Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

chainparrot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#31

Post by jgarzik »

Answer (12 yr crypto dev & veteran):

Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. If a blockchain's economics purposefully incentivizes nodes, then number-of-nodes is entirely subsidized, in one common example.

Further, the "Sybil" factor - which one party controls many nodes - and other centralizing factors - e.g. 90% of nodes are on Big Cloud - also complicates the number-of-nodes use as a simple metric and useful comparator.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#32

Post by TakeBlaster16 »

loxias wrote: post #24

Always surprised at how few nodes there are relative to how loud the noise is about crypto. I don't mind deploying a service and running things myself, it seems there are only a few thousand of us in the world. Even Tor only has "a few thousand" nodes. It might be cute to also see some derived statistics like "market cap/node", average size of transaction, and "estimated cost of 51% attack". ;-)

> estimated cost of 51% attack

Someone already built that one here: https://www.crypto51.app/

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#33

Post by sparkie »

loxias wrote: post #24

Always surprised at how few nodes there are relative to how loud the noise is about crypto. I don't mind deploying a service and running things myself, it seems there are only a few thousand of us in the world. Even Tor only has "a few thousand" nodes. It might be cute to also see some derived statistics like "market cap/node", average size of transaction, and "estimated cost of 51% attack". ;-)

The count is "reachable nodes", which is a fraction of the number of total nodes. Most people don't open a port to allow incoming connections and their node will only make outgoing ones. Bitcoin has closer to 50k users running Bitcoin Core, with many others using SPV wallets like Electrum.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/histor...

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#34

Post by c0mptonFP »

EddySchauHai wrote: post #30
loxias wrote: post #24

Always surprised at how few nodes there are relative to how loud the noise is about crypto. I don't mind deploying a service and running things myself, it seems there are only a few thousand of us in the world. Even Tor only has "a few thousand" nodes. It might be cute to also see some derived statistics like "market cap/node", average size of transaction, and "estimated cost of 51% attack". ;-)

It’s surprisingly complex to run a node unless you’re a seasoned developer, and even then when you add things like updates and potentially even slashing for mistakes it’s not worth it. I spent around two years contracting building test infra for different crypto companies by creating throwaway networks with potentially up to three different cryptos (for bridges) and it was a nightmare. There’s a definite startup idea…

Compared to the shit sysadmins normally have to deal with, setting up nodes and spinning up custom nets is a breeze in recent years.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#35

Post by mbesto »

jgarzik wrote: post #31

Answer (12 yr crypto dev & veteran): Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. If a blockchain's economics purposefully incentivizes nodes, then number-of-nodes is entirely subsidized, in one common example. Further, the "Sybil" factor - which one party controls many nodes - and other centralizing factors - e.g. 90% of nodes are on Big Cloud - also complic…

Answer (0 yr crypto dev & veteran):

I start a new coin call $FOO. I release 1,000,000 coins. I sell one coin to a friend for $1,0000, and keep the remaining 999,999 coins for myself. The market cap is now $100M.

> Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture.

You can game either one.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#36

Post by mgraczyk »

mbesto wrote: post #35
jgarzik wrote: post #31

Answer (12 yr crypto dev & veteran): Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. If a blockchain's economics purposefully incentivizes nodes, then number-of-nodes is entirely subsidized, in one common example. Further, the "Sybil" factor - which one party controls many nodes - and other centralizing factors - e.g. 90% of nodes are on Big Cloud - also complic…

Answer (0 yr crypto dev & veteran): I start a new coin call $FOO. I release 1,000,000 coins. I sell one coin to a friend for $1,0000, and keep the remaining 999,999 coins for myself. The market cap is now $100M. > Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. You can game either one.

If there's a public order book, it's very easy to see through this. Harder to do that with nodes.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#37

Post by password1 »

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #32
loxias wrote: post #24

Always surprised at how few nodes there are relative to how loud the noise is about crypto. I don't mind deploying a service and running things myself, it seems there are only a few thousand of us in the world. Even Tor only has "a few thousand" nodes. It might be cute to also see some derived statistics like "market cap/node", average size of transaction, and "estimated cost of 51% attack". ;-)

> estimated cost of 51% attack Someone already built that one here: https://www.crypto51.app/

These numbers are really low, I think I'm missing something otherwise I don't understand why 51% aren't a common issue.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#38

Post by guilhas »

bitcurious wrote: post #3

Chia is famously decentralized when using “number of nodes” as the measure and yet is missing from this list.

Chia sounds like the biggest lost opportunity ever. Why not use the drives for cloud storage?

Destroying a lot of HDDs and SSDs for nothing

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#39

Post by vlovich123 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #36
mbesto wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer (0 yr crypto dev & veteran): I start a new coin call $FOO. I release 1,000,000 coins. I sell one coin to a friend for $1,0000, and keep the remaining 999,999 coins for myself. The market cap is now $100M. > Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. You can game either one.

If there's a public order book, it's very easy to see through this. Harder to do that with nodes.

And yet so many instances of crypto coins that did this. I’m pretty sure they all had public books. The challenge isn’t I sell one coin. It’s wash trading. You create sufficient volume from multiple different anonymous accounts continuously. That’s impossible to decipher because ownership is impossible to untangle.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#40

Post by lawn »

jgarzik wrote: post #31

Answer (12 yr crypto dev & veteran): Number of nodes is a poor metric that is easily gamified (pumped up), presenting an artificial picture. If a blockchain's economics purposefully incentivizes nodes, then number-of-nodes is entirely subsidized, in one common example. Further, the "Sybil" factor - which one party controls many nodes - and other centralizing factors - e.g. 90% of nodes are on Big Cloud - also complic…

It's funny because the whole point of proof-of-work (and proof-of-stake etc) is because the number of nodes is a completely untrustworthy. If a there are very few nodes then that's a sign the crypto isn't very popular/decentralized, but other than that there's not much to say.
Post reply on HN