Author: Aymeric Vitte 2017-03-29 17:14:50
Published on: 2017-03-29T17:14:50+00:00
The discussion revolves around the issue of disk space and the need to find a way to counter an attack on Bitcoin. It is noted that encouraging people to run nodes without knowing how to dedicate the right storage space is not wise. The writer did not notice any impact on CPU or bandwidth use while testing with non-SSD drives but stopped due to repeated software bugs and drive issues that desynchronized the chain. Setting up a full node on the writer's servers is still in the to-do list, although it is of low priority. Running a prune node requires setting up a full node, which presents the same problems, and the advantage of pruning is unclear. Instead, the community should promote running efficient full nodes, ideally seeding a torrent with a recent state and implementing a patch to defeat BU plans. Andrew Johnson suggests that as more users are added to the system by scaling capacity, we will see new nodes appear. However, there is a potential attack vector where overwhelming archival nodes by spinning up new ones constantly, making it difficult for a "real" new node to get up to speed quickly. Johnson proposes paying archival nodes a small amount of bitcoin to retrieve blocks older than a certain cutoff, incentivizing running archival nodes. Finally, the author provides links to various blockchain-related projects and resources.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T22:48:57.237363+00:00