"Cloud" Bitcoin nodes, whether they are useful for the network?

Since the launch of the number of nodes Bitcoin Classic constantly increasing. Peliz alternate client "Classic 0.12" could even lead the top statistics, denoting the presence of nodes in the network in 2552. But if you carefully look at the statistics, it is possible to identify some oddities.

Firstly, IP data suggest that many nodes Bitcoin Classic could not be present at all nodes. Instead, a single node can use multiple IP-addresses for the purpose of fraud total the total number of nodes. This assumption seems plausible in the light of the observation that very few nodes the Bitcoin Core removed client bitcoin-core and found instead the client Slassic, and it speaks well for the fact that this new nodes, and not a replacement operators Core units that they previously uninstalled.

Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible that many new users simply start (on and off) Classic nodes geographically in one and the same place simultaneously.

But it is possible to assert with certainty that the lion's share of all units Classic is located in data centers, mainly in the Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Choopa. This is not surprising, as the specialized websites offer similar services, and this practice is encouraged Classic supporters. In addition, the analysis shows that the vast majority of units in these data centers will almost certainly have been paid for a relatively small group of people.

This raises the question: does it make sense at all nodes contain complete data centers? Is Bitcoin Vyigryvaet from the sharp increase in the Classic sites?

Let's see why someone may even need to run the full assembly.

inspection

Perhaps the most important reason contain a complete unit - this transaction verification.

With a full node, users can check whether the transaction is in fact all the rules of Bitcoin. That is, using nothing other than as a software with open source components, operators can verify that they have received all bitcoins namayneny legally, properly labeled, and a lot of what else. This is exactly what makes Bitcoin reliable solution.

Also, it does check the popular measure of decentralization embodied in the "value of the content of the full assembly." Because the check is cheaper (the trust), more and more people can participate in the validation, which means that decentralization Bitcoin will grow.

In addition, if the user can verify the transaction with its own complete site, it gives him the advantage of confidentiality, since it is not necessary to show the address information to anyone else.

However, technically, these arguments are valid only when the unit is actually located in the place of the physical location of its operator. If the user has to trust the data center whether it receives the correct information from the node, the decision could theoretically cease to be reliable. Although it is a recognized fact that in practice, users are always to some extent, rely on hardware and software, so that confidence in the data center for the majority may be an acceptable risk.

More importantly: validation really works as intended only when used to check incoming transactions. Many bitcoin nodes running in datacenters, however, generally are not used to conduct transactions and therefore do not give any advantages relating to inspection.

Conclusion: Checking transactions Bitcoin nodes running in the datacenter is questionable. If the node is located in the data center, is not busy checking transactions, the terms of the validation of transactions, it is useless for the network.

Consensus

It interferes with the previous topic (but much more difficult to measure) - complete units also affect the process of consensus-building network.

Full node adds "weight" to the set of rules that it applies: Anyone who wants to share transaction with this unit (and the operator that it controls) will have to adhere to the rules of this site. The more nodes use some of the same rules, especially as these rules are "amplified" through collective network effect.

Perhaps this is the main reason for the emergence of a large number of nodes in the network Classic. They act as voices, implying that users are willing to go to the 2-megabyte maximum block size.

Nevertheless, given that the network Bitcoin is something resembling a voting voices are not considered in the number of nodes. Instead, the existing nodes "vote" by their economic "weight". Since the operator, containing the node network offers more value - think of the influential merchant, more buyers, the major stock exchanges and many others - their growing economic weight.

This means that it does not matter how many nodes someone has started. Does one influential merchant site or a hundred - its overall economic weight does not change. And, hence, its impact on the network Bitcoin consensus process does not change.

Again, the majority of nodes placed in datacenters, probably did not add any economic weight. In fact, they are not used for transactions.

Conclusion: Accommodation Classic nodes in data center does not increase any meaningful way the process of consensus Bitcoin network if the nodes are not involved in the verification of transactions. They could be rolezny if used for the transaction, but the presence of more than one node in a single economic entity is meaningless in terms of consensus.

Decentralization

In addition to the cost of the assembly operation, another popular measure of decentralization is the number of doors that need to knock to gain control of Bitcoin, or to be able to turn it off.

Since nodes are full bitcoin ridge, it is useful to make it in many network ... but only if they are running a large number of different people, and it is preferable that these individuals were from various geographic regions.

If more than one node is running at any one data center, the data center operator that fully controls all the nodes. And if so, just enough to knock a door, to take control of all of the nodes in the data center.

Conclusion: The content of more than one node Classic in each of the data centers can not add network decentralization.

relay

From a technical point of view, perhaps the most important task is to complete the node relaying transactions and block other nodes.

Moreover, if a large number of nodes controlled by just a few people, and especially if all nodes are physically located in the same location, they represent a single point of failure. If such components represent a significant part of the Bitcoin network, and then suddenly go offline, or begin relaying false information, it can even temporarily become a destabilizing factor.

Nevertheless, there is a scenario in which the placement of nodes in data centers can be pointless. If you happen hardfork Classic, but from the existing Bitcoin Core units will be almost no switching to Classic to begin to take larger units, while Classic nodes placed in data centers could help relay enlarged blocks the sites that host them. Thus, running more Classic nodes before hardfork occurred, it may serve as a signal for miners that their potentially large blocks will be transmitted to the network. (By the way, miners, presumably, in the first place is much more concerned with the network division, rather than the potential of the relay in the event of such a split.)

Conclusion: The content of Classic units in data centers are not currently doing any significant contribution to the process of relaying Bitcoin blocks and even contains a slight risk. There is a scenario in which the Classic nodes placed in the data center can help a little Classic, but this advantage is largely theoretical.

bootstrap

Whenever a new node Bitcoin goes online, it must be synchronized with the network. This requires that the assembly loaded (and checked) all blokcheyn, for which it needs to connect to a fully synchronized nodes. Run node in the data center can help with this.

However, in this case, many of the new Classic nodes running in the data center, work on the basis of truncated blokcheyna. They remove all the data blokcheyna older than a couple of days. So, they are useless for the synchronization of new nodes.

Classic Components full blokcheynom allowed to upload data synchronizes nodes. But in fact it was never really a bottleneck or problem that needs a solution. And if it ever becomes an issue, then it will actually be easily solved by the promotion of complete units in data centers.

Conclusion: Starting Classic nodes in the data center can be useful for synchronizing data on the new nodes, but this is an advantage for the network is negligible.

SPV hosts

Finally, full nodes are hosts for customers to simplify the verification of Payment (Simplified Payment Verification, SPV), such as a mobile wallet application. Since the SPV clients are not stored at all blokcheyn, they are connected to a full node, which has a complete copy of blokcheyna, and requesting the data they need.

However, those Bitcoin nodes, including the new Classic sites on which "outdated" data truncated blokcheyna are partially fit for SPV units, because they may not be able to return all of the requested data.

Moreover, the SPV hosting customers has never been a bottleneck or problem that needs a solution. And if it ever becomes an issue, then it will be easy to solve.

Conclusion: Starting Classic nodes in data centers could be beneficial to the process of return SPV data nodes, but this is an advantage for the network is negligible.