Block explorers oligopoly.

[NotATether]

And to be honest, it's just out of sheer laziness... my node is txindex=1... so I could look them up relatively easily, I just prefer to use the block explorers because they have some "nice" features that usually make it "easy" (like linking to previous and/or next UTXOs/Transactions etc)

I should really just run one of the open source explorers and use that.

I wonder what's the argument against making txindex=1 default in future versions of Core, to facilitate running block explorer software without doing another rescan (it gets merged with the IBD)?

[1714707783]

1714707783

[1714707783]

1714707783

[1714707783]

1714707783

[ranochigo]

I wonder what's the argument against making txindex=1 default in future versions of Core, to facilitate running block explorer software without doing another rescan (it gets merged with the IBD)?

Why bother? Most users don't do anything that would require searching for transactions not related to their wallet nor would they need anything with txindex. Keeping an additional indexing introduces extra resource requirements and a longer synchronization for something that the users won't need. Don't think there is any plans for any block explorer in Bitcoin Core.

You need to reindex if you want to use txindex. Keeping it turned off is probably far better.

[TangentC]

No one should be using blockexplorers: Using them trashes your privacy by leaking addresses you're interested to to third parties.

Your wallet should be providing all the monitoring of your own addresses that you need.

The blockstream block explorer is open source, so if you must use one-- you can run it yourself. ... if you can manage the resources.  Blockexplorers are fundamentally less scalable than Bitcoin is, so they're pretty much always going to end up centralized in practice.  This is another reason that its important to not use them.

The majority of users , especially those that use exchange as their main wallet, don't run nodes.

So they will be using block explorers , as running as many nodes as they have coins is not ever going to be practical.

Whether you like Block Explorers or not , they do end up being looked to as a 3rd party arbiter in transaction receipt verification.

In short, the non-nerds use Block explorers which is over 70% of the global population.  

In the real world, if you want me to run a node, you would have to Pay me to do so.
Bitcoin Devs and miners are cheap and don't pay node operators.

[HCP]

In the real world, if you want me to run a node, you would have to Pay me to do so.
Bitcoin Devs and miners are cheap and don't pay node operators.

How much do you value your privacy and the ability to operate on the Bitcoin network without leaking your information to "random" servers/third parties?

If the "cost" of running a node, which is actually pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things, is too much for you, then I'd say that you don't value your privacy very much... otherwise you would simply write that minimal cost off as the cost of improving your privacy (along with some of the other benefits of running a full node)

[TangentC]

In the real world, if you want me to run a node, you would have to Pay me to do so.
Bitcoin Devs and miners are cheap and don't pay node operators.

How much do you value your privacy and the ability to operate on the Bitcoin network without leaking your information to "random" servers/third parties?

If the "cost" of running a node, which is actually pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things, is too much for you, then I'd say that you don't value your privacy very much... otherwise you would simply write that minimal cost off as the cost of improving your privacy (along with some of the other benefits of running a full node)

You're killing me with the privacy nonsense,  

You do realize Bitcoin is a PUBLIC BLOCKCHAIN all transactions available for anyone to see.

If I wanted privacy, I use Cash.

FYI:
I run a boatload of nodes, all Proof of Stake, because I get paid.
Never waste time or money running a non-paying bitcoin node.
However many of the Block Explorers sell ad time, so they found a way to earn, even thru the cheap bitcoin devs and miners won't pay.

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

[bitmover]

If I wanted privacy, I use Cash.

With cash you can have some privacy to go to a bakery store.

Will you put your life saving in cash in your living room? we are talking about this kind of price, not few bucks privacy...

FYI:
I run a boatload of nodes, all Proof of Stake, because I get paid.
Never waste time or money running a non-paying bitcoin node.
However many of the Block Explorers sell ad time, so they found a way to earn, even thru the cheap bitcoin devs and miners won't pay.

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

There are hundreds of thousand people running bitcoin core nodes.
I can see privacy is not something you care about, but for those hundreds of thousands of people running a bitcoin node, it is important. Not only privacy, but to verify transactions by themselves.

Running a bitcoin node may not matter to you, but it matter for all those hundreds of thousand people running one.

[HCP]

You're killing me with the privacy nonsense, 

You do realize Bitcoin is a PUBLIC BLOCKCHAIN all transactions available for anyone to see.

Sure, all the transactions are available on the public blockchain... but can you tell which ones are mine?

As it currently stands, even with an SPV client like Electrum, I can go someway to maintaining my privacy because I can connect my Electrum client to my Electrum Server that is connected to my Bitcoin Core node. Thus, I can be 100% sure that none of the Electrum client addresses are being "leaked"... because I know for a fact that the Electrum server is not logging them... and they're not being linked to any IP addresses or user accounts

FYI:
I run a boatload of nodes, all Proof of Stake, because I get paid.
Never waste time or money running a non-paying bitcoin node.
However many of the Block Explorers sell ad time, so they found a way to earn, even thru the cheap bitcoin devs and miners won't pay.

