Though I appreciate the spirit of this article. it's technically recommending options that are not Full nodes. But operating systems that can run unverified full nodes.
These are more dangerous to use than people think, and it's ultimately better and safer to run a bitcoin core node, a btcd node, a bitcoin knotts node, than these operating systems moonlighting as nodes.
While I agree that the security model is tighter running, let's say, Bitcoin Core, I'd argue that we should be careful to not make perfect the enemy of the good and gatekeep less technically experienced people. There will always exist trade-offs in complexity vs. security, in the same way that it does for various forms of custody. It wouldn't make sense to suggest multi-sig hardware wallets to new Bitcoiners even though it is, no doubt, technically more secure.
Running and maintaining a bare-metal node with Bitcoin Core is harder and out of reach for a lot of people. I do think it's a net positive for the Bitcoin network and the individuals involved to experiment and get involved with something more accessible, such as Umbrel, RaspiBlitz, myNode, RoninDojo. These projects are also open-source and the code can be inspected—and is so by many people.
But I'm curious to learn more about the risks you see associated with the aforementioned projects. Have you written something more in-depth where you expound on the risks? Please, share if so, I would love to understand it better.
Though I appreciate the spirit of this article. it's technically recommending options that are not Full nodes. But operating systems that can run unverified full nodes.
These are more dangerous to use than people think, and it's ultimately better and safer to run a bitcoin core node, a btcd node, a bitcoin knotts node, than these operating systems moonlighting as nodes.
they are not Bitcoin nodes.
they are operating systems
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Fiach 👍
While I agree that the security model is tighter running, let's say, Bitcoin Core, I'd argue that we should be careful to not make perfect the enemy of the good and gatekeep less technically experienced people. There will always exist trade-offs in complexity vs. security, in the same way that it does for various forms of custody. It wouldn't make sense to suggest multi-sig hardware wallets to new Bitcoiners even though it is, no doubt, technically more secure.
Running and maintaining a bare-metal node with Bitcoin Core is harder and out of reach for a lot of people. I do think it's a net positive for the Bitcoin network and the individuals involved to experiment and get involved with something more accessible, such as Umbrel, RaspiBlitz, myNode, RoninDojo. These projects are also open-source and the code can be inspected—and is so by many people.
But I'm curious to learn more about the risks you see associated with the aforementioned projects. Have you written something more in-depth where you expound on the risks? Please, share if so, I would love to understand it better.