Bitcoin Forum

Currently, there are  9722 bitcoin nodes. It seems as if this number has increased which is good since the bitcoin value depends on the number of nodes according to metcalfe’s law. There are other benefits as well.

An idea struck me the other day, a new idea for full node rewards. I suggest a kind of lottery. It wouldn’t matter what kind of hardware you use, a raspberry pi would qualify as long as it runs a full node.

Here’s my idea:

When a block is added, the full node would use the hash, combine it with the node’s ip address and calculate a new hash. If the new hash has some kind of special property like a certain number of 0’s in the hash, then you submit the result and a send to address to the miner and get a portion of the miner reward. You have to respond within a certain time. If there’s more than one winner, the reward should be split.

It would be in the spirit of mining which can be seen as a lottery, the higher the hash rate, the more lottery tickets.

The reward should be high enough and frequent enough to attract people to run full nodes. Let’s say that you should have a 50% chance of earning enough bitcoins to buy a pizza every month.

I thin this idea would really increase the node count. Now you have a situation where there are more people with bitcoins that they want to spend. Therefore, pizza bakers and other people that have shops would be more willing to accept bitcoins. Once you have bitcoins, albeit very little, you are more likely to buy bitcoins. That would have an impact the exchange rate. Miners wouldn’t mind since they understand metcalfe’s law. They would occasionally lose a portion of te reward and/or the transaction fee but they would expect a higher exchange rate that would make up for the loss.

I think it’s reasonably simple to implement. You have to combine block data and the ip address so that there can only be a limited number of winners for every new block, otherwise there would be congestion. A new kind of message is needed. Since the ip address is known by all, it would be difficult to cheat, i.e. try all possible combinations in order to claim that you have a winning ticket.

Someone has to do the math in order to come up with an algorithm. I think it should be easy, just calculate a new hash and see if it has some peculiar quality that makes it a winner. Maybe there’s a need to distinguish between trusted blocks and those that are not.

What do you think about this idea?

Hi,

I like the idea of rewarding full nodes, but verifying that nobody cheat and has indeed a full node can be less trivial than you think.

Which full node ? Which node's ip ?

I would not be that sure  ;D

What's your suggestion ?

I'm really getting surprised to see new demands are coming about rewarding / fee models and the way they try to bring solutions that suit upcoming willing from a sustainable crypto-currency.. you may find it useful to read my whitepaper:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066624.0

as a brief, this may be meaningless if you just provide a lottery mechanism for nodes. with proof-of-consistency (PoCo), I regularly ask the whole network to check the consistency of the blockchain data and this operation generates a unique hash value per block creation. nodes get rewarded randomly and miners collect the transfer fee - both based on that randomness (noise).. this noise could apply the Dither Effect to a crypto-currency and make it work properly.. the PoCo is totally based on Dither. so, the randomness that you feel could make nodes work better, is a fact in engineering:

"when you tap a mechanical meter/engine to increase its accuracy, you are applying dither."

this is very important. would you please explain it more?
you know, just because we assume that more full nodes means more backup (and more protection) for blockchain history, everybody tries to achieve the higher full node counts.. is there any of best practice / your personal experience about limitation for running full nodes? if so, are we facing an approach like masternodes among regular full nodes for better performance of the network?


P.S.:

in proof-of-consistency, I really don't care the one who submits her check up session hash value is really running a full node. I just need an entity check the consistency of new blocks with older blocks in the blockchain history. if the result is true and majority of the network approves it, then the value will register for rewarding process. in fact, if you can process the consistency of the network, then at least you have a valid copy of the blockchain.

I don't really understand your question, but here's my opinion

Running full nodes is quite easy as you just need to download, run installer/extract .zip files and run bitcoin-qt. Linux user or those who don't need GUI version need to run extra few steps, not difficult, but not convenient.
The biggest limitation would be cost of running full nodes (electricity / internet connection) and there's no direct "reward", even though you could earn better security and privacy with right steps.


Assuming you're talking about TPS on-chain when you mention better performance, then no. Increase block size/weight limit or reduce transaction size is the answer.

Master nodes make people interested to run full nodes, but IMO those who run full nodes don't really care about the coins itself. They don't bother take part on consensus/the direction of the coin itself, only follow whatever which could increase coin price.
Additionally, without limitation such as minimum coins "frozen"/"deposited", master nodes could be abused easily by running multiple full master nodes


You're right, but it's not enough since abuser could use Blockchain Explorer API to get the data.

once again you are going to convince me to make another change in PoCo, ETFBitcoin - Thank you..


