Topic: Are people incentivized with [btc] to run nodes? (Read 2401 times)

Seems like at 40-50 nodes, a serious DDOS could take down bitcoin, am I wrong?  I agree about miners, obviously at only a handful of miners we'd have the 50% attack real easy.  But maybe I'm missing something.

40-50 nodes spread is decentralized enough. If it comes to robustness more bumber is necessary, and figures of 1000 or more which is easily available is more than enough.

The nodes is not an issue, only 10 or so miners signing the blocks is.

In my opinion there's a difference between what "would work" and what would be ideal.  I'd prefer to see more nodes running than less.  40-50 seems like a very small, very attackable network, IMO.

That depends on the total number of nodes out there. If there are a 1000 still left running even that is good enough. In fact I would say even 40-50 nodes would work. If we count the pools, big exchanges then we easily have that number.

Yes, BTC is all about decentralization.

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

See this: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/

Fun that there's a drawing for full nodes, I had never seen that before.  I'm not currently running one so I guess I can't play but I think it's great that this drawing exists.  I also wanted to add that while most people running full nodes now probably aren't solo mining there was a time when most people running full nodes probably were solo mining and for sure running a node is pretty much a prerequisite to solo mining (which presumably some people can still do although I'd love to hear some figures about how many actually are).

Source: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/

So if you have a PIX value higher than 8.0, you're in the draw, and the winner is chosen randomly.

Here's how to register a bitcoin address for your node, to be able to participate in the draw.

Currently there are 1374 nodes with a PIX higher than 8.0. This means that anyone entering the program has a chance of 1/1374 to win, or 0.07%, now if only 10% cares to register a bitcoin address for their nodes, the chance increases to 0.7%. So indeed, not a high reward at all, but at least it's free to participate.

The question you need to ask is, how many is enough? Ideally we would want everyone to run a full node to make it as decentralized as possible. But after a certain number it is diminishing returns, and in practice I think a few hundred full nodes with good connectivity and spread out is good enough.

100000 nodes is stronger than 10000 nodes, but not by 10 times. The curve flattens out.

It's not much. If you're on the top of the list, you get 10$ worth of bitcoin for a week.
2 weeks are paid already; https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/
Also leaderboard is here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/leaderboard/

Your stance is noted. But I'm wondering, is not a stronger network a network with more nodes? Would not a network with 100000 nodes be far stronger than a network of 10000 nodes?

What in your opinion is sufficient network strength?

Thing is, there are enough exchanges, pools, merchants, big holders who have a vested interest in keeping the network running smoothly and have enough resources to run several nodes. It is not an issue.

Counterparty also was trying to pay for some nodes.

Thanks for posting this, interesting developments. However, after reading that lenghty article and the github thread I'm still left with some questions.

- Am I correctly in my understanding that this is still in the discussion stage?
- Who will get paid?
- How and when will node operators get paid?
- How much will node operators get paid?

I read there will be certain criteria a node operator needs to meet to get any payment, and then there's the bitnodes "highscore" list.

For such a project to be successfull, node operators should make more money than they put in. Subsides might also be a way to go, but might not be that successful.

I see a proposal from mike hearn here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5783

So basically he proposes charity as a way of running nodes, how's that really different from what people do today?

The fundamental question is however where the money should come from. I guess many people would be willing to put in a few satoshi's but do not have the will or time to run a full node themselves. Possibly, some rich person could also donate a few thousand dollars and have hundreds of geeks running nodes for that money.

It's also important that nodes are legit. What prevents a smartass from getting one real node, and then setting up proxies on cheap vps accounts, now suddenly he appears to have contributed 50 nodes to the network, while in reality he only has 1, and 49 proxies. Maybe the answer is obvious, but I'd like to hear it.

Interesting read.  I did not see it maybe I'm blind.  How much is it paying?

Coindesk has a interesting article on false nodes: http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/ 

Bitnodes is incentivizing node operators:
Bitnodes Project Issues First Incentives For Node Operators

how using a full node would make things less secure

Maybe because it is online.

But armory requires btc core anyway

not with btc, but with tor, i remember you get something for being a node of the network, using bitcoin in conjuction

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Economic_strength offers a good explanation.

No, they are not. The folks who do this have a strong, altruistic motive to see the btc network thrive and succeed