Rewards for nodes ?

[User365]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

So I am asking, would you support a very small fee for nodes, that doesn't earn the people with a node good money but compensate for the hardware costs. So f.e. I run a node and I need a 500GB drive for the Chain (~70$), electricity cost (idk 100$/a), internet (0 because you have it anyways). So a node could earn like 150$ per year (or whatever is neccasary to compensate them, really just assumed the costs)

Of course with the rising amount of nodes the payment should fall.

I vote for yes because I think (haven't calculated it yet) that fees for nodes will be really small compared to miner fees even after segwit, and I think we really need something to stop centralisation.

[xbiv2]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

So I am asking, would you support a very small fee for nodes, that doesn't earn the people with a node good money but compensate for the hardware costs. So f.e. I run a node and I need a 500GB drive for the Chain (~70$), electricity cost (idk 100$/a), internet (0 because you have it anyways). So a node could earn like 150$ per year (or whatever is neccasary to compensate them, really just assumed the costs)

Of course with the rising amount of nodes the payment should fall.

I vote for yes because I think (haven't calculated it yet) that fees for nodes will be really small compared to miner fees even after segwit, and I think we really need something to stop centralisation.

Reward is enough now and will grow in future.

[User365]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

So I am asking, would you support a very small fee for nodes, that doesn't earn the people with a node good money but compensate for the hardware costs. So f.e. I run a node and I need a 500GB drive for the Chain (~70$), electricity cost (idk 100$/a), internet (0 because you have it anyways). So a node could earn like 150$ per year (or whatever is neccasary to compensate them, really just assumed the costs)

Of course with the rising amount of nodes the payment should fall.

I vote for yes because I think (haven't calculated it yet) that fees for nodes will be really small compared to miner fees even after segwit, and I think we really need something to stop centralisation.

Reward is enough now and will grow in future.

I think you got something wrong there, nodes do not get any payment as of now 

[BTCLovingDude]

i don't know but it raises a lot of questions in my head:

how would you prevent exploiting this reward?
how can you even tell if a node has received the reward before? IP? it is easily changeable. BTC address? it is easily changeable.

and most important of all. who is going to pay for this reward? should there be another hard fork adding something new to each transaction that we make which pays an additional fee to nodes on top of network fee to the miners?
will users go for it? they were losing their mind just because bitcoin transaction fees were $1 because of a couple of months of spam attack.

one last scary thought:
rewarding nodes will make things more centralized!
imagine farms, but instead cheap servers running thousands of nodes just to earn that "reward" and make a net profit.
how will you prevent that?

[User365]

i don't know but it raises a lot of questions in my head:

how would you prevent exploiting this reward?
how can you even tell if a node has received the reward before? IP? it is easily changeable. BTC address? it is easily changeable.

and most important of all. who is going to pay for this reward? should there be another hard fork adding something new to each transaction that we make which pays an additional fee to nodes on top of network fee to the miners?
will users go for it? they were losing their mind just because bitcoin transaction fees were $1 because of a couple of months of spam attack.

one last scary thought:
rewarding nodes will make things more centralized!
imagine farms, but instead cheap servers running thousands of nodes just to earn that "reward" and make a net profit.
how will you prevent that?

I haven't really thought about the technical side, a quick thought would be giving a node a unique number (which can change everyday for anonymity) and link a btc address to it.

The original thought was to fight centralisation (making future nodes with bigger blocksize more features affordable for everyone/ approximatelly free, the payment should only compensate for equipment and electricity) but how this can be done without exploitation and node farms, i really dont know but I am sure somethi g could be figured out.

Tx fee will decrease (hopefully dramatically) after segwit2x, so I suppose pament could come from transactions.

[dinofelis]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

No, it doesn't.
Decentralization is about decision power.  The only decision power in bitcoin is by proof of work.  Nodes have nothing to decide.  They can copy the block chain that mining pools make for them and find consensus on, or they can stop copying.  In the first case, they have to adopt whatever the protocol is that the mining pools found consensus on ; in the second case, they are not different than a switched-off node.

