How about the dash model? It follows the argument that people invested should run a node.
No chances either. 
Topic: Re: Fees for full nodes? (Read 8461 times)
How about the dash model? It follows the argument that people invested should run a node.
Can you help me understand how it is possible to produce empty blocks, or what the incentive would even be to do so, when there are still unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
Here's a thread on it in the mining subsection where it is explained:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/empty-blocks-1085800
Can you help me understand how it is possible to produce empty blocks, or what the incentive would even be to do so, when there are still unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
There are chances that a SPV Miner produces valid empty blocks.
A full node should be able to produce valid blocks including transactions.
A full node should be able to produce valid blocks including transactions.
Look at this picture.
Can you prove that F2Pool, AntPool and Slush are running full-nodes, not SPV?
387615 https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000044e3a71cdb513d85d892313fada6905ccb675778857e86b
387616 https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000302c0857d3f71ef4f264ff95c99a058170256a1f330f07d
387617 https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000099b095a982f5987017885e033d1c3b39296b8b552b696e9
I don't know if you are joking or forgot about SPV mining. It isn't that simple.
If mining in SPV-mode produces valid blocks - it can be treated as holding full-node.There are chances that a SPV Miner produces valid empty blocks. A full node should be able to produce valid blocks including transactions.
This is a distinction without a difference. An SPV mining node can always produce blocks containing valid transactions. All it needs is a collection of previously valid transactions using keys that it controls. This will effectively hide the fact that it is an effectively empty block. There will no risk that any of the transactions in this block will prove invalid. Of course, if the previous block contains invalid transactions there will still be a risk that this otherwise valid block will be orphaned.
Now that node specialization is progressing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsThere is no known solution to it. Only centralization.
Now that node specialization is progressing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsThere is no known solution to it. Only centralization.
I don't know if you are joking or forgot about SPV mining. It isn't that simple.
If mining in SPV-mode produces valid blocks - it can be treated as holding full-node.I do not see any problems here.
The "full node" is traditionally defined as a node that:
1) knows the entire blockchain history
2) propagates transactions and blocks after verification
The "pro-pools" legacy meaning included one more function:
3) mines blocks
Bitcoin started in the situation where mined coins paid for all 3 things:
3) electricity spent on PoW
2) network bandwidth
1) block storage
Now that node specialization is progressing I think the first two functions will get unbundled too. I thus don't consider "full node" a very important concept. Perhaps it would be better to split it into 2 or 3 terms:
i) real-time propagating node
ii) UTxO query-service node
iii) archival query-service node
depending on how far we would want to go into unbundling.
The problem with unbundling is that there's nobody paying the fourth cost:
0) research and development
Therefore after mining got unbundled the developers were left to funding themselves by extortion, scams, rip-offs, vulture/venture capital, preying on the naïve and other miscellaneous funding sources.
I don't know if you are joking or forgot about SPV mining. It isn't that simple.
If mining in SPV-mode produces valid blocks - it can be treated as holding full-node.There are chances that a SPV Miner produces valid empty blocks. A full node should be able to produce valid blocks including transactions.
I don't know if you are joking or forgot about SPV mining. It isn't that simple.
If mining in SPV-mode produces valid blocks - it can be treated as holding full-node.I do not see any problems here.
there is a way to prove that you are running the full node.
there is only one way.
this way is well-known for 6 years.
the answer is: mining.
just create and broadcast new valid block and this would be a proof that you are running full node.
I don't know if you are joking or forgot about SPV mining. It isn't that simple.there is only one way.
this way is well-known for 6 years.
the answer is: mining.
just create and broadcast new valid block and this would be a proof that you are running full node.
This is incorrect. Although, you can't incentivize the process of just running a node, you have to incentivize both the speed and volume of the process of tx propagation.
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/172840/Bitcoin-Red-Balloons-SIGEcom.pdf
Read that paper to learn more
And here's a reflection on it by MIT Media Lab
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/172840/Bitcoin-Red-Balloons-SIGEcom.pdf
Node incentives are important, and likely play a role in dismissing certain concerns regarding issues inherent in larger block sizes by potentially representing a more Symbiotic relationship between miners and the nodes that propagate the transactions to them.
Hmm, both links point to the same place.http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/172840/Bitcoin-Red-Balloons-SIGEcom.pdf
Read that paper to learn more
And here's a reflection on it by MIT Media Lab
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/172840/Bitcoin-Red-Balloons-SIGEcom.pdf
Node incentives are important, and likely play a role in dismissing certain concerns regarding issues inherent in larger block sizes by potentially representing a more Symbiotic relationship between miners and the nodes that propagate the transactions to them.
