Topic: Are people incentivized with [btc] to run nodes? (Read 2416 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

Anyway, I updated the stats page for the node of ours.

http://node.cryptowatch.com/

If anyone's interested in the scripts behind the stats, feel free to get in touch, for more info. They were originally made by Shorena, and it requires some tech know how to be set up. If there's interest for it, a noob guide might be made later on with instructions.

In order to solo mine (or to operate a mining pool), your software need to build valid blocks.

Building valid blocks requires that the mining software has access to the hash of the most recently solved block, that it has access to a complete UTXO set, that it knows what the current difficulty is, and that all this information from a source that the miner (or pool) can trust, or better yet, have it all in a way that allows their software to verify everything itself so that it doesn't need to trust any other source (in other words, running a full node).

Furthermore, they need to get the information as quickly as possible (so that other miners don't solve a block before they can even get started), and if they solve a block they need to get it to as many other mining nodes as possible as quickly as possible (so that their block doesn't get orphaned).  Therefore, any delays that occur (while they are communicating with their trusted source if they are not running their own node) reduces their revenue.

Understanding how bitcoin can be a paradigm shift in how payments are done online, I'm operating a full node at cryptowatch.com. It's got a 2x1gbit connection, and could be used as a seed node for anyone in Europe.

So far, there's only been expenses in relation to this. So you've got to be somewhat dedicated to the cause. However, I don't think that financial motives is the only way to get people to act in a positive manner to create a better world.

After all, it's quite spectacular to be able to be a part, although a very small one, of such a big project as this. That fuzzy feeling, knowing that your contribution counts, and that you're a part of the whole network. No matter how small your contribution is, it still counts.

Also, despite all the negative talk about excessive disk and resource usage. I think any dedicated hobbyist is able to keep up with those demands. We must also realize that every node operator is a part of a huge global payment network. And the more nodes are up, the bigger and stronger the network become.

Perhaps in the future there will be a way to compensate node operators a little bit? Not sure if it's a good idea, as some people might start "farming" fake nodes in the hope of generating revenue.

If you convince a miner to accept an invalid tx, and it includes it in a block, the block will be ignored by all full nodes, wasting the miner's time. Although you could (probably?) create a client that validates transactions w/o a full copy of the blockchain, it seems pretty inefficient to me (you'd have to query other nodes for each new tx you intend to place in the new block I'd imagine?).


There are known weaknesses and attacks against SPV clients. Although they don't appear easy to pull off in practice, if you're dealing in high value transactions then you can afford to run a full node and be "better safe than sorry." (Cold vs hot wallets is a different issue. There's no reason you can't use a cold wallet with a hot watching-only full-node-based wallet.)

How does it allow them to mine more effectively?Again, why would that be?It seems it would make it less secure…

people who host nodes don't get any btc for this, they are doing this to support bitcoins only
tx fees goes to the miners

Solo miners generally need to run a full node in order to mine effectively.

Mining pools also generally need to run a full node in order to operate effectively.

Since solo miners and mining pools earn bitcoins for their mining activities, and they need to run a full node to participate in those activities, they are essentially being compensated for running the node.

Any non-miners are doing it as a hobby, charity, or because they believe it makes their wallet more secure.  There is no direct financial incentive to run a full node if you are not a solo miner or a mining pool.

No direct incentive. But running a full node is important for many bitcoin businesses to check balance, make payment securely etc.

There are no bitcoin-payout incentives for operating a full node, but that are less tangible ones.

Operating a full node means you can do full bottom-up validation of all transactions, instead of relying on height-based validation. It also prevents evil nodes which you may connect to from withholding transactions from your view.

In other words, if you're regularly dealing in high-value transactions, running a full node is definitely a good idea. If not, than the only other incentive I can think of is that warm-fuzzy feeling from helping out a good cause.

Correct, though people running full nodes could also set up an info page with a donation address for their nodes.
For example, shorena has done so (http://213.165.91.169/) and received a small amount of donation.

Nope. Bitcoin nodes do not receive any incentives from running it. They just support the bitcoin network like a volunteer or something.

Bitnodes shows everyone running nodes.

Are these people incentivized to run nodes? If not, why not? If so, do node operators make some BTC from transaction fees, etc.?

thanks