Joe's node in his basement has ZILCH to do with decentralization of the decisions in bitcoin.

[aesma]

It's a good idea. It shouldn't pay enough to actually make you any money. It should just offset the cost somewhat (say, half of the cheapest possible cost with free electricity and free data), so that there is more incentive for people interested in BTC to make the investment, but not any money to be made with the reward.

I don't know how it would be implemented technically though, I'm guessing it would be very complicated/impossible.

[aesma]

I can already see how to abuse the system even with the rules I've just mentioned : using cloned virtual machines. You could run a lot of nodes on the same hard drive.

[User365]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

No, it doesn't.
Decentralization is about decision power.  The only decision power in bitcoin is by proof of work.  Nodes have nothing to decide.  They can copy the block chain that mining pools make for them and find consensus on, or they can stop copying.  In the first case, they have to adopt whatever the protocol is that the mining pools found consensus on ; in the second case, they are not different than a switched-off node.

Joe's node in his basement has ZILCH to do with decentralization of the decisions in bitcoin.

I mean in case in the future a node requires lets say 5TB (in the future I know it's far away but with increased blocksize why not),  many people will stop running their nodes because of the hardware costs. Then the only nodes will be run by real bitcoin lovers (me f.e.) who wanna support the network and companies, but not the average user. And you do need nodes and not only 500.

I can already see how to abuse the system even with the rules I've just mentioned : using cloned virtual machines. You could run a lot of nodes on the same hard drive.

Payment per IP with forbidden VPN and proxy, every node linked to an IP and has a unique number (changes of course after a while, like 24h)
I think experienced devs could figure something out, so this discussion should more focus on the idea itself.

[Variogam]

Everybody is free to send nodes some bits. There was a project some time ago choosing random node this way.

But maybe in future some nodes going to require Bitcoins for sending data. Lighting network payments would be ideal for this, so no protocol change required.

[Kprawn]

I can already see how to abuse the system even with the rules I've just mentioned : using cloned virtual machines. You could run a lot of nodes on the same hard drive.

Exactly what I was thinking about. We have seen what happened when we had the big battle between Bitcoin Core and

Bitcoin XT. Once rewards comes into play, people will try to find ways to cheat the system. The developers will have their

hands full, just to stop the fake nodes. You should support decentralization, because you support the network that gives

value to your investment. 

[ranochigo]

No, it doesn't.
Decentralization is about decision power.  The only decision power in bitcoin is by proof of work.  Nodes have nothing to decide.  They can copy the block chain that mining pools make for them and find consensus on, or they can stop copying.  In the first case, they have to adopt whatever the protocol is that the mining pools found consensus on ; in the second case, they are not different than a switched-off node.

Yes it does. Nodes do have a say in what they want and what they don't. By implementing their own set of rules, they are essentially telling the miners that they have to follow the rules or they will be building their own chain. If the majority of the users do not agree with their rules, the price will tank and their precious profits will be gone, just look at how BIP148 scared the miners.

Payment per IP with forbidden VPN and proxy, every node linked to an IP and has a unique number (changes of course after a while, like 24h)
I think experienced devs could figure something out, so this discussion should more focus on the idea itself.

It's pretty impossible to implement such a system without people cheating it. If you were to provide it with incentives, people would start to purchase bulk amount of VPS in datacenters and it would harm the decentralisation instead. Anyway, the risk is too high for the benefits it may provide.

[Emoclaw]

Node rewards would be very complex to implement and unnecessary.
In the future most if not all nodes will be run on big servers/datacenters. That's okay because, as mentioned, nodes play no part in consensus and such situation is also in line with Satoshi's vision.

Full nodes are not meant to be run by normal users (they should use SPV clients) and contribute nothing to security, it would be a waste rewarding them.

[ranochigo]

In the future most if not all nodes will be run on big servers/datacenters. That's okay because, as mentioned, nodes play no part in consensus and such situation is also in line with Satoshi's vision.

Full nodes are not meant to be run by normal users (they should use SPV clients) and contribute nothing to security, it would be a waste rewarding them.