Sorry, Meant to put: http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf
You can wish all you like but there's absolutely no way to confirm a full node really is a full node and not just faking it. If full nodes were to get paid, then one could spoof as many full nodes as they like and get paid for each of their fake nodes. To prove they're full nodes you'd have to invent some kind of "proof of work" and add it to some kind of blockchain - congratulations you've invented mining and an altcoin blockchain.
so there is no way to prove the full node I run is real?
there is only one way.
this way is well-known for 6 years.
the answer is: mining.
just create and broadcast new valid block and this would be a proof that you are running full node.
Running a full node is fully hectic nowadays. 
Well, I may do it as long as I get some conventional fees for that.
I think running a full node should be implemented in recent miners so that the miners will perform mining as well as running the nodes simultaneously.
I don't know if this is possible though!
Well, I may do it as long as I get some conventional fees for that.
I think running a full node should be implemented in recent miners so that the miners will perform mining as well as running the nodes simultaneously.
I don't know if this is possible though!
You can wish all you like but there's absolutely no way to confirm a full node really is a full node and not just faking it. If full nodes were to get paid, then one could spoof as many full nodes as they like and get paid for each of their fake nodes. To prove they're full nodes you'd have to invent some kind of "proof of work" and add it to some kind of blockchain - congratulations you've invented mining and an altcoin blockchain.
so there is no way to prove the full node I run is real?
This thread is getting hard to follow. There seem to be various mixups going on.
"nodes don't mine" is more or less temporary. After few more knees on the distribution curve the incentives will align more toward propagating transactions instead of trying to snipe the coinbase with a small block.
a) real-time transaction and block propagation network
b) historical block synchronization network
Currently they are awkwardly rolled into a single p2p protocol, with a branch appearing fairly recently "relay network" that concentrates on task (a). The task (b) is currently badly served by the original legacy protocol. Sooner or later the Bitconin developers will understand that they need to import more features from the well developed bulk transfer protocols like Bittorrent and maybe even from paid on-demand streaming. "headers first" isn't a real solution, more of a temporary workaround. Certainly it doesn't subsume the bulk-transfer functionality of a better-engineered protocol like bittorrent.
Pseudonode cheats only on the task (b) above, I think it does decent job for task (a). Other than this I don't really understand the above comment.
The current situation in the Bitcoin brain trust is that almost everyone suffers from some sort of brain constipation about how to change a single line of code
p2pool is an alt chain of its own and it has miners. Bitcoin nodes don't mine though.
Altchain is better terminology than altcoin. It is like subordinate chain or side chain, but ultimately pays in the coin of the mainchain."nodes don't mine" is more or less temporary. After few more knees on the distribution curve the incentives will align more toward propagating transactions instead of trying to snipe the coinbase with a small block.
This is incorrect. Although, you can't incentivize the process of just running a node, you have to incentivize both the speed and volume of the process of tx propagation.
I think that this opinion seems to miss the that there are two p2p protocols within the Bitcoin network:a) real-time transaction and block propagation network
b) historical block synchronization network
Currently they are awkwardly rolled into a single p2p protocol, with a branch appearing fairly recently "relay network" that concentrates on task (a). The task (b) is currently badly served by the original legacy protocol. Sooner or later the Bitconin developers will understand that they need to import more features from the well developed bulk transfer protocols like Bittorrent and maybe even from paid on-demand streaming. "headers first" isn't a real solution, more of a temporary workaround. Certainly it doesn't subsume the bulk-transfer functionality of a better-engineered protocol like bittorrent.
Why altcoin? It is more like p2ppool, but instead of shares for mining one would get shares for proven transaction propagation.
That's a bit hard to do when their are things like pseudonode.The current situation in the Bitcoin brain trust is that almost everyone suffers from some sort of brain constipation about how to change a single line of code
Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
Ultimately this problem is going to solve itself in some way and people will again resume working on other long-term issues.You can wish all you like but there's absolutely no way to confirm a full node really is a full node and not just faking it. If full nodes were to get paid, then one could spoof as many full nodes as they like and get paid for each of their fake nodes. To prove they're full nodes you'd have to invent some kind of "proof of work" and add it to some kind of blockchain - congratulations you've invented mining and an altcoin blockchain.
This is incorrect. Although, you can't incentivize the process of just running a node, you have to incentivize both the speed and volume of the process of tx propagation.
How about something like this? Miners send a portion of the mining fee to the nodes that sent them the transactions in the block they solved.
I am pretty sure that if we can address node incentivization, we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism". Then we will have an easier time putting concerns about raising the block size at rest. The solution could present a Symbiotic relationship between nodes and miners.
There's no symbiosis in that.It's simply:
"I have a txn I want it in a block"
OK that happens.
"I want it in a block faster"
Then you need to transmit it to miners faster and (usually) give it a higher fee if you want to be prioritised over earlier txns.
Jump to: