Skip to main content

Filecoin Node Comparison

There are several full-node implementations of the Filecoin protocol.

  • Forest is written in Rust and maintained by ChainSafe Systems. It focuses on chain validation, a high-performance RPC API, and snapshot generation with low hardware requirements.
  • Lotus is the reference implementation, written in Go. It provides the complete Filecoin feature set, including the storage-provider stack, and is typically where new protocol features land first.
  • Venus is a modular Go implementation. Rather than a single daemon, it is a set of independently deployable components (venus, damocles, sophon-miner, venus-wallet, sophon-messager, sophon-auth, sophon-gateway) that together pioneered Filecoin's distributed storage pool model, with a largely Lotus-compatible API. It aims to help small and medium-sized storage providers join the Filecoin network with a lower barrier to entry.

Feature comparison

CapabilityForestLotus
Chain synchronization and validationYesYes
Filecoin JSON-RPC APIYesYes
Ethereum-compatible RPC (eth_*)YesYes
Snapshot exportYesYes
Built-in walletYesYes
Bootstrap nodeYesYes
F3 (Fast Finality) participationYesYes
Storage provider / sealing (lotus-miner, lotus-worker)NoYes
Block production / miningNo (untested)Yes

Forest and Lotus both expose a Lotus-compatible Filecoin JSON-RPC API (requests and responses use the same JSON format). Forest serves three API versions: /rpc/v0 (deprecated, legacy Lotus-compatible methods), /rpc/v1 (stable and recommended for production), and /rpc/v2 (experimental, still being rolled out). Forest does not aim for 100% Lotus API parity: it implements the methods needed for chain validation, RPC serving, and snapshots, but not storage-provider or sealing methods. For the full, per-version list of supported methods, see the JSON-RPC overview and methods reference.

Performance

For a comparable RPC workload, Forest served requests at lower latency while using less CPU and memory than Lotus, and it exports a snapshot significantly faster and with lower hardware requirements. See the RPC Performance Comparison and Snapshot Generation Comparison for the full figures and methodology.