to making sure that the resource requirements of fully validating the block chain are not unreasonable. There's a push form the consumer side of things to constantly increase the resource usage of Bitcoin for convenience or lower transaction fees, but this comes at the cost of decentralization. What the limits for this are is debatable to some extent, but there are clearly hard limits to avoid.



                Most notably it's difficult to undo mistakes in this area of the system design, going too far with resource usage is effectively a permanent decision so you will find that choices have been made as conservative as reasonable.



                We have the following limitations to contend with:




                • Size of the block chain. It is often advantageous to store previously validated information, even if it is not immediately required for the operation of the system. It makes wallet management easier and allows for easy re-synchronization if required. The limit of this can not be above reasonable cost or the size of volumes available to the mass-market.



                  Growth of the block chain size on dish currently is bounded by the block size limit. Knowing that 6 blocks happen on average per hour, and they can be a maximum of 4MiB when fully saturated with Segwit transactions, we have a bounded growth of 210 GiB per year.



                  Nodes can disgard these blocks once validated to avoid storing them, but the entire set must be transmitted to them in some form, typically over the internet but could be done via Bluray, Fedex, or carrier pigeon if this was cheaper or required. This is a limit for the size of the growth, as it must not exceed the ability of users to obtain the data needed to validate.



                • Size of the UTXO. The Unspent Transaction Outputs database is the storage of units of Bitcoin that have not been spent. This is consensus critical and must be stored by all nodes in the network who are fully validating. This database has looser restrictions on its growth, and is effectively bounded by the block size as well, as it implicitly limits the number of entries which can be added to the database. Unfortunately there is not much to be done to reduce the impact of this 4 GiB storage on disk without much larger economic changes to Bitcoin to allow for entries to be "archived".


                • Validation complexity. The transactions within the chain have a cost associated with their validation. ECDSA is used in Bitcoin due to it being extremely space efficient and suitable for the task, but it is not particularly fast even with completely optimized implementations. Synchronizing the Bitcoin chain involves billions of individual SHA256 and ECDSA operations which puts a hard limit on the number which can be performed by a consumer processor in a reasonable amount of time. The growth of the chain should not exceed the ability for reasonable, consumer hardware to complete validation.






                share|improve this answer














                Bitcoin has to maintain some balance to be able to maintain the ability to be decentralized. As you've correctly established, this is partly down to making sure that the resource requirements of fully validating the block chain are not unreasonable. There's a push form the consumer side of things to constantly increase the resource usage of Bitcoin for convenience or lower transaction fees, but this comes at the cost of decentralization. What the limits for this are is debatable to some extent, but there are clearly hard limits to avoid.



                Most notably it's difficult to undo mistakes in this area of the system design, going too far with resource usage is effectively a permanent decision so you will find that choices have been made as conservative as reasonable.



                We have the following limitations to contend with:




                • Size of the block chain. It is often advantageous to store previously validated information, even if it is not immediately required for the operation of the system. It makes wallet management easier and allows for easy re-synchronization if required. The limit of this can not be above reasonable cost or the size of volumes available to the mass-market.



                  Growth of the block chain size on dish currently is bounded by the block size limit. Knowing that 6 blocks happen on average per hour, and they can be a maximum of 4MiB when fully saturated with Segwit transactions, we have a bounded growth of 210 GiB per year.



                  Nodes can disgard these blocks once validated to avoid storing them, but the entire set must be transmitted to them in some form, typically over the internet but could be done via Bluray, Fedex, or carrier pigeon if this was cheaper or required. This is a limit for the size of the growth, as it must not exceed the ability of users to obtain the data needed to validate.



                • Size of the UTXO. The Unspent Transaction Outputs database is the storage of units of Bitcoin that have not been spent. This is consensus critical and must be stored by all nodes in the network who are fully validating. This database has looser restrictions on its growth, and is effectively bounded by the block size as well, as it implicitly limits the number of entries which can be added to the database. Unfortunately there is not much to be done to reduce the impact of this 4 GiB storage on disk without much larger economic changes to Bitcoin to allow for entries to be "archived".


                • Validation complexity. The transactions within the chain have a cost associated with their validation. ECDSA is used in Bitcoin due to it being extremely space efficient and suitable for the task, but it is not particularly fast even with completely optimized implementations. Synchronizing the Bitcoin chain involves billions of individual SHA256 and ECDSA operations which puts a hard limit on the number which can be performed by a consumer processor in a reasonable amount of time. The growth of the chain should not exceed the ability for reasonable, consumer hardware to complete validation.







                share|improve this answer













                share|improve this answer




                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 8 hours ago









                AnonymousAnonymous

                9,6591 gold badge12 silver badges31 bronze badges




                9,6591 gold badge12 silver badges31 bronze badges































                    draft saved

                    draft discarded















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f90819%2fwill-the-size-of-bitcoin-core-full-node-be-too-big-to-run-on-a-normal-computer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown









                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її