It's about time to start rewarding full nodes

[kokojie]

Bitcoin currently only have around 5k full nodes, this is less than back in 2013, when we were hovering around 7k full nodes.

As the chain is getting huge, quickly. It's no longer trivial to host such big blockchain, the disk space and bandwidth expense is quite high.

We will need to start discuss rewards for hosting a full node that stores the full blockchain, they add a lot of value to Bitcoin and it's unfair that they have to do it for free.

[ranochigo]

I would believe that the actual number is somewhat more. It is impossible for Bitnodes to locate every nodes since some nodes may have already hit their limits and Bitnodes is unable to connect to them. Bitnodes is also likely not be able to record nodes who do not enable incoming connections.

Back to the nodes question. Nodes are fairly important, I agree. They are the backbone of Bitcoin and they help to relay transactions and blocks and enforce the network rules. That being said, nodes should be as diverse as possible. Having a lot of nodes on the same ISP or datacenter would cause them to be centralised and wouldn't really help the network.

Implementing a reward system at protocol level would require a lot of work, a third party reward system such as the one 21.bitnodes.io uses to have would work better.

Btw, I can probably run a full node on my old computer for $10 per month in electrical costs.

[pooya87]

the question is how to implement a reward system that is both good and is impossible to abuse,
and then who is going to pay that reward? an additional fee to transaction?
and then there is the problem of reaching a consensus.

~
Btw, I can probably run a full node on my old computer for $10 per month in electrical costs.

if you want to contribute to bitcoin network not just use it as a wallet with full verification on your own it is good to know this though:

Most ordinary folks should NOT be running a full node. We need full nodes that are always on, have more than 8 connections (if you have only 8 then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution), and have a high-bandwidth connection to the Internet.

So: if you've got an extra virtual machine with enough memory in a data center, then yes, please, run a full node.

[geofflosophy]

Segwit actually kind of does this in a way by allowing nodes to become lightning nodes as well. But good luck getting miners on board with giving up some of their fees.

[franky1]

incentivizing nodes just makes TX fee's rise. adding barriers of entry.
incentivizing nodes just creates sybil attacks (one person running several nodes to increase earnings)

it doesnt cost alot to run a computer. you just turn it on and leave it on.

the only people it does cost are the childish mo-fo's that run it from a cloud service because they dont want their parents finding out.

if you dont have a basic computer at home. then dont run a full node. we should not be incentivizing people to run nodes on cloud services like amazon. otherwise it begins to defeat the point of being a distributed decentralized network if the majority are all running on amazon

[ranochigo]

~
Btw, I can probably run a full node on my old computer for $10 per month in electrical costs.

it is good to know this though:

Most ordinary folks should NOT be running a full node. We need full nodes that are always on, have more than 8 connections (if you have only 8 then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution), and have a high-bandwidth connection to the Internet.

So: if you've got an extra virtual machine with enough memory in a data center, then yes, please, run a full node.

To be honest, when I first saw the statement, I was rather confused over the other statement. Ordinary folks can run full nodes even though they aren't really contributing to the network to that kind of extent. Full nodes without port 8333 open can still relay transactions, blocks and enforce the network rule.

Running a node without port 8333 open STILL helps the network since it helps by storing the blockchain and your peers can still request blocks from you. That statement isn't fully accurate and users should still try running a full node.

[shorena]

Bitcoin currently only have around 5k full nodes, this is less than back in 2013, when we were hovering around 7k full nodes.

As the chain is getting huge, quickly. It's no longer trivial to host such big blockchain, the disk space and bandwidth expense is quite high.

10 EUR / month can get you a VPS capable of running a full node 24/7 at 99.9% uptime with >100 connections.

We will need to start discuss rewards for hosting a full node that stores the full blockchain, they add a lot of value to Bitcoin and it's unfair that they have to do it for free.

feel free to donate -> http://188.68.53.44/

The problem you have to solve first is how to distinguish a proper full node from a pruned (?) or fake one.

-snip-
Btw, I can probably run a full node on my old computer for $10 per month in electrical costs.

