The requested URL /cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855903 was not found on this server.The requested URL /?p=6561 was not found on this server."With a very powerful "Desktop" machine bitcoin-qt dominates CPU/GPU resources."That doesn't match my experience.System responsiveness / user experience can suffer when running bitcoin-qt on a spinning hard disk.Disk I/O load will cause the whole system to grind and severely disrupt the user experience.Move the Bitcoin data to an SSD, though, and it's an entirely different story.The initial blockchain synchronization / "catch up" is CPU and disk intensive, but after initial sync I find bitcoin-qt uses only a trivial amount of CPU to keep up with verifying new blocks and new transactions.Running bitcoin-qt occasionally is a much more painful user experience than running bitcoin-qt continuously.I'm running Bitcoin Core v0.12.rc2 on an old dual core Pentium E2160 at 1.8GHz, 6GB RAM, 64 bit Windows 10, with the Bitcoin data on SSD.

This system is about 6 years old and was an economy model even when new.Not what I would call a powerful system.I've only added RAM and the SSD.On that machine I run two instances of Bitcoin-qt - one for mainnet, and another for testnet, and an instance of bfgminer to manage a handful of USB Block Eruptors for testnet mining.Both bitcoin-qt instances are typically at their max of 25 connections (each).Total CPU load floats around 11%, with only occasional spikes to 40% for a few seconds.The mainnet bitcoin-qt process uses about 700MB of RAM, testnet about 300MB.This machine did fall into disk grinding paralysis during initial sync / catchup with the v0.10 and v0.11 builds of bitcoin-qt, when the Bitcoin data was on a spinning disk.Moving the Bitcoin data to an SSD drive had the greatest impact on breaking the disk-bound whole-system paralysis.Increasing the system RAM, upgrading to v0.12, and upgrading the OS to Win 10 all contributed smaller improvements.

It is possible to run a full node on a small desktop machine concurrent with user apps.Just get the Bitcoin data off of spinning media and onto SSD, make sure you have plenty of RAM, and leave bitcoin-qt running all the time.-Danny On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Patrick Shirkey via bitcoin-dev < > wrote: > > On Thu, February 11, 2016 8:15 am, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I've been asked to post this to this mailing list too.It's time to > > clear up some misconceptions floating around about full nodes.> > > > === Myth: There are only about 5500 full nodes worldwide === > > > > This number comes from this and similar sites: https://bitnodes.21.co/ > > and it measured by trying to probe every nodes on their open ports.> > > > Problem is, not all nodes actually have open ports that can be probed.> > Either because they are behind firewalls or because their users have > > configured them to not listen for connections.

> > > > Nobody knows how many full nodes there are, since many people don't know > > how to forward ports behind a firewall, and bandwidth can be costly, its > > quite likely that the number of nodes with closed ports is at least > > another several thousand.> > > > Nodes with open ports are able to upload blocks to new full nodes.litecoin 2 year chartIn > > all other ways they are the same as nodes with closed ports.gia ca bitcoinBut because > > open-port-nodes can be measured and closed-port-nodes cannot, some > > members of the bitcoin community have been mistaken into believing that > > open-port-nodes are that matters.bitcoin is a ponzi> > > > === Myth: This number of nodes matters and/or is too low.bitcoin vic

=== > > > > Nodes with open ports are useful to the bitcoin network because they > > help bootstrap new nodes by uploading historical blocks, they are a > > measure of bandwidth capacity.Right now there is no shortage of > > bandwidth capacity, and if there was it could be easily added by renting > > cloud servers.> > > > The problem is not bandwidth or connections, but trust, security and > > privacy.ethereum total value> > > > Full nodes are able to check that all of bitcoin's rules are being > > followed.free bitcoin captchaRules like following the inflation schedule, no double > > spending, no spending of coins that don't belong to the holder of the > > private key and all the other rules required to make bitcoin work (e.g.litecoin indo

> > difficulty) > > > > Full nodes are what make bitcoin trustless.No longer do you have to > > trust a financial institution like a bank or paypal, you can simply run > > software on your own computer.To put simply, the only node that matters > > is the one you use.> > > > === Myth: There is no incentive to run nodes, the network relies on > > altruism === > > > > It is very much in the individual bitcoin's users rational self interest > > to run a full node and use it as their wallet.bitcoin buy ukash> > > > Using a full node as your wallet is the only way to know for sure that > > none of bitcoin's rules have been broken.ethereum was ist dasRules like no coins were spent > > not belonging to the owner, that no coins were spent twice, that no > > inflation happens outside of the schedule and that all the rules needed > > to make the system work are followed (e.g.

All other kinds > > of wallet involve trusting a third party server.> > > > All these checks done by full nodes also increase the security.There > > are many attacks possible against lightweight wallets that do not affect > > full node wallets.> > > > This is not just mindless paranoia, there have been real world examples > > where full node users were unaffected by turmoil in the rest of the > > bitcoin ecosystem.The 4th July 2015 accidental chain fork effected many > > kinds of wallets.Here is the wiki page on this event > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/July_2015_chain_forks#Wallet_Advice > > > > Notice how updated node software was completely unaffected by the fork.> > All other wallets required either extra confirmations or checking that > > the third-party institution was running the correct version.> > > > Full nodes wallets are also currently the most private way to use > > Bitcoin, with nobody else learning which bitcoin addresses belong to > > you.

