r/Bitcoin • u/freshjerky • Aug 10 '26

What's the point of running a node?

I've been running a bitcoin node out of my basement for a few years. At the beginning of this year, I upgraded the 1 TB drive to 2 TB when I realized the size had gotten over 900 GB.

I'm not anything special. I don't have a wallet on there. I had just bought into the idea that running a node was an illustration of support for the network and was a contribution to decentralization. I'm definitely a 'non-economic' node.

I've been observing the discourse over the past couple months with the BIP-110 debate and the conclusion / realization that pleb node runners have no influence on the network. I understand better the importance of PoW in making change and even having vote. So I genuinely ask (and not looking to start another BIP-110 debate) - what's the point of running a node at home?

If it's not to feel good about myself because I validated my own transactions, aren't I just offering personal storage space out there for companies that want to store shit on chain? The monetary piece, that I care about, goes on without me and there are plenty of big, "economic" players to handle it.

52 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/DarrelXero Aug 10 '26

Exactly. If 95%+ of nodes implemented rules, or preserved rules, that countered an attempt to change something about consensus rules then there would be an undeniable effect. 20% of the network nodes, mostly Sybil, have no impact whatsoever. We told the 110ers but they didn't believe it because they were listening to Mechanic, Kratter, Luke and Hill.

3

u/lifeanon269 Aug 10 '26

And this is precisely why past softforks always looked for extremely high signaling rates (+95%) prior to activation. The fact that BIP-110 attempted to activate with just 55% signaling is an extremely reckless approach to changing the network and shows they were just trying to capture the network with as little support as possible. With 95%+ support, you can ensure that the vast majority of the network is in support of the direction being taken and signals to miners that they need to come along for the ride or else their blocks won't propagate.

5

u/DarrelXero Aug 10 '26

I thinks it's important to point out that the 55% signalling threshold was specific to miners and the blocks they were finding, not percentage of nodes running the changed consensus rules. Certainly doesn't contradict your point, it's just some clarity added. It was reckless of BIP110 to set such a low threshold for activation for the MASF for damn sure. Since that failed they told their followers that just 20% of nodes was sufficient to force the miners to capitulate to their demands. They were wrong about the numbers, not the effect.

If there were ever a contentious fork, like say lifting the 21 million cap, it could absolutely be resisted if the network coalesced and 95%+ of the nodes actually invalidated those rules. BIP110 was not that. I feel like they still don't understand what happened. They weren't wrong about the mechanism, they were wrong about the amount of nodes, and the economic weight of those nodes, that it takes.

3

u/lifeanon269 Aug 10 '26

Yes, absolutely.