|
David Rabahy (OP)
|
 |
September 18, 2015, 05:34:39 PM |
|
How would one go about getting the software implemented to charge for the high quality full node services I provide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
unholycactus
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 18, 2015, 05:45:19 PM |
|
How would one go about getting the software implemented to charge for the high quality full node services I provide?
Not sure why you bumped a topic from 2 years ago. As for your service, I don't think it offers more than what is currently available for free. If you could explain the difference between a "high quality" node and a normal node that could help me understand why you want to charge people. |
|
|
|
|
|
David Rabahy (OP)
|
|
September 18, 2015, 06:03:10 PM |
|
It costs me real money to run a full node. Besides the extra wear and tear on my gear, the full node software consumes memory, disk space, bandwidth, and processing power which generates heat that has to be dealt with driving up my cooling costs. I would like to be compensated for this expense.
I have a pretty powerful processor with fast and large memory and SSD. I have a pretty high speed link. Clients of my full node benefit.
Perhaps there is no hope of getting compensated. If not then maybe I would be wise to switch to an SVP wallet instead.
|
|
|
|
|
unholycactus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 18, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
Last edit: September 18, 2015, 07:23:54 PM by unholycactus |
|
It doesn't matter how much money it costs you for others. Having good hardware doesn't have much of an impact on the quality of your node either. Good internet speed does though. You can check how https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/ as it might interest you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
September 20, 2015, 12:26:33 AM |
|
I wish people would stop peddling financial solutions to technical problems. We all buy the latest car, iPhone, laptop or TV because of the money it makes for us, right? We all update our OS, firmware and disks because the newer it is, the more money it makes for us, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
unholycactus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 20, 2015, 12:47:17 AM |
|
I wish people would stop peddling financial solutions to technical problems. We all buy the latest car, iPhone, laptop or TV because of the money it makes for us, right? We all update our OS, firmware and disks because the newer it is, the more money it makes for us, yes?
No? If I understand your argument correctly, it cannot be applied to running a node since it can't possibly "make us" money. |
|
|
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
September 20, 2015, 01:23:33 AM
Last edit: September 20, 2015, 01:35:54 AM by TransaDox |
|
I wish people would stop peddling financial solutions to technical problems. We all buy the latest car, iPhone, laptop or TV because of the money it makes for us, right? We all update our OS, firmware and disks because the newer it is, the more money it makes for us, yes?
No? If I understand your argument correctly, it cannot be applied to running a node since it can't possibly "make us" money. No you haven't understood correctly. I'm saying that if the model behind the theory of what financial incentives would make a gazillion people start running nodes all of a sudden was true, then people would only buy the above mentioned stuff if it made them money. What it will actually do is make money for a small number of people who know what a node is and already run them. It is rentier wannabes wanting to get in on the miner monopoly by creating their own little fiefdom and who can blame them? Why should miners get all the cash? If you really want people to run nodes, then make running a node an inherent part of participating in the network-no full node, no access to bitcoin. That is the technical solution and doesn't rely on assumed greed or allow gaming of the system. |
|
|
|
|
unholycactus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 20, 2015, 02:07:07 AM |
|
I wish people would stop peddling financial solutions to technical problems. We all buy the latest car, iPhone, laptop or TV because of the money it makes for us, right? We all update our OS, firmware and disks because the newer it is, the more money it makes for us, yes?
No? If I understand your argument correctly, it cannot be applied to running a node since it can't possibly "make us" money. No you haven't understood correctly. I'm saying that if the model behind the theory of what financial incentives would make a gazillion people start running nodes all of a sudden was true, then people would only buy the above mentioned stuff if it made them money. What it will actually do is make money for a small number of people who know what a node is and already run them. It is rentier wannabes wanting to get in on the miner monopoly by creating their own little fiefdom and who can blame them? Why should miners get all the cash? If you really want people to run nodes, then make running a node an inherent part of participating in the network-no full node, no access to bitcoin. That is the technical solution and doesn't rely on assumed greed or allow gaming of the system. Bitcoin is meant to provide currency/exchange freedom. By requiring everyone to run a full node, you are limiting the amount of potential users, which is harmful for a peer to peer system. Not everybody has access to good bandwidth or storage. |
|
|
|
|
7788bitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 20, 2015, 09:46:43 AM |
|
I support the idea of small fee for full nodes. After all the full nodes are helping to store all the data which is growing very fast- when I first started the blockchain was only <10GB, now it is approaching 40GB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
September 20, 2015, 11:00:52 AM |
|
I wish people would stop peddling financial solutions to technical problems. We all buy the latest car, iPhone, laptop or TV because of the money it makes for us, right? We all update our OS, firmware and disks because the newer it is, the more money it makes for us, yes?