my question was about what is the optimized amount of full nodes in a crypto network like bitcoin? however I remember from bitcoin's arrangement against sibyl attack [1]:


but after reading your reply, I start thinking and have googled about it and it seems we already have "115,000" running full nodes [2]!! and refer to the theory of six degrees of separation [3], the longest distance in a crypto network from any of these nodes to another is 6. I could conclude from these all that having lower counts of full nodes is good enough. so getting back to the topic, I think if we need to have a rewarding policy for nodes, it should follow the masternode model, which the masternode has to deposit some coins, and in continue receive some responsibilities and jobs then benefit from the fixed /random rewards (like DASH).

for example, we could include this policy in the protocol that one node could become a masternode by freezing a predefined amount of coins in the network and declaring its IP and PORT in the message of the transaction.


just like masternodes, I could accept hash values of entities that already have at least 1 coin in their addresses - this prevents people of making unnecessary addresses just for joining the rewarding process. you know, in PoCo gathering several information from involved entities about the consistency of the network is an important rule, but after discussing masternodes above, now I could provide some changes in the rewarding model and focus on masternodes only.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Sybil_attack
[2] https://hackernoon.com/bitcoin-miners-beware-invalid-blocks-need-not-apply-51c293ee278b
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation#cite_ref-22

The higher the number of node, the more resistant is the network.

There are, at the time of writing, 9817 nodes with a full copy of the chain.  bitnodes  (https://bitnodes.earn.com/) coin.dance (https://coin.dance/nodes)

It resolves the Sybil problem of someone running multiple nodes but it also leads to masternodes and Dash system, which is in practice an interesting system but in theory is less decentralized than Bitcoin.
I don't think this could be applied to Bitcoin : nobody will accept to give some nodes super powers, and miners won't share their reward.

I still need to read more about it.
refer to the paths that nodes may connect to each other among dishonest nodes, huge amount of nodes could be vulnerable.


True. I have also read this page (https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/understanding.html) :


however block rewarding will end in bitcoin and miners should be ready for these changes, but I agree that people are not ready for such changes in current bitcoin ecosystem. a masternode model could help a new proof model which tries to dedicate block rewarding for nodes.. for example, in PoCo I have a very special kind of nodes that I name them HolderNodes and with studying masternodes, I could better reward them after block creation..

Vulnerable to what ? Bitcoin CVE (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures)

We have some time ahead of us for thinking about this  ;)

No there isn't. The number is more like 60k or so.

It appears to be lower than it was in 2011.


This is nonsense.


All this would do is fund people to pretend to run zillions of nodes on as much address space as they can obtain.

OP, if you are a holder, then I believe you are already incentivized to run a full node. It arguably might, or might not be doing a service for the network, but you should be doing it to verify all your transactions yourself, at any rate.

Bitcoin people are always think like that
"Never change anything, it works for 10 years"
Of course there must be a very small reward for running a full node. You block about 160 GB on your hard disk and also CPU power.

More nodes help to prevent a "bad" node for my opinion.

And if all nodes except exchanges would go offline, coin would be instable.
The only thing it did not happen until now yet does not mean I can not happen.

Masternode system is good but I dont think it will be involved in Bitcoin. And POS of course I full agree

It's fun you are saying this just 2 posts on top of the minisketch post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087563.0)

And what could do a "bad" node in your opinion ?

Just look at Ethereum, if PoS was reliable it would have been integrated for years.

1) Have nothing to do with that post

2) A bad node tries to mine a wrong block or is on wrong chain, accidental or for scam reason

3) Because crypto people (which are mostly miners) dont get the idea of POS. They like more to change the global climate then change from POW :-)

Because you said Bitcoin people don't change anything, and that minisketch could be a great improvment.

It is not a consequences of the number of nodes.

PoS is objectively not reliable for now, and subjectively (in my opinion) not a good consensus method.

You need only have a look at name of this forum. Bitcoin is not center of the world ;-). Waiting 2 hours for arriving transaction should not exist in year 2018. But with all this "solutions" you mentioned the "big throw" has not happend. Who of you is mining Bitcoin ?!
But you are right thats off topic :-)

Bitcoin is not the center of the world but people who promote cryptocurrencies (which 99.99% of them are copy of Bitcoin), PoS, etc.. Are the same promoting the holy "Blockchain technology" because they don't understand. Bitcoin is the technology.

It is the cost of censorship resistance. Bitcoin never promoted ultra financial power with super ultra fast transactions, but an exchange of value without any censorship possibility.

I am not.

Yes it is and it was my last answer to you.

