Re: Fees for full nodes?

[-ck]

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.

Why altcoin? It is more like p2ppool, but instead of shares for mining one would get shares for proven transaction propagation.

p2pool is an alt chain of its own and it has miners. Bitcoin nodes don't mine though.

[1714101902]

1714101902

[1714101902]

1714101902

[1714101902]

1714101902

[1714101902]

1714101902

[1714101902]

1714101902

[1714101902]

1714101902

[tspacepilot]

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.

As far as I can tell, this point by -ck is sorta a showstopper for the idea of paying full nodes.  As he says, unless we could guarantee people aren't cheating, surely people would take advantage of that.  There may indeed be some way to prove this, but I think it's definitely a requirement going forward.

[oldbute]

Bitnodes uses a scoring system https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/leaderboard/#peer-index.  Not sure how close that gets to identifying full nodes.

What about a lottery system instead of guaranteed payment?  Only way I can imagine this working is as an Etherum contract so it is verified how the registration and payouts work.

Some organization would need to fund it like Bitnodes did with incentive program, or you could have weekly/monthly entries.  Costs xxx bitcoin to register your node (IP and payout address).  Your node has to have a certain PIX score before you can qualify.   i think that would be interesting and may motivate some people to setup a node.  Lot of people like gambling

[bitsolutions]

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.

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.

[kano]

I'm still wondering what 3rd world internet country people live in and say they can't run a full node?

I live in Aus and the internet here sux so bad I think I must be in the 3rd world.
I pay $110/mth for speed: 8Mbit down and 1Mbit up (with a data limit up+down of 1Tbyte)
I'm broke ... I'll admit it
I get by on that with all the net I use and I also run:
2 full nodes at home, one for my wallet and one for the pool wallet.

I run 'a few' full nodes on the net for the pool.

I gotta wonder about comments further up linking to reddit saying they can't run a full node ...

[mohsin qureshi]

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.

[icezer0z]

Reading this thread just influenced me to better understand how to support Bitcoin.  Been mining but that's like playing the lotto.

I have a Node setup now

75.187.165.159:8333 (dynamic)

and i am setting up one in NY (brother is on a military base)
>remoted in to his PC

[Was]

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.


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://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.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.

[David Rabahy]

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.

[David Rabahy]

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.

Perhaps you meant http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/156072/bitcoin.pdf for the second.

[kano]

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.

[Syke]

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.

[-ck]

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.

You're talking to the wrong person. I wasn't pushing for incentivising anything; only pointing out the flaw with the idea.

[2112]

This thread is getting hard to follow. There seem to be various mixups going on.

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.

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

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.

[philipma1957]

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?

[Magnesium Coin]

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!

[amaclin]

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 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.

[Was]

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.

Perhaps you meant http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/156072/bitcoin.pdf for the second.

Sorry, Meant to put:   http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf

[2112]

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.

[amaclin]

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.