The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin

[AGD]

I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?

[1715070397]

1715070397

[1715070397]

1715070397

[1715070397]

1715070397

[1715070397]

1715070397

[1715070397]

1715070397

[amaclin]

I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?

Because nobody pays them.

[AGD]

I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?

Because nobody pays them.

Because they are not important enough for the security of the network?

[amaclin]

Because they are not important enough for the security of the network?

Nobody thinks about importance of anything. If you have an option to pay or not to pay - you will not pay. Point.

[Coding Enthusiast]

Because it is based on the idea of being Peer-to-Peer and just like any other P2P network peers are not thinking about money when they are sharing data with each other.

For example right now Ubuntu 16.04.1 torrent has over 4000 active seeds and even more peers and they are not getting paid to share this file like millions of other files they are sharing over torrent network.

[RealBitcoin]

I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?

Because nobody pays them.

Ok then on that logic why not just redesign the bitcoin network and stop paying miners.

And let;s just rely on the altruism of miners to setup million dollar farms to do the hashing.

If miners would not get paid then a lot of them would leave ,and it would be more decentralized so that everyone could mine with CPU, VOLUNTARILY FOR NO PAYMENT.

How about that?

-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business


You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

Because it is based on the idea of being Peer-to-Peer and just like any other P2P network peers are not thinking about money when they are sharing data with each other.

For example right now Ubuntu 16.04.1 torrent has over 4000 active seeds and even more peers and they are not getting paid to share this file like millions of other files they are sharing over torrent network.

Payment doesnt have to be material. Besides I can start up an Ubuntu Seed in 5 minutes, right now.

I have to wait at least 2 days though to setp a bitcoin node, since i dont have it installed and needs to be downloaded first.

[amaclin]

You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

I can

Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism

Yes. Mining is altruism, declared by Satoshi. This is not profitable buisness by concept

[AgentofCoin]

I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?

Because nobody pays them.

Ok then on that logic why not just redesign the bitcoin network and stop paying miners.
And let;s just rely on the altruism of miners to setup million dollar farms to do the hashing.
If miners would not get paid then a lot of them would leave ,and it would be more decentralized so that everyone could mine with CPU, VOLUNTARILY FOR NO PAYMENT.
How about that?
-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business
You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

I agree with this statement.

It is possible to create a non-exploitable incentive node system, but it needs more thinking  
through of everything than some here seem to want to give attention to.

It is one thing to say it can't currently be done, it's another to tell people not to bother.

I think it will be the new holy grail race in Bitcoin. Blocksize and other such debates are
about financial and user pumping, but incentivized nodes are about the ensured decentralized
future, security, and non-regulatability of the Bitcoin network.
Without that, what is really the point in using bitcoin?

[ArcCsch]

Some space can be reserved in blocks for transactions from node runners.
This can be enforced by requiring transactions in the reserved area to have proof of node.
Proof of node can be a scrypt-like system (look up entry corresponding to transaction hash, hash this with the transaction hash, look up entry corresponding to this hash, repeat, chech final hash against difficulty (should be hard enough to prevent spam, but not enough to tie up nodes)) over the block-chain, that requires having the entire block-chain to preform, but can be checked quite easily (about as hard as checking for double-spends on inputs). This would provide an incentive for businesses that want many transactions confirmed quickly with less fees to run a node.

[gmaxwell]

There is no such thing as asic-resistance.

Yep. (and if it did-- what would you run it on, your CPU is an asic too!)

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf

This can be enforced by requiring transactions in the reserved area to have proof of node.
Proof of node can be a scrypt-like system (look up entry corresponding to transaction hash, hash this with the transaction hash, look up entry corresponding to this hash, repeat, chech final hash against difficulty (should be hard enough to prevent spam, but not enough to tie up nodes)) over the block-chain, that requires having the entire block-chain to preform, but can be checked quite easily (about as hard as checking for double-spends on inputs).

Then I just have one node and pretend to be thousands of nodes. You've just reinvented mining but in a cumbersome way, and failed to benefit the system.

[ArcCsch]

Then I just have one node and pretend to be thousands of nodes. You've just reinvented mining but in a cumbersome way, and failed to benefit the system.

If you have a node, you would tack on PoN to any transactions you care about (to you or away from you) and thus use your privileges to get them confirmed quick, but you would not have incentive to use your processing power to spam up the reserved space with transactions between strangers. A market for PoN may develop, but that would just incentivise nodes more.

[TransaDox]

-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business


You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

This is a false dichotomy.

When one wants broadband to the home, one requires an access point. This is in addition to the LLC, fibre and all the infrastructure owned by the provider. Having an access point is a requirement to participate.. They don't pay one for having an access point. The same argument can be made for the required parts of the Bitcoin system and, indeed, it was with the first implementations where one had to have mining, full node and wallet.

So the choice isn't altruism or financial reward, it is a requirement to participate or financial reward for infrastructure support.

[ArcCsch]

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

[TransaDox]

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

[ArcCsch]

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

This would just increase the digital divide, people with a poor internet connection and little hard drive space to spare would not be able to participate.
One of the nice things about bitcoin is its accessibility, an impoverished farmer can walk into a dilapidated shed, connect to the dial up connection with the crash-prone 2003 computer, and spend his hard-earned milli-bitcoins on a sack of grain.
Requiring users to run a node would turn bitcoin into an elitist system that can only be used by people with fancy computers, fast connections and large hard drives.

My PoN idea gives a privilege to node runners, but still lets others use the system, they just have to wait for their turn while the node-runners skip to the front of the line.

[TransaDox]

This would just increase the digital divide, people with a poor internet connection and little hard drive space to spare would not be able to participate.
One of the nice things about bitcoin is its accessibility, an impoverished farmer can walk into a dilapidated shed, connect to the dial up connection with the crash-prone 2003 computer, and spend his hard-earned milli-bitcoins on a sack of grain.
Requiring users to run a node would turn bitcoin into an elitist system that can only be used by people with fancy computers, fast connections and large hard drives.

My PoN idea gives a privilege to node runners, but still lets others use the system, they just have to wait for their turn while the node-runners skip to the front of the line.

I thought the argument against this was "Moores Law means technology will be dirt cheap"? At least that was what everyone keeps saying.

However. I have hinted at a distributed block chain that would mean an on-disk size less than 1GB regardless of chain size meaning the concept of a full node as one that has to have the entire chain is irrelevant.

[TransaDox]

Yep. (and if it did-- what would you run it on, your CPU is an asic too!)

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

[amaclin]

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

i386sx is not Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared with Intel Core i5
But Intel Core i5 is Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared to i386sx

[gmaxwell]

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

Yes it is-- the circuit it implements is universal, meaning that it can emulate any other circuit.  But it's built exactly like a mining asic is, mining asics just are more optimized for that task and don't waste space for parts that aren't needed.

The term ASIC is a comparison to early "integrated circuits"-- devices that had many semiconductor parts integrated into a single chip, but still exposed them to the outside world as generic parts. An application specific part builds the application (like "computer cpu") into it to achieve much higher levels of integration.

[TransaDox]

Yes it is-- the circuit it implements is universal, meaning that it can emulate any other circuit.

Then by your own definition it is not "Application Specific". I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.