So if I buy a /32 block of IPv6 addresses and make my full node listen on all of them, will I get 4 billion times the normal reward? :)

i was thinking about this , and thinking How can i make Reward for who install Node for Altcoin not for mining only for keep it runing too
i try to write a lot of software for do this but i not get any idea ... i create my blockchain from scratch and thinking about the rewards but until now i not get any nice idea for this

if we do not give super power to masternodes, then they never could turn the consensus into PoS. for example, those full nodes that get committed to provide 99.9% up-timing (ping/pong) with good bandwidth, static IP and disk space (and urgent power supply, etc) for their full nodes without any restriction in responding other nodes (blooming filters, etc) could receive some rewards from the network. just look at this as an improvement for the gossip protocol. this would be a good field for research.


the ppt version also added to the topic. the ppt version helps you read it quickly:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066624.0

Yeah if there was a reward for full nodes, we would have people buying Amazon cloud server services to hire 1000's of computers and run nodes. The result would be that we don't get a clear picture of how decentralized nodes are. Amount is important, but even more important is how widespread they are and the lower the ratio of a single person running modes the better. We need many people, running 1 node, better than 10 people running tons of nodes.

I believe running a Lightning Network node, and charging for routing fees could be one model for incentivizing nodes to get some rewards from the network. 8)

I was always confused why we would need the lightning network since, in practice, people are already using the Ripple network to move funds between exchanges. They convert their BTC to XRP, move XRP to another exchange within seconds, then convert back to BTC. It's instant, low-cost. I always expected Ripple or Stellar to become the de facto layer for transmitting crypto. Are you saying Lightning networks can really beat Ripple or Stellar? Can it really be near-instant (1-2 seconds) for a transaction, safe, secure, and large volumes? If so, it all comes down to exchanges implementing this, and that will take years.

Maybe all nodes will get a rewards after all bitcoin are mined, but who know, maybe nodes rewards should be added on a new coin if possible and that coin to use nodes for confirmation and not a coin who is PoW.
On lightning network reward is paid only if someone use that node?

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

I get the point, but IMO it sounds like incentive to keep existing node running rather than incentive to run full nodes.
Additionally, unless your LN node have routing path/directly connected to lots of other LN nodes, i doubt you'd get sufficient income/reward.

It was more like a shower thought idea, than a definite solution to incentivize existing/running nodes. Maintaining a full node 24/7/365 has costs, especially on bandwidth. At least there's an idea of incentivizing them, than none, if the Lightning Network scales.

adding soap to your shower thought, to clean up things

imagine an average payment was for a coffee($3) and the routing fee was 1millisat per channel
(yea most users route hopping would end up paying 10 millisats to hop through 10 channels(degree of separation math))
(but where each channel on the route only charges 1millisat)

well for your channel to hop enough payments to make 20cents (0.00004btc) is the difference of
0.00000000001
vs
0.00004000000

so although your gonna try getting the counterpart to pay the onchain CLOSE channel fee. the channel will need to consist of
4000000*$3 to make 4000000 payment to make 20cents just to pay for YOUR initial 20cent channel OPEN cost

$12m channel value your counterpart needs to pass to you for you to claim 1 millisat per payment just to get a break even for just opening a channel at todays onchain fee 20cents.
... think about that

Your example is fixed on, and assumes that Lightning will be unsuccessful, and forever be stuck in .0000000000001, I believe it won't IF it's succesfully out of beta, and accepted by the mainstream. But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

and you too make many assumptions

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

From your history of misinformation? Yes, easy assumption.


Is Bitcoin out of beta in your opinion? Do developers of Bitcoin Cash share this opinion? Because they should promote it as the "Bitcoin that's out of Beta". They fixed Bitcoin's limitations, right? 8)


Never was? No one is using it? I'm confused.

So only a protocol that is set in stone and only changes for scaling / capacy demand adjustments and bug fixes is out of beta.

Second, full nodes are defined to mine, so they are properly incentified. Problem solved.

Nodes that dont mine are just slave nodes at some front end / fat client style - just listening what servers / back end nodes = miners have agreed on. 

Name the protocol are you talking about.


Then it's useless for the users to run their own nodes? They should turn it off, and let only the miners run nodes?


Then do you believe, the "slave nodes" have no power over the network?

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

Nodes demand blocks from the miners, and miners supply them. If the miners want a kind of block they demand, then the miners have to follow.

What? Fairy tales you say? The UASF showed everyone what kind of power running a full node can have over the top Bitcoin merchants and the powerful miners.

Node reward are countless hours of effort otherwise lost/stolen through currency debasement.

You waste the time arguing with a troll instead of ignoring him.

Wow, I get called a troll for pointing out that non-miming nodes have no power in btc by design.

Ok, I am done with you asshats, i am not the one you should be arguing with anyway,

go start arguing with the bitcoin devs and miners and tell them how important you non-mining nodes operators are and why they should reward you.

Don't be surprised when you get ignored by them.  :D

See how "they" ignore? There was no "ignore". The miners and the merchants bended over because of the UASF.

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/711x443/https://blogs-images.forbes.com/ktorpey/files/2019/04/whowouldwin.jpg?width=960

Nodes demand blocks from the miners, and miners supply them. If the miners want a kind of block they demand, then the miners have to follow.

Newbies, learn some Bitcoin history. DYOR on the UASF.