Id guess a homerun node is even cheaper, considering it could run on an old laptop. CPU/RAM requirements are pretty low if its running constantly.

-snip-

Most ordinary folks should NOT be running a full node. We need full nodes that are always on, have more than 8 connections (if you have only 8 then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution), and have a high-bandwidth connection to the Internet.

So: if you've got an extra virtual machine with enough memory in a data center, then yes, please, run a full node.

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

[pooya87]

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post. I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit.
the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such]

[shorena]

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post.

Quote properly. The idea of "leeching" is bullshit and comes IMHO from p2p torrents which have next to nothing to do with bitcoin.

I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit.

It does not. What is "contributing to the network" according to you that requires inbound connections?

the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such]

[ranochigo]

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post. I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit.
the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such]

As I said, even if you are not opening port 8333, you are still relaying and verifying transactions and blocks for the network.

Connection polarity doesn't matter, you will still be relaying nodes/transactions to your peers. The network will still benefit for that. You would just be connected to 8 peers to help to relay information to them. The reddit post is 3 years ago where the nodes are still plentiful. With the decreasing number of nodes, running a full node would help even if you do not open your port.

[shorena]

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post. I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit.
the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such]

As I said, even if you are not opening port 8333, you are still relaying and verifying transactions and blocks for the network.

Connection polarity doesn't matter, you will still be relaying nodes/transactions to your peers. The network will still benefit for that. You would just be connected to 8 peers to help to relay information to them. The reddit post is 3 years ago where the nodes are still plentiful. With the decreasing number of nodes, running a full node would help even if you do not open your port.

Exactly, nodes accepting inbound connection are available to SPV nodes and contribute more bandwith resources. All other nodes, even pruned nodes help the network though. Quotes like the above (esp. without context) might have even contributed to a decressing number of full nodes. If you tell people running nodes the only way they can (e.g. due to ISP restrictions) is bad for the network they are inclined to stop.

[franky1]

Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?

it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post. I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit.
the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such]

As I said, even if you are not opening port 8333, you are still relaying and verifying transactions and blocks for the network.

Connection polarity doesn't matter, you will still be relaying nodes/transactions to your peers. The network will still benefit for that. You would just be connected to 8 peers to help to relay information to them. The reddit post is 3 years ago where the nodes are still plentiful. With the decreasing number of nodes, running a full node would help even if you do not open your port.

Exactly, nodes accepting inbound connection are available to SPV nodes and contribute more bandwith resources. All other nodes, even pruned nodes help the network though. Quotes like the above (esp. without context) might have even contributed to a decressing number of full nodes. If you tell people running nodes the only way they can (e.g. due to ISP restrictions) is bad for the network they are inclined to stop.

but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node.

much like core lulling people into the false belief they dont need to upgrade when segwit is activated.

full nodes are full nodes for a reason.

[NorrisK]

The node reward doesn't have to be big or a game changer, but even a small fee would give more people a reason to run nodes..

If the rewards were too big it would even risk centralization due to full node farms.

[MingLee]

I'm basically repeating what franky said, rewarding nodes in a noticeable way just makes everything more expensive and it doesn't really benefit everyone. Incentivizing more businesses to run nodes (such as Coinbase or whatever, I don't know and that's just a name) would be a better choice as we know some of their profits go to maintaining the network and they feel the effects less overall.

[franky1]

The node reward doesn't have to be big or a game changer, but even a small fee would give more people a reason to run nodes..

If the rewards were too big it would even risk centralization due to full node farms.

and how would they get paid..

suddenly a 1in 2 out becomes a 1in 5400 out transaction?!?. where 5398 outs are paying nodes a few sats each.. um no thanks

im all for people trying to make a buck with LN. because that is just a side option much like using blockchain.info or coinbase.com... but trying to turn bitcoins onchain mainnet into something commercial will cause issues for real utility of the mainnet.. so again no thanks

all i can see happening is a re-ignition of what happened in the mining pool emergence. instead of 1 node 1cpu.. we start seeing people running multiple nodes and multiple computers. and becoming node farms

[Kakmakr]

