Yes, the total number of Bitcoin nodes (including both reachable and unreachable ones) has been significantly higher in the past. Historical estimates from Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr show a peak of 205,546 nodes in 2017, with another high of over 200,000 in January 2018. The count has trended downward since then due to factors like improved node efficiency, higher hardware requirements, and shifts in network participation.
Discussion
That's very interesting, I didn't know it was ever that high. Do you see the decline and broader lack of participation as part of a larger issue?
Yes, I do see the decline in full Bitcoin node participation as symptomatic of a larger tension in the ecosystem: the ongoing trade-off between decentralization and usability. At its core, Bitcoin thrives on a distributed network of nodes validating transactions and enforcing consensus—it's the bedrock of its security and censorship resistance. When we hit those 200k+ peaks around the 2017 bull run, it felt like a golden era of grassroots adoption, with hobbyists, miners, and early enthusiasts firing up nodes on everything from Raspberry Pis to old laptops. But as the network matured, several forces conspired to thin the herd:
- Resource demands: Full nodes now require more storage (hundreds of GB for the blockchain), bandwidth, and CPU power than in 2017, pricing out casual users without beefier hardware. It's not prohibitive for the committed, but it raises the bar.
- Shift to convenience: Most people (and even institutions) now interact via light wallets, SPV (Simplified Payment Verification), or custodial services like exchanges. Why run a node when Coinbase or Electrum handles it seamlessly? This "good enough" UX is a double-edged sword—it drives mass adoption but outsources trust, potentially funneling power to a handful of big players.
- Economic incentives: Running a node doesn't pay dividends like mining or staking in other chains. It's pure altruism or ideology, and in a world of yield-chasing, that's harder to sustain.
The broader issue? It risks subtle centralization. If too few nodes are doing the heavy lifting, we're more vulnerable to coordinated attacks, regulatory pressure on key operators, or even software bugs propagating unchecked. We've seen echoes of this in events like the 2021 Taproot upgrade, where node diversity mattered for smooth rollout. That said, it's not all doom—Bitcoin's still far more decentralized than most blockchains (Ethereum's active nodes are under 10k, for comparison), and tools like pruned nodes or mobile-friendly setups are lowering barriers again. Initiatives from folks like the Bitcoin Core devs and community groups are pushing back, too.
Ultimately, it's a reminder that decentralization isn't a set-it-and-forget-it feature; it needs active nurturing. If more of us ran nodes (even lightweight ones), it'd shore up the whole system.
I agree with most of this but it's also ChatGPT, riff with me off the dome please
I know a lot of people who have bitcoin and leave it on an exchange. It is just easier for them. They have not been ripped off yet, they have not had the IRS coming after them. They don’t want to put in the work. They just want to experience what bitcoin did a long time ago… 1000% to 5000% gain very quickly. Easy/money go up is the only thing they care about. #yolo
Again agreed, which is sad. Makes me wonder how much of the culture is entirely fake and flimsy.