In "Does running an alternative full node implementation benefit the Bitcoin network?", I asked about running an alternative full node implementation for the benefit of the Bitcoin network.

What is the current status of different alternative full node implementations with regard to

  • maturity (alpha/beta/stable)
  • performance
  • compatibility tests
  • code review
  • suitability for different purposes:
    • experimentation
    • merchants
    • as a wallet
    • as a lightweight wallet back-end
    • solely for the benefit of the network?

Update: Moved the list of implementations into an answer.

  • 1
    This question requires a good answer to be too long for this format. However, I think the Client overview page of the bitcoin.it-wiki might be at least partially what you are looking for.
    – Murch
    Commented Oct 7, 2013 at 11:42
  • @Murch You must consider that StackExchange answers usually appear first and foremost while searching, and that an answer here might attract more interest than a blog post could. The SE format is rich enough, I guess the limitations are engagement and expertise - i.e., nobody cares, or who cares doesn't know.
    – Bruno Kim
    Commented Feb 21, 2014 at 11:52
  • @BrunoKim Correct. Unfortunately, engagement on the Bitcoin.SE is somewhat at a low, so I would expect information that has to be constantly updated to fall behind quickly, i.e. in this case I think it is better to link to the bitcoin wiki (not a blog post) instead of duplicating their effort.
    – Murch
    Commented Feb 21, 2014 at 13:50
  • @Murch I couldn't find any wiki page on bitcoin.it about full node implementations, and the tables there don't seem to have a column for that either. In your opinion, should I create a list of full node implementations on the wiki instead of maintaining this list here?
    – akaihola
    Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 20:38
  • Well, if someone starts doing it here, that would be marvelous of course, I was just thinking that there might be more people using bitcoin.it actively than bitcoin.SE. However, I am not sure, are you currently collecting information in the Question? It might be better if you created an answer instead for the answer part. :) If you need help, I am up for it, I usually hang out in the Bitcoin chat when I am online.
    – Murch
    Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 23:30

1 Answer 1


Update: Coin Dance has an excellent table of node implementations with descriptions and links at the bottom of their Bitcoin Nodes Summary page.

Below are the implementations I've found. I'm not sure if all of them qualify as full nodes.

(Sources: Core Development Update #4 by Gavin Andresen, Jun 21 2013 on the Bitcoin Foundation blog; bitcointalk.org forums)

Updated bitcoinj and libbitcoin status (based on information from this bitcointalk thread); Electrum backend Added Bitcore

  • I'd like to stress that miners must use bitcoind. If certain miners use different implementations it might cause forks in the blockchain. It's a complicated issue talked more in detail here bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/… Commented May 12, 2014 at 18:34
  • We also use our own implementation, in Go as well but distinct from btcd: blockcypher.com
    – Matthieu
    Commented May 12, 2014 at 18:53
  • @Matthieu Thanks for the information! Looks like it's only used internally by you and it isn't possible for others to run full nodes using your software?
    – akaihola
    Commented May 24, 2014 at 7:06
  • @akaihola For now, but you can access it through the API and we will open source it when we're ready.
    – Matthieu
    Commented May 24, 2014 at 15:40
  • 1
    Should NBitcoin be listed here too? Commented Feb 6, 2015 at 16:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.