Full nodes are ABSOLUTELY necessary. If they don't exist, miners can do whatever they want and have users trust them blindly. SPV clients don't verify the rules and the full nodes that is backing it have to verify it for them. Satoshi's vision is for a trustless and decentralised currency, not a currency where you are putting your trust on someone else. If you have the resources for a full node, run it.

[User365]

In the future most if not all nodes will be run on big servers/datacenters. That's okay because, as mentioned, nodes play no part in consensus and such situation is also in line with Satoshi's vision.

Full nodes are not meant to be run by normal users (they should use SPV clients) and contribute nothing to security, it would be a waste rewarding them.

Full nodes are ABSOLUTELY necessary. If they don't exist, miners can do whatever they want and have users trust them blindly. SPV clients don't verify the rules and the full nodes that is backing it have to verify it for them. Satoshi's vision is for a trustless and decentralised currency, not a currency where you are putting your trust on someone else. If you have the resources for a full node, run it.

That's exactly why I started this poll/topic, if in the future a node full node would cost 10k$, only few people would run one, thats why I think they should get paid those 10k$ over time. Not more so no financial interst.

Everybody is free to send nodes some bits. There was a project some time ago choosing random node this way.

But maybe in future some nodes going to require Bitcoins for sending data. Lighting network payments would be ideal for this, so no protocol change required.

So payment via the lightning network would be possible ? I haven't looked into that till now, but sounds awesome (payment without hardfork)

How about to implement a anti abuse system, I have not really a clue 

[pinkflower]

I will not support a small fee to pay for running a node, but what Im willing to do is to donate to people who run nodes only if they have proven their identity and their ownership of that node. That would mean giving out their ip address and other private information.

[Last of the V8s]

http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/#footnote_5_64828

[User365]

I will not support a small fee to pay for running a node, but what Im willing to do is to donate to people who run nodes only if they have proven their identity and their ownership of that node. That would mean giving out their ip address and other private information.

Basically you are afraid that some people/companies would exploit this and in the end the small guy won't build up nodes again?

But imagine there would be a solution that can't be abused and it would work, would you support the fee ?

Just a thought:
There is a fee which goes into a pool which is equally splited to all verified private nodes. Verified private nodes ?  You have to register your node somewhere (maby via smart contracts?) and reveal some proof that you are a single person and you only own one node. Furthermore companies are allowed to have only one node too. Maby someone with dev experience in the crypto sector can think of a better solution.

[krishnapramod]

Node operators don't get any incentive, but still they do run nodes to protect the privacy, security and decentralization of bitcoin network. Technically it would be difficult to reward node operators. We already have mining centralization, but the good thing is miners don't have the absolute power, node operators are the back bone of the network.

What do you think would happen if node operators are rewarded? There would be centralization in this area and that would be one hell of a mess. No matter how much centralized pools or miners get, they wouldn't come up something that node operators don't agree up on. Full nodes validate each and every transaction and if a block doesn't meet the consensus rules then it's not relayed, full nodes enforce the rules and imagine a scenario where some full nodes are centralized, if I am right then blocks would get rejected rampantly, splits, altcoins, the main hashpower would get distributed into small hashes with altcoins. It would be bad.

[masterchief001]

If blocksize increases the problem that occurs that nodes will decrease, because of the hardware cost. That harms the decentralisation.

So I am asking, would you support a very small fee for nodes, that doesn't earn the people with a node good money but compensate for the hardware costs. So f.e. I run a node and I need a 500GB drive for the Chain (~70$), electricity cost (idk 100$/a), internet (0 because you have it anyways). So a node could earn like 150$ per year (or whatever is neccasary to compensate them, really just assumed the costs)

Of course with the rising amount of nodes the payment should fall.

I vote for yes because I think (haven't calculated it yet) that fees for nodes will be really small compared to miner fees even after segwit, and I think we really need something to stop centralisation.

I do not think so, basically, as the block grows, the nodes may also increase, so the speed of the transaction will be fast, the transaction fee will also be greatly reduced, bitcoin will continue being the most powerful money currency virtual currency market.