A new idea for node reward

[cellard]

This has been discussed many times and majority disagree with the idea of rewarding those who run full nodes with Bitcoin.

There are many flaws on your idea, but the biggest question are how to verify someone actually run full nodes and how to prevent people from run multiple run full nodes just to earn more Bitcoin?
If you can't solve both question, then you should forget your idea.

IMHO, lower full nodes count is better than high full nodes count, but those who run it only care about profit.

Yeah if there was a reward for full nodes, we would have people buying Amazon cloud server services to hire 1000's of computers and run nodes. The result would be that we don't get a clear picture of how decentralized nodes are. Amount is important, but even more important is how widespread they are and the lower the ratio of a single person running modes the better. We need many people, running 1 node, better than 10 people running tons of nodes.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe running a Lightning Network node, and charging for routing fees could be one model for incentivizing nodes to get some rewards from the network.

[unocash]

I was always confused why we would need the lightning network since, in practice, people are already using the Ripple network to move funds between exchanges. They convert their BTC to XRP, move XRP to another exchange within seconds, then convert back to BTC. It's instant, low-cost. I always expected Ripple or Stellar to become the de facto layer for transmitting crypto. Are you saying Lightning networks can really beat Ripple or Stellar? Can it really be near-instant (1-2 seconds) for a transaction, safe, secure, and large volumes? If so, it all comes down to exchanges implementing this, and that will take years.

[Adriano2010]

Maybe all nodes will get a rewards after all bitcoin are mined, but who know, maybe nodes rewards should be added on a new coin if possible and that coin to use nodes for confirmation and not a coin who is PoW.
On lightning network reward is paid only if someone use that node?

[Wind_FURY]

I believe running a Lightning Network node, and charging for routing fees could be one model for incentivizing nodes to get some rewards from the network.

Then it's incentive to run LN nodes, not Bitcoin full nodes since your LN client could act as SPV client and connect to another full nodes (whether it's owned by your or other user).

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

[ABCbits]

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

I get the point, but IMO it sounds like incentive to keep existing node running rather than incentive to run full nodes.
Additionally, unless your LN node have routing path/directly connected to lots of other LN nodes, i doubt you'd get sufficient income/reward.

[Wind_FURY]

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

I get the point, but IMO it sounds like incentive to keep existing node running rather than incentive to run full nodes.
Additionally, unless your LN node have routing path/directly connected to lots of other LN nodes, i doubt you'd get sufficient income/reward.

It was more like a shower thought idea, than a definite solution to incentivize existing/running nodes. Maintaining a full node 24/7/365 has costs, especially on bandwidth. At least there's an idea of incentivizing them, than none, if the Lightning Network scales.

[franky1]

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

I get the point, but IMO it sounds like incentive to keep existing node running rather than incentive to run full nodes.
Additionally, unless your LN node have routing path/directly connected to lots of other LN nodes, i doubt you'd get sufficient income/reward.

It was more like a shower thought idea, than a definite solution to incentivize existing/running nodes. Maintaining a full node 24/7/365 has costs, especially on bandwidth. At least there's an idea of incentivizing them, than none, if the Lightning Network scales.

adding soap to your shower thought, to clean up things

imagine an average payment was for a coffee($3) and the routing fee was 1millisat per channel
(yea most users route hopping would end up paying 10 millisats to hop through 10 channels(degree of separation math))
(but where each channel on the route only charges 1millisat)

well for your channel to hop enough payments to make 20cents (0.00004btc) is the difference of
0.00000000001
vs
0.00004000000

so although your gonna try getting the counterpart to pay the onchain CLOSE channel fee. the channel will need to consist of
4000000*$3 to make 4000000 payment to make 20cents just to pay for YOUR initial 20cent channel OPEN cost

$12m channel value your counterpart needs to pass to you for you to claim 1 millisat per payment just to get a break even for just opening a channel at todays onchain fee 20cents.
... think about that

[Wind_FURY]

To install and run an LN node, you would also need to install bitcoind, unless you're using something like Neutrino. But if you are already maintaining a 24/7 full node, then you can install and run a Lightning node with it and charge for routing fees.

I get the point, but IMO it sounds like incentive to keep existing node running rather than incentive to run full nodes.
Additionally, unless your LN node have routing path/directly connected to lots of other LN nodes, i doubt you'd get sufficient income/reward.

