Author: Mike Hearn 2012-12-05 10:43:24
Published on: 2012-12-05T10:43:24+00:00
The need for full nodes in the Bitcoin network is undisputed due to "sockets" or resources needed to serve another node. However, the value of a regular end user's desktop machine, which may have a stupid virus scanner that slows down the computer, must also be weighed against the risk of user frustration when they discover Bitcoin is slowing their system down. This has led to the suggestion of having both an SPV client and a full node running in parallel for users who want to support the network. Ultraprune+LevelDB+other optimizations are not game changers because eventually network traffic should increase to use up the additional performance unlocked by the optimizations, and users demand instant on not just at first start but also every time they open their wallet. The only time it makes sense for a casual user to have a wallet integrated with a full node is if that node never shuts down, such as a merchant node.To recruit users to run full nodes, light wallets could notice high uptime and external connectivity and ask users to take part. For Windows users, a one-click install that sets up a background service could make getting a full node easy and transparent. However, if users start complaining that performance suffered unacceptably after being asked to run a full node, better heuristics are necessary before automatically opting users in. Although the Tor analogy is not quite the same, the Tor developers have wanted to automatically opt users in to being relays for a while, but the technical complexity of doing it well is really high. Accurate recommendations would be a good first base to reach before automatically opting users in.
Updated on: 2023-06-06T09:31:34.549385+00:00