Right... you're just proving my point. You're not participating in Bitcoin cryptocurrency for any sort of reason other than "to get paid"... you obviously don't care about your privacy. Your over-riding motivation is "making money".

And that's fine... but it doesn't change the fact that other people do care about their privacy and are indeed willing to run nodes as the trade off is worth it to them. I'm not sure why that upsets you so much? As you've stated, there are plenty of other options available if you want to be paid to run a node. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Quickseller]

In the real world, if you want me to run a node, you would have to Pay me to do so.
Bitcoin Devs and miners are cheap and don't pay node operators.

Most of the value from running a node is in the form of additional privacy. Some of it is also in the form of incremental security. If neither of these are important to you, I would say that you are not under any obligation to run a node.

If you are using someone else’s node, for example by using a block explorer, in addition to the above, you will also pay in the form of having to view ads. If as revenue does not cover operating costs, plus a profit margin, block explorers may charge users for using their service.

You should remember the saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The devs receive nothing when someone runs a full node, and miners do not rely on users running their own nodes.

[TangentC]

You're killing me with the privacy nonsense,  

You do realize Bitcoin is a PUBLIC BLOCKCHAIN all transactions available for anyone to see.

Sure, all the transactions are available on the public blockchain... but can you tell which ones are mine?

No but the IRS can by cross-linking data of any address you ever sent or received from.
Ever use your Email with a bitcoin transfer, they got you, ever ordered a package or service they got you.
Ever use a Major Exchange, they got you.
Which is why I would never think anything on a public blockchain is private.

[ranochigo]

No but the IRS can by cross-linking data of any address you ever sent or received from.
Ever use your Email with a bitcoin transfer, they got you, ever ordered a package or service they got you.
Ever use a Major Exchange, they got you.
Which is why I would never think anything on a public blockchain is private.

If you don't make the Blockchain public, then there is no transparency.

Bitcoin is designed as such and the user has to proactively ensure that they're able to break the link or use privacy preserving techniques (mixers, Tor, etc). The responsibility to preserve privacy should lie primarily on the user themselves. Whatever currency that you're using can only do so much to try to preserve the user's privacy. Bitcoin was designed to try to preserve privacy by pseudonymity and that is achieved. Mixers and CoinJoin helps to break the link, which makes whatever links that IRS or the government has established pretty useless. Bitcoin or any other currency can't really help if you're going to associate your transactions to your own identity by sending mail to your own address.

I'm not really sure why we need to incentivise people to run a full node. Full nodes primarily benefits the user that is using it.

[pooya87]

The majority of users , especially those that use exchange as their main wallet, don't run nodes. So they will be using block explorers

That is a weird conclusion you are making here! Just because some users are not running their own full node it doesn't mean they have to use block explorers. They all have some sort of wallet which they can use to check their transactions.
By the way it is not "majority" of users, most users are one time buyers who stay away from day trading and exchanges. If it were any other way and majority were indeed keeping their bitcoins on exchanges then we would have had a much more packed order books instead this thin one!

[TangentC]

The majority of users , especially those that use exchange as their main wallet, don't run nodes. So they will be using block explorers

That is a weird conclusion you are making here! Just because some users are not running their own full node it doesn't mean they have to use block explorers. They all have some sort of wallet which they can use to check their transactions.
By the way it is not "majority" of users, most users are one time buyers who stay away from day trading and exchanges. If it were any other way and majority were indeed keeping their bitcoins on exchanges then we would have had a much more packed order books instead this thin one!

I suggest you use Coinbase sometime, sending and receiving automatically gives you a link to a block explorer so you can monitor the transactions. Anyone with any sense always verify the block explorer transaction matches theirs.
Because users do have to have an final arbiter in transaction disputes, and the block explorers are that arbiter.

[vjudeu]

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

How do you want to implement it? There is nothing that stops you from creating a node that have to be paid to reveal some data. But there is no reason to use your non-free node if there are many free nodes in this network. How that "little code update" should work? Devs could create some version that will send some coins to other nodes in the coinbase transaction by default, but miners can reject such update, also because many of them are running their own mining clients and only verify data by sending them to the Core client. There is no incentive for miners to accept such change and lower their own profit. Take BCHA for example: some devs wanted some block reward and miners rejected their version and switched to BCHN.

[TangentC]

There is no incentive for miners to accept such change and lower their own profit.

Exactly and their is no incentive for me to use my money and resources to give them a free node.  

[LoyceV]

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

See Full node rewards?:

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.

No but the IRS can by cross-linking data of any address you ever sent or received from.

It's safe to assume the IRS uses chain analysis companies, who in turn love to collect "who looked up which transaction" data. Block explorers earn from ads, but I wouldn't be surprised if they earn more from selling data.

Ever use your Email with a bitcoin transfer, they got you

If that's your worry: use encryption.

[ranochigo]

I suggest you use Coinbase sometime, sending and receiving automatically gives you a link to a block explorer so you can monitor the transactions. Anyone with any sense always verify the block explorer transaction matches theirs.
Because users do have to have an final arbiter in transaction disputes, and the block explorers are that arbiter.