This will be a very complicated process to differenciate between people running a full node, and those who run full nodes and not opening a single inbound connection and those people running pruned nodes. There were even some people who spoofed nodes on Azure, so if they manage to fool the system, then they would be getting paid for "fake" nodes on cloud based services. This will just be a extra pain in the ass to manage and police this. ^hmmmmm^

[franky1]

the real foolish thing is. even if there was a way to eliminate all fake nodes.

we will see a fight over how much they can/should earn.
we will start to see nodes rejecting and refusing to relay peoples transactions unless they get some income.
then it will be a fight over how much income.

some will want ~$15/hr (0.02btc per hour for ~2500tx) which works out as 0.00000133/tx
but thats just for one nodes income. lets say there were 5400 nodes

suddenly that 0.0072btc just to pay the nodes to relay the transactions, before even thinking about it reaching a mining pools mempool and the mining pools tx fee for miners

id say let LN go commercial and be the paypal2.0 with its CLTV/CSV payment held(maturity)/chargeback mechanisms and fee's. as a side option

and leave bitcoins mainnet as far away from economic game theory as possible.
bring the mainnet back to using code rules for priority and slow down the fee war to work over decades not months

[shorena]

-snip-
but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node.

I didnt do that. I just said full nodes that are not accepting inbound connections are still contributing to the network. Less so then nodes that accepting inbound connections or nodes that can help you sync, yes, but still contributing. Whereas the gavin quote suggest that unless you can hold 100 connections you are bad for the network.

-snip offtopic sideshow-
full nodes are full nodes for a reason.

They fully verify data, not fully fill the default 125 connection slots.

[franky1]

-snip-
but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node.

I didnt do that. I just said full nodes that are not accepting inbound connections are still contributing to the network. Less so then nodes that accepting inbound connections or nodes that can help you sync, yes, but still contributing. Whereas the gavin quote suggest that unless you can hold 100 connections you are bad for the network.

-snip offtopic sideshow-
full nodes are full nodes for a reason.

They fully verify data, not fully fill the default 125 connection slots.

im not talking about connection slots. im talking about being a full part of the network. more so im on about validation and access to full data.
but to answer your opinion when it comes to connection counts

the less connections you have the more hops(relays) data has to do to reach everyone

EG if 74 nodes had 74 connections each. the data will reach all nodes in one hop.. 74*74=5476
anything below 74 wont be enough to reach all the 5400 in one hop. some will require a couple hops
however there is a big leap with less nodes.
18 nodes connected to 18 nodes connected to 18 nodes can reach everyone in 2 hops
9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes can reach everyone in 3 hops
6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes can reach everyone in 4 hops

so athough having 6 connections, and moving it to 9 connections (if they all done it) gets everyone having the data in 3 instead of 4 hops

trying to get everyone having the data within the next hop requires 74 connections+

so many deem this as being a bottleneck if some of them 74 nodes are not then passing it onto 74 nodes themselves

i personally dont see a reason to need 125 connections as a default but if everyone had just 6 connections.. they are just causing data to need to bounce around a bit longer then whats deemed most efficient.
though to counter that. only 75 nodes need to connect to 75 nodes each... meaning the other 5300 nodes RECEIVING it can do whatever the hell they like because the data would have already been received by the time the other nodes wanna play funny business about how many they should connect to

and this is where i feel core are re-inventing the 'supernode' concept. using things like their 'fibre' brand.
lets say they have 80 specific nodes with 80 connections each . everyone gets the data in one hop.

leaving everyone else free to loop it through however many/little they want

though good for data migration, it does then make 'fibre' the gate keepers of data if they are the centre of the distribution network

[1Referee]

I am running 2 full nodes at this point. I personally don't need/want any reward for doing so as I just want to help the network, but it might be a good incentive for people to run full nodes. It time on time again surprises me how low the number of running nodes is, and yes, it has been in decline for years. Another thing is that the number of nodes should be places all around the world, and not hundreds of nodes being hosted from just one data center. That would not really help to achieve some level of decentralization. And then you have the problem of which nodes you must reward. Other problems are how much would they get paid, and what will the pay schemes look like, who will pay for it, etc.