Topic: Incentivizing Full Nodes (Read 536 times)
The blockchain is at 100GB, and since most blocks are fully will grow very quickly. Even more after block increase to 8MB. Private persons will not want to hold that amount of data without any gain.
Earlier Bitnodes had a lottery based incentive system for the top active notes with most peers connected. But that system went away when 21co acquired it and ran it. Now, the only incentive of running a Full node is more of a motivational and decentralization benefit. You could setup an SPV server and input your Bitcoin address to show up in the console logs (for example Electrum) to probably get some donations. The good thing about the full nodes are even if people are not being paid, there are constantly 5500 + nodes actively running and helping strengthen the Bitcoin network.
You can also download the whole blockchain and not run a full node if you can't afford the bandwidth and space requirements. Indirectly you'll have the whole blockchain and you can verify your transactions yourself without having to connect to another SPV server. This in a way benefits the Bitcoin ecosystem in the long run.
You can also download the whole blockchain and not run a full node if you can't afford the bandwidth and space requirements. Indirectly you'll have the whole blockchain and you can verify your transactions yourself without having to connect to another SPV server. This in a way benefits the Bitcoin ecosystem in the long run.
i didn't mean that users running nodes shouldn't pay for the fee, but rather for their transactions to be first ones to be processed.
Reasoning is simpler ; everyone should pay a transaction fee's, but the most annoying part is the wait that takes hours at times, and reducing that to a minimum for node owners would be much bigger "reward" than removing fee for their transactions.
Reasoning is simpler ; everyone should pay a transaction fee's, but the most annoying part is the wait that takes hours at times, and reducing that to a minimum for node owners would be much bigger "reward" than removing fee for their transactions.
which equals the similar concept to a "discount". full nodes dont have to pay as much to get priority. compared to how much a web wallet would have to pay.
though the fee discount/'special treatment' solves the abuse of sybil attack purely for commission grabbing.. due to it not being commissioned payments, i can see this adding a new barrier to entry.
much like BTCC prioritising their own users first. can cause a new 'prejudice' and division of the community.
after all third world countries are already ruled out from using bitcoin right now due to even a $0.06c fee being an hours labour in many countries.
if these same countries are then only using mobile devices, they cant get the 'special treatment' (lower cost), thus pushing them further away from all the benefits of what bitcoins original ethos promised.
i think teaching people why being a full diverse and decentralized node has its own merits.
Actually if bitcoin start to give incentive for running full nodes doesn't that make sense of bitcoin as POS/POW hybrid algo ? And as bitcoin is quite stronger with current POW algo it seems we don't need any changes on how it works.
Storage space and internet speed/bandwith are not strong obstacle for anyone to start supporting bitcoin network and there are many people who can run 100s of nodes themselves when network seems to get weak and need some more active nodes. Currently it seems we have 5000+ of active nodes http://xtnodes.com/#all_nodes
Storage space and internet speed/bandwith are not strong obstacle for anyone to start supporting bitcoin network and there are many people who can run 100s of nodes themselves when network seems to get weak and need some more active nodes. Currently it seems we have 5000+ of active nodes http://xtnodes.com/#all_nodes
Didn't see it being mentioned anywhere, nor is is worth the trouble, but wouldn't full clients like bitcoin core do the trick; and in return users that
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
replace the word CORE with "any diverse fullnode including core".
and you might have something.
EG full nodes get a fee discount. lite-nodes and web wallets pay a premium.. though this is already kind of happening. blockchain.info users are already highlighting/complaining their tx's have an automated premium (above average) cost.
also on the flip-side btcc and xapo are doing the opposite. offering zero fee if customers use their webwallets for their services. so things need to flip around if your idea should be a way to entice people to be full nodes.
emphasis on diverse full nodes rather than everyone running one codebase.
I only said core because i'm used to it, and find it the most widely used full node wallet. And one other remark also; i didn't mean that users running nodes shouldn't
pay for the fee, but rather for their transactions to be first ones to be processed. Reasoning is simpler ; everyone should pay a transaction fee's, but the most anoying
part is the wait that takes hours at times, and reducing that to a minimum for node owners would be much bigger "reward" than removing fee for their transactions.
There's no need for incentive, if bitcoin is useful and widely used people and businesses need to run full nodes in order to do their business, even if their business is to provide access to full nodes to people and business that don't want or know how to do it properly.
