|
Title: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: americanpegasus on September 15, 2015, 10:42:41 PM So it's obvious the original vision of every node a miner is impossible at this point, but how can we best incentivize running full nodes for a cryptocurrency?
Perhaps full nodes don't directly contribute to the next block (when under PoW) but they serve an important function of validating the and insuring the network. It feels like that without any financial incentives, full nodes won't keep pace with the size of the network and this could lead to centralization. It makes sense to reward everyone who maintains a copy of the ledger, even in some small way. What is your currency doing to tackle this problem? Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: Sir Alpha_goy on September 16, 2015, 12:13:57 AM .
Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: bit1 on September 16, 2015, 01:32:08 AM Personally, I run BTC, LTC, and DASH nodes virtually 24/7 on a dusty old motherboard with the monitor off (unless I am using the PC of course). nodes virtually? What a virtual node of BTC is? Wich the difference is? Do you virtual machine use?You know what my incentive is? Learning the ins and outs of this thing called crypto currency. Being glued to this stuff for the past couple of years has gotten me financial losses and financial gains. None worth bragging about. Its learning about what makes it all tick that has been priceless. That minuscule amount of money I have spent on electricity to keep a computer on is nothing compared to that. I think people need to dive into this stuff head first and stop worrying about the quick buck. You have a valid point that the ledger is important but to pay to do it would only provide a fickle base. You have to spend money to make money...literally. My two cents. Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: Sir Alpha_goy on September 16, 2015, 01:46:24 AM .
Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: Outlander on September 16, 2015, 02:20:59 PM As the adoption rate is increasing, the number of ppl running a full node is increasing as well! Why should we worry about it? For the early stage, we probably worry about this issue!
Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: myagui on September 16, 2015, 02:37:59 PM Both Ziftrcoin and Spreadcoin (not sure about the details on this last one), have incentives to run full nodes.
I can speak to the case of Ziftrcoin as I am somewhat familiar: With Ziftrcoin, miners can opt to include some knowledge proof in their mined blocks, that establishes that they are running a node. When this option is enabled, the respective miner can claim a higher block reward (5% iirc). As I understand, this proof method (and thus the "extra" reward) are not technically possible when pool mining, or would otherwise imply that the pool miners are capable of stealing any blocks found by the pool. I think there is some whitepaper on this, too lazy to go look for it now... Anyhow, here's one important link with descriptions about the system: https://www.reddit.com/r/ziftrCOIN/comments/2wlg5l/ziftrcoin_mining_update_proof_of_knowledge/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ziftrCOIN/comments/2wlg5l/ziftrcoin_mining_update_proof_of_knowledge/) While I like the idea, 5% strikes me as too small of an incentive. Most miners seem to go for a pool setup even if the long term rewards are worse than solo mining, for whatever reasons, variance, etc. In any case, this is a system that only incentivizes full nodes, if said systems are already miners. I would argue that an ideal approach, would somehow find a way to reward full nodes regardless of them being also miners or not. Title: Re: What is the best way to incentive full nodes vs. just miners? Post by: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 02:50:06 PM So it's obvious the original vision of every node a miner is impossible at this point, ... If we're going to speak about "original vision", let's be clear: ...While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial. ... Quote from: satoshi ...At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.htmlnetwork grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. I think people have gotten very confused over the past couple years about exactly what properties are necessary for bitcoin (or an alt, if that's your thing) to be global peer-to-peer electronic cash. If you agree with the "original vision", then it's clear that strict decentralization ("one cpu, one vote", etc) is not part of that vision. What's necessary is for the system to exhibit enough decentralization to prevent censorship of transactions. That might be << 100 big nodes in practice if they have sufficiently competing interests. We don't really know what the number is, but let's just be clear on exactly what properties are actually necessary and possible. |