I’m operating my full node /Satoshi:23.0.0/ with all optionally available providers enabled.
These are: NETWORK, BLOOM, WITNESS, COMPACT_FILTERS, and NETWORK_LIMITED.
My bitcoin.conf file incorporates following entries:
blockfilterindex=1
peerbloomfilters=1
peerblockfilters=1
coinstatsindex=1
I do not thoughts if the node makes use of a couple of extra GB to retailer the additional knowledge for the indexes. I am glad to assist the community if these providers are helpful to different trustworthy nodes.
As of at this time
- blocks/index folder makes use of 110.5 MB,
- chainstate folder makes use of 4.8 GB,
- indexes/blockfilter folder makes use of 8 GB,
- indexes/coinstats index folder makes use of 128 MB,
- indexes/txindex folder makes use of 36.7 GB.
After I test the Bitnodes.io Leaderboard ( https://bitnodes.io/nodes/leaderboard/ ), particulars of my node present that it offers following providers: NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED, NODE_COMPACT_FILTERS (1101), and my node will get rating 0.2 for the Providers index (SI).
The definition of Providers index on Bitnodes.io:
SI = Providers index
SI = 1 / r
r = rank of node's providers
Consensus providers is ranked 1 adopted by the following commonest providers
SI is about to 0.0 for node with out NODE_NETWORK
The nodes on the high of the Bitnodes.io leaderboard present these 3 providers: NODE_NETWORK, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (1033), and obtain a rating of 1 for Providers index (SI).
Why are nodes, which offer all Bitcoin P2P protocol optionally available options to their friends, downrated on Bitnodes.io? Is it a nasty follow to supply NODE_BLOOM and NODE_COMPACT_FILTERS providers?
