Fees for full nodes?

[lch]

Is it important to have a huge number of full nodes?

If so, should a reward be provided for people running full nodes (a portion of the transaction fees)?

I think the answer for both cases is yes, because people running full nodes are contributing to the overall security of the network, much in the same ways as miners. They bear a cost in terms of hard disk space, electricity and internet connection and thus should be properly rewarded.

Another way to think of it, is that this proposal helps to soften the effect of a mining monopoly. By giving rewards to both miners and full node owners we would not longer have a single point of failure for the distribution of bitcoin into the circulation.

Another plus is that, everyone will be able to participate. If everyone is able to obtain bitcoins themselves, they are able to use it for trades. Thus increasing the value of bitcoins as a medium of exchange.

Discuss.

[1714476140]

1714476140

[1714476140]

1714476140

[1714476140]

1714476140

[Cranky4u]

How does one become such a node? just by running your wallet on line or some other piece of white man magic code....muuuuhahahahaha

[amincd]

I think this is an excellent idea, and the good thing is that the fees don't have to come out of mining.

If you have a SPV client and need transaction data, you could pay a full node for that data using rapidly-adjusted microtransactions, which don't bloat the blockchain.

I also think it would be good if full nodes had these micropayment channels with each other, and paid for the data they needed. This would open up a lot of options for low-trust coordination between nodes that optimized data transfer. Something like a notification a node gives to its peers along the lines of  "I don't want any txs with fees lower than 0.00001 BTC", and if a peer transfers a txs that breaks that rule, then the node stops buying data from that peer.

Of course, all of this costs development resources, so it's easier said than done.

[Peter Todd]

I wrote earlier about how you will pay for Bitcoin network access in the future. In short there are lots of reasons why people will want to run full nodes, from simple payments like amincd mentioned, to stuff like datamining and advertising. Giving out a free service in exchange for data to feed into search engines and/or sell to companies and governments is very profitable, and running a node that, say, people's Android wallets connect to lets you link transactions with actual identities. For instance you could sell the data to governments trying to track down tax evaders by analyzing transactions on the blockchain.

[mezzomix]

I operate several well connected full nodes. I see no need for a change of the block fee but I would like to see additional filtering. This is necessary to prevent the miners (or better the pools) from getting to much power and doing things that are not in the interest of other users. A current examples are pools that take the block fee but do not include additional TX into their blocks.

[mustyoshi]

I don't think full nodes will need fees until the blockchain is 10-20GB, at that point the average person would stop running full nodes.

[lch]

I wrote earlier about how you will pay for Bitcoin network access in the future. In short there are lots of reasons why people will want to run full nodes, from simple payments like amincd mentioned, to stuff like datamining and advertising. Giving out a free service in exchange for data to feed into search engines and/or sell to companies and governments is very profitable, and running a node that, say, people's Android wallets connect to lets you link transactions with actual identities. For instance you could sell the data to governments trying to track down tax evaders by analyzing transactions on the blockchain.

I think that only a few major players would survive even if there were profit. Because, the data can only be sold once. Once someone know that this account is associated with one person they would not have to buy that information again. They can just grab the transaction from blockchain.info or by running a full node themselves.

And more importantly, would you really trust a bunch full node owners that would sell your data in a heartbeat?

Wouldn't the system be more secure, if a bunch of people who know nothing about programming run full nodes? For that to happen, you need to give people incentive to do so.

I don't think full nodes will need fees until the blockchain is 10-20GB, at that point the average person would stop running full nodes.

The average person is already not running a full node because of e-wallets and electrum.

I operate several well connected full nodes. I see no need for a change of the block fee but I would like to see additional filtering. This is necessary to prevent the miners (or better the pools) from getting to much power and doing things that are not in the interest of other users. A current examples are pools that take the block fee but do not include additional TX into their blocks.

Thank you for running the full nodes.

If the systems pay people for running full nodes, we can destroy the miners monopoly on the supply of bitcoins. This improve circulation of bitcoins, which in turn reduces scarcity that is the main reason for today's poverty.

A question:
If all the top miners collaborate to hoard the bitcoins they mine, where would the bitcoins come from for everybody else?

How would people with no bitcoins obtain a bitcoin? Without subjecting themselves to the control of whoever has a bitcoin.