No? If I understand your argument correctly, it cannot be applied to running a node since it can't possibly "make us" money. No you haven't understood correctly. I'm saying that if the model behind the theory of what financial incentives would make a gazillion people start running nodes all of a sudden was true, then people would only buy the above mentioned stuff if it made them money. What it will actually do is make money for a small number of people who know what a node is and already run them. It is rentier wannabes wanting to get in on the miner monopoly by creating their own little fiefdom and who can blame them? Why should miners get all the cash? If you really want people to run nodes, then make running a node an inherent part of participating in the network-no full node, no access to bitcoin. That is the technical solution and doesn't rely on assumed greed or allow gaming of the system. Bitcoin is meant to provide currency/exchange freedom. By requiring everyone to run a full node, you are limiting the amount of potential users, which is harmful for a peer to peer system. Not everybody has access to good bandwidth or storage. You are conflating issues. Requiring good bandwidth and large amounts of storage is a technical implementation issue. It is a barrier because it is not optimised rather than set in stone. Again, not financial. The current requirement for a full node is simply that they can verify transactions to provide consensus. They don't need miners' levels of processing power, electrical or hardware. The issue here is that the current implementation is onerous on bandwidth and storage for small devices. They are addressing the storage and one way to address the bandwidth is by spreading the load over more nodes. If every client is a node, each node needs less bandwidth. If you only have two nodes, then just those two are required to have sufficient bandwidth to do all transactions on the network within 10 minutes. The solution, again, is to make every client a node thus forcing all participants to support the network. |
|
|
|
|
|
David Rabahy (OP)
|
|
September 20, 2015, 01:13:29 PM |
|
It doesn't matter how much money it costs you for others. Having good hardware doesn't have much of an impact on the quality of your node either. Good internet speed does though. You can check how https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/ as it might interest you. I have pretty good internet speed; 90Mb/s down and 11Mb/s up. I'm in bitnodes at 73.190.2.60 but haven't once received anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
David Rabahy (OP)
|
|
September 20, 2015, 01:14:30 PM |
|
Read it before; read it again at your prompting. I want to see Bitcoin succeed; would it kill us to pay full nodes a tiny fee? |
|
|
|
|
hogwild
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
|
|
September 22, 2015, 02:39:06 PM |
|
Read it before; read it again at your prompting. I want to see Bitcoin succeed; would it kill us to pay full nodes a tiny fee? I run a bitcoin node (ranked usually in the top 200 on the leaderboard: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/leaderboard/ ). But it is a bit of a beast and I often seen 400+ connections. And the last non-stress test from coinwallet.eu when they released the free btc tripled the load on my server. I also run a masternode on Dash ( https://dashninja.pl/masternodes.html ), but that requires a 1K Dash investment for the masternode to have any remuneration. I make about 2.5 Dash per 5 days. That covers my cost for the Dash masternode and bitcoin node. It is nice to get something back. |
|
|
|
|
|
jbrnt
|
|
September 22, 2015, 09:13:30 PM
Last edit: September 24, 2015, 05:00:16 PM by jbrnt |
|
Read it before; read it again at your prompting. I want to see Bitcoin succeed; would it kill us to pay full nodes a tiny fee?
I don't think the fee you receive will ever cover the full cost of running the full node. Running a node is "volunteer" work, you don't expect to be paid. I think Satoshi visioned most users in the future would use SPV wallets and only businesses or those who have financial interest in bitcoin to run full nodes. |
|
|
|
|
Xialla
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
/dev/null
|
|
September 22, 2015, 11:25:07 PM |
|
-snip-
Perhaps there is no hope of getting compensated. If not then maybe I would be wise to switch to an SVP wallet instead.
I already did it and recently switched to electrum, after running almost 2 years SSD based node with 100Mb/s symetric link. Simply, because there is no motivation to run it except some good geeky feeling, which is after years not enough. the "Incentive Program" is just joke, which is based on luck and can't cover monthly expenses, even if you will win once every month...btw, I'm not talking about some massive fees, which can fund new ferrari, but just 5-10USD per month to cover basic costs..nothing else. btw this is nothing new: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/ |
|
|
|
|
|
David Rabahy (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2015, 06:02:11 PM |
|
If a Bitcoin angel will give me 1 BTC now then I will run my full node as long as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sdp
|
|
October 01, 2015, 12:25:53 PM |
|
Transactions can contain any number of inputs and any numbers of outputs. If the SPV node could request a bitcoin address from a full node then its transaction could include an output of a small amount to that address. This would provide an incentive for this node to relay this transaction. But between nodes transactions have to be relayed for free. As it already is, nodes and clients must communicate whether they are full-nodes when they connect. A client could lie though.
One solution is to run an Electrum server along with the bitcoin daemon and then leave a donation address in the server. Electrum client users will see the address. I know, you are begging here. But at least there is an easy mechanism for people to support the node they will be sending their transaction to.
sdp
|
Coinsbank: Left money in their costodial wallet for my signature. Then they kept the money.
|
|
|
Xialla
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
/dev/null
|
|
October 01, 2015, 03:36:44 PM |
|
If a Bitcoin angel will give me 1 BTC now then I will run my full node as long as possible.
my words^^ I can even provide IP publicly for everyone to check, that node is up, running and processing requests. point is, that nobody will give you anything, so amount of nodes will continue in decreasing trend + there is still aspect of increasing blockchain size. I bet, that this will be sometimes subject of change, because serious financial network (tool) simply can't rely on geeks volunteering activities and good hearts of random internet strangers.. |
|
|
|
|
cr1776
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299
|
|
October 01, 2015, 06:46:46 PM |
|
I've been running a full node for quite a while now. It runs me about $90/80 euros per year, it is usually in the top 10-15 on that leaderboard, although I am not sure if that is at all relevant or very useful. (4 Cores, 4GB RAM (5GB burst), 150GB RAID10, etc). Running a full node doesn't have to be expensive and it doesn't have to be difficult. Just good to keep security updates applied regularly. I don't believe that the fees would impact my decision whether to run it one way or another though. Sure, if it was on my phone (give it 5 years and a phone might be able to handle it), but unless the fees are more significant, for me, they wouldn't play a role in me running or not running a node. I'm sure not everyone would have the same opinion. After 5 years, I may keep it going or I may not. It isn't the cost, it is just a question of time to check it every so often and the lack of fees doesn't play a role. (I doubt any fee for full nodes will happen any time soon from a consensus perspective anyway, though.)  |
|
|
|
|
|