This statement is wrong on so many levels.
There's no need for incentive, if bitcoin is useful and widely used people and businesses need to run full nodes in order to do their business, even if their business is to provide access to full nodes to people and business that don't want or know how to do it properly.
the incentive is the desire to keep bitcoin decentralised and diverse and thus secure the blockchain against corruption of any sort..
its not as if it requires a data centre now or in the future.
after all even at 4mb of bloat (core's new happy number) thats only a MAXIMUM possible 208gb bloat a year= 1tb every 5 years.
at which time most people upgrade their computers anyway.
also a 2tb hard drive is under $100. so its not like you need to spend alot if your into building a PC. even a standard $400 branded pre-made desktop PC have 2tb as standard (10 years+ of upto 4mb block bloat)
as for the internet. again adsl is more than enough. and fibre is even more.
i know some people will cry that they are having internet issues. but no "bitcoin incentive" will cure that cry.
no money in your pocket can change limitations of the cabling reaching your property.
most ISPS upgrade an entire area at a certain time. not a single house over night.
if you are having issues. then cut down on how many connections you have. 8 is about reasonable 60 is overkill (unless you have good reason to be a supernode)
if you care about bitcoin security more then your ping speed of playing call of duty on the side. good
if you care more about playing call of duty than bitcoin security, then good keep playing. but dont expect to get paid just to run a node.
most node users are those with a big desire for bitcoin security. not financial gain of just running a node.
if running a node becomes just a financial gain. then many people will start running 1000+ nodes from one location.. which is no better for security than running just 1.
my personal point of view.
i would rather see 6k nodes where 2k each are run by different implementations. (diversity)
where all 6k nodes are running from different locations. (not stacking up multiple nodes at remote hosting/ home garages)
rather than
200,000 nodes all running one implementation due to some commissioned earnings reward to use specific node.
half many are running via a single owner.
EG
things like 21.co running hundreds of nodes all set up and located but in control of 21.co engineers=bad
individual diversity and distribution=good
its not as if it requires a data centre now or in the future.
after all even at 4mb of bloat (core's new happy number) thats only a MAXIMUM possible 208gb bloat a year= 1tb every 5 years.
at which time most people upgrade their computers anyway.
also a 2tb hard drive is under $100. so its not like you need to spend alot if your into building a PC. even a standard $400 branded pre-made desktop PC have 2tb as standard (10 years+ of upto 4mb block bloat)
as for the internet. again adsl is more than enough. and fibre is even more.
i know some people will cry that they are having internet issues. but no "bitcoin incentive" will cure that cry.
no money in your pocket can change limitations of the cabling reaching your property.
most ISPS upgrade an entire area at a certain time. not a single house over night.
if you are having issues. then cut down on how many connections you have. 8 is about reasonable 60 is overkill (unless you have good reason to be a supernode)
if you care about bitcoin security more then your ping speed of playing call of duty on the side. good
if you care more about playing call of duty than bitcoin security, then good keep playing. but dont expect to get paid just to run a node.
most node users are those with a big desire for bitcoin security. not financial gain of just running a node.
if running a node becomes just a financial gain. then many people will start running 1000+ nodes from one location.. which is no better for security than running just 1.
my personal point of view.
i would rather see 6k nodes where 2k each are run by different implementations. (diversity)
where all 6k nodes are running from different locations. (not stacking up multiple nodes at remote hosting/ home garages)
rather than
200,000 nodes all running one implementation due to some commissioned earnings reward to use specific node.
half many are running via a single owner.
EG
things like 21.co running hundreds of nodes all set up and located but in control of 21.co engineers=bad
individual diversity and distribution=good
I can see your POV, i also read the originators words on the topic. I agree using proven method like moore's law results in a better outlook, but should we also not have a fall back, you know , just in case ?
Didn't see it being mentioned anywhere, nor is is worth the trouble, but wouldn't full clients like bitcoin core do the trick; and in return users that
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
replace the word CORE with "any diverse fullnode including core".
and you might have something.
EG full nodes get a fee discount. lite-nodes and web wallets pay a premium.. though this is already kind of happening. blockchain.info users are already highlighting/complaining their tx's have an automated premium (above average) cost.
also on the flip-side btcc and xapo are doing the opposite. offering zero fee if customers use their webwallets for their services. so things need to flip around if your idea should be a way to entice people to be full nodes.
emphasis on diverse full nodes rather than everyone running one codebase.