All other lightweight wallets leak information about which > > addresses are yours because they must query third-party servers.The > > Electrum servers will know which addresses belong to you and can link > > them together.Despite bloom filtering, lightweight wallets based on > > BitcoinJ do not provide much privacy against nodes who connected > > directly to the wallet or wiretappers.> > > > For many use cases, such privacy may not be required.But an important > > reason to run a full node and use it as a wallet is to get the full > > privacy benefits.> > > > === Myth: I can just set up a node on a cloud server instance and leave > > it === > > > > To get the benefits of running a full node, you must use it as your > > wallet, preferably on hardware you control.> > > > Most people who do this do not use a full node as their wallet.> > Unfortunately because Bitcoin has a similar name to Bittorrent, some > > people believe that upload capacity is the most important thing for a > > healthy network.

As I've explained above: bandwidth and connections are > > not a problem today, trust, security and privacy are.> > > > === Myth: Running a full node is not recommended, most people should use > > a lightweight client === > > > > This was common advice in 2012, but since then the full node software > > has vastly improved in terms of user experience.> > > > If you cannot spare the disk space to store the blockchain, you can > > enable pruning as in: > > /en/release/v0.11.0#block-file-pruning.In Bitcoin > > Core 0.12, pruning being enabled will leave the wallet enabled.> > Altogether this should require less than 1.5GB of hard disk space.> > > > If you cannot spare the bandwidth to upload blocks to other nodes, there > > are number of options to reduce or eliminate the bandwidth requirement > > /en/full-node#reduce-traffic .These include > > limiting connections, bandwidth targetting and disabling listening.> > Bitcoin Core 0.12 has the new option -blocksonly, where the node will > > not download unconfirmed transaction and only download new blocks.

This > > more than halves the bandwidth usage at the expense of not seeing > > unconfirmed transactions.> > > > Synchronizing the blockchain for a new node has improved since 2012 too.> > Features like headers-first > > (/en/release/v0.10.0#faster-synchronization) and > > libsecp256k1 have greatly improved the initial synchronization time.> > > > It can be further improved by setting -dbcache=6000 which keeps more of > > the UTXO set in memory.It reduces the amount of time reading from disk > > and therefore speeds up synchronization.Tests showed that the entire > > blockchain can now be synchronized in less than _3 and a half hours_ > > (See > > /bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6954#issuecomment-154993958) > > Note that you'll need Bitcoin Core 0.12 or later to get all these > > efficiency improvements.> > > > === How to run a full node as your wallet === > > > > I think every moderate user of bitcoin would benefit by running a full > > node and using it as their wallet.

There are several ways to do this.> > > > * /en/download).> > > > * Use wallet software that is backed by a full node e.g.Armory > > (/) or JoinMarket > > (/AdamISZ/JMBinary/#jmbinary) > > > > * Use a lightweight wallet that connects only to your full node (e.g.> > Multibit connecting only to your node running at home, Electrum > > connecting only to your own Electrum server) > > > > So what are you waiting for?The benefits are many, the downsides are > > not that bad.The more people do this, the more robust and healthy the > > bitcoin ecosystem is.> > > > > > This is very useful information but from my experience it is not viable to > have a full node running full time on a desktop system i.e sharing the > system with a normal desktop workload.> > With a very powerful "Desktop" machine bitcoin-qt dominates CPU/GPU > resources.Surely the majority of nodes NOT running open ports are being > run on desktop systems.

It's likely that the vast majority of the > "normal/desktop" user base are not going to setup dedicated machines to > run a full node full time.> > It's likely that the vast majority of full nodes that are not running open > ports are used occasionally when the user wants to make a transaction or > "catch up" with the blockchain.> > That creates a divide between those who do have the resources to > contribute to the system on a full time basis (minority) and those who do > not (majority).> > Does the power of p2p decentralization lie with the vast majority or the > "wealthy" resource rich minority?> > How will the move to 2MB hard fork affect the vast majority of nodes?> > For example Debian unstable currently provides the following: > > apt-cache madison bitcoin-qt > bitcoin-qt | 0.11.2-1 | http://ftp.lug.ro/debian/ unstable/main amd64 > Packages > bitcoin | 0.11.2-1 | http://ftp.lug.ro/debian/ unstable/main Sources > > > The rollout affect of the hard fork on the entire bitcoin ecosystem is a > difficult process to plan in advance.

It's not viable to simply rely on > press releases to encourage users to upgrade their nodes.The debacle with > Pulse Audio during the mid 2000's should be a lesson for those who seek > that route.> > Compare that to the requirements for spinning up "bitcoin-2.0" and > enabling users to move their wallets to the new blockchain at their > leisure.> > The ecosystem doesn't suffer from instant degradation.Bitcoin "brand" > loyalty will ensure that users who want to move forward with the economic > potential of the 2MB blocksize will be able to keep their existing funds > safe while testing the waters with the new blocksize.> > After all Bitcoin is still the only game in town when it comes to scale > and proven history of financial return.> > As the new blockchain builds momentum the old one will eventually become > obsolete.However it may also become the digital equivalency of Silver and > that is also a useful, profitable and viable alternative with a proven > history of success.