Total Number of full nodes operating. Less than 10k.

[Wind_FURY]

There are no incentives, except that running your own node makes you not trust anyone in the network to make or validate your transactions for you. But who said decentralization would have no costs?

The original design of bitcoin is not based on such a weak incentive, keeping track of one's own wallet. It is solvable for mid-sized transactions and wallets by connecting to a handful of reputable nodes, running a spv wallet.

But specialization always develops in any "industry". We cannot always make citations on the white paper because Bitcoin has already developed further beyond "Satoshi's vision".

I didn't cited anything, I'm talking about the core design principles, the basics.

Basically,the network security is a direct result of impracticality of collusion between participants because of their divergence in terms of interests, and topological distribution. It is not up to Satoshi Nakamoto and his whitepaper to decide about it: less participants, more collusion potentials and the Byzantine generals would possibly commit a treason.

If Satoshi Nakamoto, hypothetically had suggested any other security model for bitcoin, it would never become popular and considered secure. Bitcoin security model is based on decentralization which is guaranteed by collusion resistance which in turn is not achievable in a network with few participants.

I did not say you specifically, I was saying some people in general. Maybe those people especially from the Bitcoin Cash community. Haha.

I'm also not implying that it's anything wrong, but maybe we should move on from "religious" dogma.

Mining centralization is certainly a problem, but that doesn't make it the origin of every problem nor does it mean that any particular proposed solution would improve it or anything else for that matter.

Greg, you are a prominent figure in the community, kinda political figure I suppose, and should be more careful about what you say imo.

It is not what we are used to hear, confirming the existence of a "problem" by a lead developer (and what problem? Centralization of mining!) and denouncing any responsibility or even possibility for confronting it or claiming that it is not "the origin" of every problem!

It is the origin of the problem under discussion in this topic, isn't it?

It was the origin of delaying SW for an age. Wasn't it?

It is the main factor behind the slow down in adoption of bitcoin by masses and the price being driven by speculative gamblers rather than decent business use cases. Isn't it?

I believe it would be very unfair for anyone to let adoption be a burden on the shoulders of the Core developers. You want adoption? Then build tools on top of Bitcoin.

[Kakmakr]

If I help to fund someone to run a full node on my behalf, it still adds value to the community.

What value are you referring to specifically? I'm especially interested in what value you see being provided beyond the one or more that they're already running (perhaps for someone else)?

Well, I should say all additional full nodes being run, would add some more redundancy. When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right?

One of my friends have several shops in a franchise setting and each of these satellite sites have their own bandwidth and separate network. We are working on adding full nodes in each branch.     <All in different locations and states>

[Wind_FURY]

Tell your friend that his nodes would add more "value" to the network if those nodes in each of his shops are utilized for the acceptance of Bitcoin as payment.

[gmaxwell]

Well, I should say all additional full nodes being run, would add some more redundancy. When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right?

There are on the order of 10,000 reachable nodes. So we already have ~10,000x redundancy, adding more doesn't seem like much of a value. Also, I was mostly trying to ask about someone already running one or more nodes adding an additional one-- the additional one probably goes down if the rest due, so the addition is not much value.

There are plenty of reasons for people to run bitcoin nodes-- better security, better privacy...  but not really any gain in having a hosting party run multiple.

[Kakmakr]

Well, I should say all additional full nodes being run, would add some more redundancy. When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right?

There are on the order of 10,000 reachable nodes. So we already have ~10,000x redundancy, adding more doesn't seem like much of a value. Also, I was mostly trying to ask about someone already running one or more nodes adding an additional one-- the additional one probably goes down if the rest due, so the addition is not much value.

There are plenty of reasons for people to run bitcoin nodes-- better security, better privacy...  but not really any gain in having a hosting party run multiple.

I cannot see why the addition of more nodes could be worthless, even if we have 10 000+ nodes already. Software are corruptible and some OS is very volatile and unreliable, so node counts will go up and down as these nodes fail. <Due to hardware & software losses>

Then again, I agree with your point about an individual hosting multiple nodes in one location. <Not what I suggested> Thank you for the civil discussion on this topic, some people would just force their opinion, without even considering the pros and cons of alternative ideas.    

If you continue doing this --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0 people in 3rd world countries will not have an excuse to run full nodes. Thanks. 

[Wind_FURY]

Well, I should say all additional full nodes being run, would add some more redundancy. When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right?

There are on the order of 10,000 reachable nodes. So we already have ~10,000x redundancy, adding more doesn't seem like much of a value. Also, I was mostly trying to ask about someone already running one or more nodes adding an additional one-- the additional one probably goes down if the rest due, so the addition is not much value.

There are plenty of reasons for people to run bitcoin nodes-- better security, better privacy...  but not really any gain in having a hosting party run multiple.

I cannot see why the addition of more nodes could be worthless, even if we have 10 000+ nodes already. Software are corruptible and some OS is very volatile and unreliable, so node counts will go up and down as these nodes fail. <Due to hardware & software losses>

Plus the Bitcoin network by design should really be scaling up, not down.

Then again, I agree with your point about an individual hosting multiple nodes in one location. <Not what I suggested> Thank you for the civil discussion on this topic, some people would just force their opinion, without even considering the pros and cons of alternative ideas.    

You should also be an "active node". Have your family and friends connect their SPV wallets to your node, or use the node for your own transactions hosted in hardware that you control.

Running a node in AWS is a "passive node", and it's useless.

If you continue doing this --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0 people in 3rd world countries will not have an excuse to run full nodes. Thanks.  

That is real scaling. This community has been manipulated by the "scaling debate" to believe that Bitcoin's biggest problem is its block size. Bitcoin's biggest problem is latency.