The fact that you're using Coinbase pretty much means that your privacy is already compromised. You don't need a block explorer if they're not concerned about transactions that doesn't involve them.

Even if you do, then I can't fathom why using Tor isn't an option. If you are able to search each addresses individually with different Tor routing, then there isn't an issue right?

Exactly and their is no incentive for me to use my money and resources to give them a free node. 

You're picking at one of the least significant issues out there. The node count is fairly high, even if you only count listening nodes. Why should nodes be compensated? You're running a node and the benefits lies primarily on the user using it, the positive externality is small if you consider the number of nodes out there right now.

By having to pay the thousands of nodes something, you're either making Bitcoin more expensive or Bitcoin to be less secure. What 'little' code update do you propose?

[NotATether]

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

Have you ever considered that money doesn't grow on trees?

I completely understand the decision not to make the network pay full nodes because the users are doing nothing besides pressing a run button. It's almost like starting a miner on your computer and steadily earn pennies.

The node is doing all the verification work not the humans running it. And a node is just a piece of software, do you really think it makes sense for people (who otherwise do nothing) to get paid for something a piece of software is doing?

There is value in paying pennies to captcha workers or mechanical turk workers but the economic model is you gotta do work somehow to earn money.

[TangentC]

I suggest you use Coinbase sometime, sending and receiving automatically gives you a link to a block explorer so you can monitor the transactions. Anyone with any sense always verify the block explorer transaction matches theirs.
Because users do have to have an final arbiter in transaction disputes, and the block explorers are that arbiter.

The fact that you're using Coinbase pretty much means that your privacy is already compromised. You don't need a block explorer if they're not concerned about transactions that doesn't involve them.

Even if you do, then I can't fathom why using Tor isn't an option. If you are able to search each addresses individually with different Tor routing, then there isn't an issue right?

Exactly and their is no incentive for me to use my money and resources to give them a free node.  

You're picking at one of the least significant issues out there. The node count is fairly high, even if you only count listening nodes. Why should nodes be compensated? You're running a node and the benefits lies primarily on the user using it, the positive externality is small if you consider the number of nodes out there right now.

By having to pay the thousands of nodes something, you're either making Bitcoin more expensive or Bitcoin to be less secure. What 'little' code update do you propose?

Bitcoin devs won't do it because they have their own agenda of forcing users offchain.
However
Adding Master Nodes to BTC PoW design,
or
Converting to PoS
either would get a payment for node operators

The we could quit the nonsense of artificially limiting bitcoin onchain performance,
but as I said, bitcoin devs have their own agenda that conflicts with that.

Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.

Have you ever considered that money doesn't grow on trees?

I completely understand the decision not to make the network pay full nodes because the users are doing nothing besides pressing a run button. It's almost like starting a miner on your computer and steadily earn pennies.

The node is doing all the verification work not the humans running it. And a node is just a piece of software, do you really think it makes sense for people (who otherwise do nothing) to get paid for something a piece of software is doing?

There is value in paying pennies to captcha workers or mechanical turk workers but the economic model is you gotta do work somehow to earn money.

Exactly , I don't work for free, and you are saying running a bitcoin node is not worth paying anyone to run.  
Bitcoin where the miners get rich & the Devs get rich , and the node operators work for free.

* Note a Node operator pays for the energy and hardware and bandwidth and the time to maintain the node. *
* Giving that away is an IQ failure on the part of the node operator.*
* It is a provided service and as such deserves compensation.*
  
Or does the community want to admit that running a non-mining node holds zero value for the bitcoin network,
because they can't have it both ways,
either running a non-mining bitcoin node is valuable to the network and deserves payment
or
running a non-mining bitcoin node is worthless to the network and does not deserve any compensation.

So which is it?

[HCP]

Or does the community want to admit that running a non-mining node holds zero value for the bitcoin network,
because they can't have it both ways,
either running a non-mining bitcoin node is valuable to the network and deserves payment
or
running a non-mining bitcoin node is worthless to the network and does not deserve any compensation.

So which is it?

Or, as repeatedly mentioned, running a non-mining bitcoin node offers intangible benefits to the user running the node, which is it's own form of "reward".

Again, you want everything you do to make money, and that's fine... more power to you... but running a Bitcoin node does not do this. However it does offer other "benefits" that some users consider worth the "energy and hardware and bandwidth and the time to maintain the node."^[1]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



[1] the costs of which can be relatively negligible. I have it running on my home PC, which is always on 24/7 anyway, on an unlimited broadband connection, on a spare 1TB HDD that was repurposed from an old NAS. My "maintenance time" costs are occasionally spending 5 minutes downloading and installing the latest version of Bitcoin Core. Hardly onerous requirements.

[kano]

Block explorers exist to cover one thing that has always been missing from core bitcoin: an address index.
That is the extra thing missing that all public block explorers must implement.

While you can always see your transactions for your core wallet, that implies you must have a wallet with online access, for every address you are interested in.