Miners should donate to Nodes

[Delek]

Miners should send a little % of the fees of the block to all connected peers. Independently of the protocol.

The point is: How we can assign a Bitcoin Address to a Node and made it public/related to a node.IP or "node ID hash"?

I was thinking: The miner could send a request to the Node IP like this:
GET_ADDRESS [Random_Numer]

The node should answer with:
ADDRESS, SIGNED_WITH_PRIVATE_KEY("I'm the node @ IP: [Random_Numer]")

This has some MIM attack problems isn'it?

[1714980469]

1714980469

[1714980469]

1714980469

[1714980469]

1714980469

[CohibAA]

Miners should send a little % of the fees of the block to all connected peers. Independently of the protocol.

The point is: How we can assign a Bitcoin Address to a Node and made it public/related to a node.IP or "node ID hash"?

I was thinking: The miner could send a request to the Node IP like this:
GET_ADDRESS [Random_Numer]

The node should answer with:
ADDRESS, SIGNED_WITH_PRIVATE_KEY("I'm the node @ IP: [Random_Numer]")

This has some MIM attack problems isn'it?

This sounds similar to the IP Transaction feature which was removed after v0.8.0 due to MITM attack possibilities.

Bitnodes.io has a (centralized) node incentive program, fwiw.

[gmaxwell]

Miners should send a little % of the fees of the block to all connected peers. Independently of the protocol.

Why would they choose to do that?

This has some MIM attack problems isn'it?

Yes, but even if that was resolved --- All that would seemingly do is incentivize people to sybil attack the network.

[GriffinHeart]

I'll toast to this, but only when the number of full nodes runs dangerously low.
Sure the number of nodes will spike, but really, do we need more right at this moment?
Every member and their computer is probably running a node at this point, even if they are declining it isn't a big problem right now.

[criptix]

Miners should send a little % of the fees of the block to all connected peers. Independently of the protocol.

Why would they choose to do that?

This has some MIM attack problems isn'it?

Yes, but even if that was resolved --- All that would seemingly do is incentivize people to sybil attack the network.

As a incentive to run a full node.

Full nodes secure the network too, why is there no incentive on the protocol level like the mining process?

[valdepretium]

As a incentive to run a full node.

Full nodes secure the network too, why is there no incentive on the protocol level like the mining process?

Yes I agree, running a full node can be inconvenient for home PC users, at which point an incentive would encourage the user to continue.

Maybe Satoshi thought about it, but couldn't find reasonable way to add it to the protocol.

Satoshi imagined that mining would become specialized, but even he couldn't have predicted how mining would become such a big industry, totally separated from running nodes!

[Xialla]

Bitnodes.io has a (centralized) node incentive program, fwiw.

uhh honestly, there should be some better motivation than 0.5% chance to get 0.04 BTC weekly.

such machine as full bitcoin node itself cost ~10USD per week, so even you will win every week with this 0.5$ chance, you will not cover costs to run it. I really hope, that we will reach such moment, that node operators get some reward..

[TrueBeliever]

nodes only relay information, they don't create any new information.  So it is difficult for a node to get paid, unless it "billed" the network by sending a type of pending coinbase transaction out for miners to include in blocks, to solicit payment for its service.  problem with that is how would each node know the value for the transaction?  it cannot be a fixed amount as that would eat into the miner's fee as the number of nodes increased.  the value should be a percentage of a fixed amount, ie [fixed amount / number of nodes = amount per node], but in this decentralized system can all nodes accurately calculate this, or should the mining node calculate this?  imagine every block with 6000+ coinbase transactions?  I also haven't touched on the possible attack vectors for these solutions.

In summary paying nodes for their services in such a decentralized network has not been resolved from a technical perspective.

However! if we think outside the box for a second you will remember the "Proof of Stake" method used by some altcoins, as opposed to the "Proof of Work" method used by Bitcoin.  Generally under the PoS protocol people are only rewarded based on their stake if they keep their nodes running.  People with large stakes are rewarded sufficiently for keeping their node running.  I believe certain altcoins have implemented hybrid PoW + PoS protocols.  PoS is currently the only tested and proven method for rewarding node holders.

Good luck trying to get some type of PoS mechanism introduced into Bitcoin core though!  It would only be contemplated if the situation became much more dire than it is now.