Full node rewards?

[califminer]

Why doesn't the bitcoin network reward full node runners? I know as an ex-miner that miners do most of the job but since full nodes help propagate the blocks shouldn't they be rewarded something? Running a full node DOES cost money. I mean don't give them 12.5 but at least 0.00001 per day/per unique public IP or something!! We all know that solo mining is a bad idea, so what incentive (other than helping the society and being good [ which doesn't make your wallet happy btw ]) does a full node runner have?Wouldn't we see a faster blockchain if we had more full nodes?

[DooMAD]

Wouldn't we see a faster blockchain if we had more full nodes?

It would clog the blockchain up more to send transactions to pay every single node every day.  Making a payment to ~10000 recipients (the current approximate number of nodes) would be a large transaction in terms of size.  I'd be curious to know how big that might be.  And if more people started running nodes and more recipients needed to be paid, the transactions become larger still.


//EDIT:  Does roughly 350-450kb sound about right?  It's actually not as bad as I thought.  But I'm sure the number of nodes would multiply rapidly if people could earn money for doing it.  


//DOUBLE_EDIT:  And look how quickly ~2000 new nodes can appear and disappear when it suits someone's agenda:  https://coin.dance/nodes/image/btc1.png

It would be way too easy to cheat.

[LoyceMobile]

This is why:

I expect instant centralization of nodes. Let me spin up a million of them in the cloud to grab that quarter million bucks per day.

[20kevin20]

0.00001 per day/per unique public IP or something!!

That is 0.0365BTC in 10 years. Full nodes obviously consume way less energy than mining does, but put it another way: if making money was as easy as running a full node, then so many people would abuse it that Bitcoin's price would just crash at one point. I'd be stupid not to profit off this chance.

If the remuneration was, on the other hand, even lower, then nobody would run a full node for something insignificant.

And even if we wanted to add this remuneration for running full nodes, where would that money come from? Tx fees? How can we make sure Bitcoin's max supply sticks at 21M while we still run the same block reward, keep the fees low and still make the max supply be a long-term target?

[califminer]

Right now the remuneration for full node runners is zero!! If they are rewarded based on unique public IP running for a whole day or some other  provable metric then that would really help a lot. This is one area which some future altcoin might solve and would add one more to the list of 'Why btc is obsolete tech'

[califminer]

Also most of btc mining is pooled wherein the workers work in silos and contribute nothing in maintaining the blockchain. There is just the central node which is both mining as well as validating transactions. The workers aren't validating most blocks. This is an asymmetric situation wherein full node runners get nothing.

[DooMAD]

If they are rewarded based on unique public IP running for a whole day or some other  provable metric then that would really help a lot.

Then you need to come up with a provable metric that can't be gamed or manipulated.  The whole reason miners perform proof-of-work is to prevent cheating.  Non-Mining Nodes, by definition, aren't doing proof-of-work, so they would potentially be able to cheat whatever metrics you implement.

most of btc mining is pooled wherein the workers work in silos and contribute nothing in maintaining the blockchain.

Wat?   

[HeRetiK]

As mentioned by the others, such a system would simply be too easily gamed. Which is also one of the reasons why PoW is used in the first place.

Also most of btc mining is pooled wherein the workers work in silos and contribute nothing in maintaining the blockchain. There is just the central node which is both mining as well as validating transactions. The workers aren't validating most blocks. This is an asymmetric situation wherein full node runners get nothing.

Of course, and mining pools are just giving away parts of the block reward as charity

[odolvlobo]

Why doesn't the bitcoin network reward full node runners? I know as an ex-miner that miners do most of the job but since full nodes help propagate the blocks shouldn't they be rewarded something? Running a full node DOES cost money. I mean don't give them 12.5 but at least 0.00001 per day/per unique public IP or something!! We all know that solo mining is a bad idea, so what incentive (other than helping the society and being good [ which doesn't make your wallet happy btw ]) does a full node runner have?Wouldn't we see a faster blockchain if we had more full nodes?

Your primary benefit from running a full node is the security of your bitcoins.

Also, people who don't run full nodes depend on full nodes to provide them with transaction information. It would make sense for full nodes to charge a fee for that information.

[20kevin20]

Right now the remuneration for full node runners is zero!! If they are rewarded based on unique public IP running for a whole day or some other  provable metric then that would really help a lot. This is one area which some future altcoin might solve and would add one more to the list of 'Why btc is obsolete tech'

Bitcoin is so obsolete the adoption rate is at an all-time high and the price is close to it.

As I said, there are two outcomes: either the remuneration would be high enough to be abused or it'd be so low it wouldn't matter. Mining is a different thing: one CPU equals one vote, as Satoshi said in the Whitepaper. A lot of hashing power = you earn a higher % of the block reward (or are lucky enough to mine a block by yourself on solo).

Full nodes can be started by anyone in multiple instances, abusing the remuneration. Hashing power cannot be falsified, hence it cannot be abused. You have to spend a ton of money to get an advantage in the mining game, whereas with full nodes you can easily multiply the nodes as many times as you want while maintaining a very affordable cost.

[pooya87]

It would make sense for full nodes to charge a fee for that information.

no it doesn't make any sense and it goes against the main principles of a peer to peer network.

Full nodes can be started by anyone in multiple instances, abusing the remuneration. Hashing power cannot be falsified, hence it cannot be abused. You have to spend a ton of money to get an advantage in the mining game, whereas with full nodes you can easily multiply the nodes as many times as you want while maintaining a very affordable cost.

technically you don't even have to run a full node or have the full blockchain, a lot of things could be faked so that it looks like you are running a full node.

[hatshepsut93]

Mining rewards are a part of the protocol, they come from the Proof of Work algorithm. As far as I'm aware, no one has created a "Proof of Full Node" algorithm, so until someone proposes it, it's pointless to discuss potential node rewards. And keep in mind that this algorithm should be as decentralized and secure as the rest of the protocol, because any point of centralization would negatively affect Bitcoin as a whole. And this is not even touching problems with distinguishing between virtual nodes and real nodes.

[odolvlobo]

It would make sense for full nodes to charge a fee for that information.

no it doesn't make any sense and it goes against the main principles of a peer to peer network.

If you are not running a full node then you are not really part of the network.