It was more like a shower thought idea, than a definite solution to incentivize existing/running nodes. Maintaining a full node 24/7/365 has costs, especially on bandwidth. At least there's an idea of incentivizing them, than none, if the Lightning Network scales.

adding soap to your shower thought, to clean up things

imagine an average payment was for a coffee($3) and the routing fee was 1millisat per channel
(yea most users route hopping would end up paying 10 millisats to hop through 10 channels(degree of separation math))
(but where each channel on the route only charges 1millisat)

well for your channel to hop enough payments to make 20cents (0.00004btc) is the difference of
0.00000000001
vs
0.00004000000

so although your gonna try getting the counterpart to pay the onchain CLOSE channel fee. the channel will need to consist of
4000000*$3 to make 4000000 payment to make 20cents just to pay for YOUR initial 20cent channel OPEN cost

$12m channel value your counterpart needs to pass to you for you to claim 1 millisat per payment just to get a break even for just opening a channel at todays onchain fee 20cents.
... think about that

Your example is fixed on, and assumes that Lightning will be unsuccessful, and forever be stuck in .0000000000001, I believe it won't IF it's succesfully out of beta, and accepted by the mainstream. But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

[franky1]

Your example is ... , and assumes that

and you too make many assumptions

IF it's succesfully out of beta,

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

and accepted by the mainstream.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

[Wind_FURY]

Your example is ... , and assumes that

and you too make many assumptions

From your history of misinformation? Yes, easy assumption.

IF it's succesfully out of beta,

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

Is Bitcoin out of beta in your opinion? Do developers of Bitcoin Cash share this opinion? Because they should promote it as the "Bitcoin that's out of Beta". They fixed Bitcoin's limitations, right?

and accepted by the mainstream.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

Never was? No one is using it? I'm confused.

[hv_]

Your example is ... , and assumes that

and you too make many assumptions

From your history of misinformation? Yes, easy assumption.

IF it's succesfully out of beta,

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

Is Bitcoin out of beta in your opinion? Do developers of Bitcoin Cash share this opinion? Because they should promote it as the "Bitcoin that's out of Beta". They fixed Bitcoin's limitations, right?

and accepted by the mainstream.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

Never was? No one is using it? I'm confused.

So only a protocol that is set in stone and only changes for scaling / capacy demand adjustments and bug fixes is out of beta.

Second, full nodes are defined to mine, so they are properly incentified. Problem solved.

Nodes that dont mine are just slave nodes at some front end / fat client style - just listening what servers / back end nodes = miners have agreed on. 

[Wind_FURY]

Your example is ... , and assumes that

and you too make many assumptions

From your history of misinformation? Yes, easy assumption.

IF it's succesfully out of beta,

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

Is Bitcoin out of beta in your opinion? Do developers of Bitcoin Cash share this opinion? Because they should promote it as the "Bitcoin that's out of Beta". They fixed Bitcoin's limitations, right?

and accepted by the mainstream.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

But IF it stays as a niche for Bitcoiners, then yes.

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

Never was? No one is using it? I'm confused.

So only a protocol that is set in stone and only changes for scaling / capacy demand adjustments and bug fixes is out of beta.

Name the protocol are you talking about.

Second, full nodes are defined to mine, so they are properly incentified. Problem solved.

Then it's useless for the users to run their own nodes? They should turn it off, and let only the miners run nodes?

Nodes that dont mine are just slave nodes at some front end / fat client style - just listening what servers / back end nodes = miners have agreed on. 

Then do you believe, the "slave nodes" have no power over the network?

[Wind_FURY]

Then it's useless for the users to run their own nodes? They should turn it off, and let only the miners run nodes?

Then do you believe, the "slave nodes" have no power over the network?

Miracles never cease,

You finally got it.  

Non-mining nodes are useless and have no power over the network.

Mining nodes have all of the power over the network and receive compensation for it.

The only other power is economic power to blackmail the miners to not use their coins,
which can only be accomplished by large institutions that control massive amounts of coins.
Theses institutions don't even have to run a node, they can farm it out from a third party.

If you want rewards for running a node, then you have to run a Masternode coin or a Proof of Stake coin,
as those are the only ones that provide financial incentive to run a full node other than a PoW Mining Node.

You can try running an LN hub, but you don't have to run a bitcoin full node to do it.
So far no one running LN hubs are making a living wage off it.  

Example:
Mining Node = Writer
Exchange/Business = Reader
Non-mining Node = Copiers

The Writer writes a new book, The Reader Buys the Book, The Copier makes copies of the book.

The Reader tells the Writer . if he kills his favorite character , that he won't buy his new book.

The Writer concern the Reader won't buy the book , keeps the reader's favorite character alive. (This is Economic Blackmail)

The Copiers, just make EXTRA UNNECESSARY COPIES of whatever books are written by the writer ,
and have no leverage of any kind against the writer or reader.

Since the Writer also puts out his own copies of the book for the readers , the copier has no power/purpose at all!

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

Nodes demand blocks from the miners, and miners supply them. If the miners want a kind of block they demand, then the miners have to follow.

What? Fairy tales you say? The UASF showed everyone what kind of power running a full node can have over the top Bitcoin merchants and the powerful miners.

[mda]

Node reward are countless hours of effort otherwise lost/stolen through currency debasement.

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

You waste the time arguing with a troll instead of ignoring him.

[Khaos77]

Node reward are countless hours of effort otherwise lost/stolen through currency debasement.

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

You waste the time arguing with a troll instead of ignoring him.

Wow, I get called a troll for pointing out that non-miming nodes have no power in btc by design.

Ok, I am done with you asshats, i am not the one you should be arguing with anyway,

go start arguing with the bitcoin devs and miners and tell them how important you non-mining nodes operators are and why they should reward you.

Don't be surprised when you get ignored by them.  

If you truly believed the non-mining nodes have any power ,
ask yourself this , as a non-mining node operator , you and all of the other suckers (non-mining node operators),
all want to receive some form of compensation for your efforts, such as a small % of rewards or transaction fees and yet
you receive NOTHING, and no one cares, and you are impotent to change it.

So where is your supposed power non-mining node operator,
the fact is you are a useless copier as in my earlier example and have zero power.  

  LOL,
Prove me wrong tell the bitcoin devs and mining pools,
that the non-mining nodes all want to share in a paltry 1% of all rewards and transaction fees divided between them.
You won't get it , because you have no power in the system,
you don't control the network and you don't have any economic clout to use in an economic blackmail scenario.
Go ahead, and see how they ignore you.  

[Wind_FURY]

Then it's useless for the users to run their own nodes? They should turn it off, and let only the miners run nodes?

Then do you believe, the "slave nodes" have no power over the network?

Miracles never cease,

You finally got it.  

Non-mining nodes are useless and have no power over the network.

Mining nodes have all of the power over the network and receive compensation for it.

The only other power is economic power to blackmail the miners to not use their coins,
which can only be accomplished by large institutions that control massive amounts of coins.
Theses institutions don't even have to run a node, they can farm it out from a third party.

If you want rewards for running a node, then you have to run a Masternode coin or a Proof of Stake coin,
as those are the only ones that provide financial incentive to run a full node other than a PoW Mining Node.

You can try running an LN hub, but you don't have to run a bitcoin full node to do it.
So far no one running LN hubs are making a living wage off it.  

Example:
Mining Node = Writer
Exchange/Business = Reader
Non-mining Node = Copiers

The Writer writes a new book, The Reader Buys the Book, The Copier makes copies of the book.

The Reader tells the Writer . if he kills his favorite character , that he won't buy his new book.

The Writer concern the Reader won't buy the book , keeps the reader's favorite character alive. (This is Economic Blackmail)

The Copiers, just make EXTRA UNNECESSARY COPIES of whatever books are written by the writer ,
and have no leverage of any kind against the writer or reader.

Since the Writer also puts out his own copies of the book for the readers , the copier has no power/purpose at all!

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

Nodes demand blocks from the miners, and miners supply them. If the miners want a kind of block they demand, then the miners have to follow.

What? Fairy tales you say? The UASF showed everyone what kind of power running a full node can have over the top Bitcoin merchants and the powerful miners.

Just when I think you grew a brain , you say the above nonsense,
Oh well, true miracle are rare.

Size of the blocks is irrelevant in the above discussion.

If you truly believed the non-mining nodes have any power ,
ask yourself this , as a non-mining node operator , you and all of the other suckers (non-mining node operators),
all want to receive some form of compensation for your efforts, such as a small % of rewards or transaction fees and yet
you receive NOTHING, and no one cares, and you are impotent to change it.

So where is your supposed power non-mining node operator,
the fact is you are a useless copier as in my earlier example and have zero power.  

  LOL,
Prove me wrong tell the bitcoin devs and mining pools,
that the non-mining nodes all want to share in a paltry 1% of all rewards and transaction fees divided between them.
You won't get it , because you have no power in the system,
you don't control the network and you don't have any economic clout to use in an economic blackmail scenario.
Go ahead, and see how they ignore you.  

See how "they" ignore? There was no "ignore". The miners and the merchants bended over because of the UASF.



Nodes demand blocks from the miners, and miners supply them. If the miners want a kind of block they demand, then the miners have to follow.

Newbies, learn some Bitcoin history. DYOR on the UASF.