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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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. 

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.

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.


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 

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.