Didn't see it being mentioned anywhere, nor is is worth the trouble, but wouldn't full clients like bitcoin core do the trick; and in return users that
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
are running them could get priority transactions over the users that only sent theirs with fee ?!
That would give users incentive to run full node, and still there wouldn't be an option for people to exploit that fact because there wouldn't be any real profit
for users that run them, other than priority transactions. Is this doable at all , since it would have to be coordinated with large pool operators i guess ?
the incentive is the desire to keep bitcoin decentralised and diverse and thus secure the blockchain against corruption of any sort..
its not as if it requires a data centre now or in the future.
after all even at 4mb of bloat (core's new happy number) thats only a MAXIMUM possible 208gb bloat a year= 1tb every 5 years.
at which time most people upgrade their computers anyway.
also a 2tb hard drive is under $100. so its not like you need to spend alot if your into building a PC. even a standard $400 branded pre-made desktop PC have 2tb as standard (10 years+ of upto 4mb block bloat)
as for the internet. again adsl is more than enough. and fibre is even more.
i know some people will cry that they are having internet issues. but no "bitcoin incentive" will cure that cry.
no money in your pocket can change limitations of the cabling reaching your property.
most ISPS upgrade an entire area at a certain time. not a single house over night.
if you are having issues. then cut down on how many connections you have. 8 is about reasonable 60 is overkill (unless you have good reason to be a supernode)
if you care about bitcoin security more then your ping speed of playing call of duty on the side. good
if you care more about playing call of duty than bitcoin security, then good keep playing. but dont expect to get paid just to run a node.
most node users are those with a big desire for bitcoin security. not financial gain of just running a node.
if running a node becomes just a financial gain. then many people will start running 1000+ nodes from one location.. which is no better for security than running just 1.
my personal point of view.
i would rather see 6k nodes where 2k each are run by different implementations. (diversity)
where all 6k nodes are running from different locations. (not stacking up multiple nodes at remote hosting/ home garages)
rather than
200,000 nodes all running one implementation due to some commissioned earnings reward to use specific node.
half many are running via a single owner.
EG
things like 21.co running hundreds of nodes all set up and located but in control of 21.co engineers=bad
individual diversity and distribution=good
its not as if it requires a data centre now or in the future.
after all even at 4mb of bloat (core's new happy number) thats only a MAXIMUM possible 208gb bloat a year= 1tb every 5 years.
at which time most people upgrade their computers anyway.
also a 2tb hard drive is under $100. so its not like you need to spend alot if your into building a PC. even a standard $400 branded pre-made desktop PC have 2tb as standard (10 years+ of upto 4mb block bloat)
as for the internet. again adsl is more than enough. and fibre is even more.
i know some people will cry that they are having internet issues. but no "bitcoin incentive" will cure that cry.
no money in your pocket can change limitations of the cabling reaching your property.
most ISPS upgrade an entire area at a certain time. not a single house over night.
if you are having issues. then cut down on how many connections you have. 8 is about reasonable 60 is overkill (unless you have good reason to be a supernode)
if you care about bitcoin security more then your ping speed of playing call of duty on the side. good
if you care more about playing call of duty than bitcoin security, then good keep playing. but dont expect to get paid just to run a node.
most node users are those with a big desire for bitcoin security. not financial gain of just running a node.
if running a node becomes just a financial gain. then many people will start running 1000+ nodes from one location.. which is no better for security than running just 1.
my personal point of view.
i would rather see 6k nodes where 2k each are run by different implementations. (diversity)
where all 6k nodes are running from different locations. (not stacking up multiple nodes at remote hosting/ home garages)
rather than
200,000 nodes all running one implementation due to some commissioned earnings reward to use specific node.
half many are running via a single owner.
EG
things like 21.co running hundreds of nodes all set up and located but in control of 21.co engineers=bad
individual diversity and distribution=good
This seems to be a sore point. Last time i mentioned this my posts got deleted. Seems theres too many ways to trick the system. Maybe something has changed since i last heard but im pretty sure the answer is no. I actually run a node but not full time. If there was more of an incentive then i would probably run it full time. Doing it for "the good of the community" isnt incentive enough for me to run it full time.
Are there any proposals that have attempted to tackle this problem ?
Jump to: