Are people incentivized with [btc] to run nodes?

[Cryptowatch.com]

Thing is, there are enough exchanges, pools, merchants, big holders who have a vested interest in keeping the network running smoothly and have enough resources to run several nodes. It is not an issue.

Counterparty also was trying to pay for some nodes.

Your stance is noted. But I'm wondering, is not a stronger network a network with more nodes? Would not a network with 100000 nodes be far stronger than a network of 10000 nodes?

What in your opinion is sufficient network strength?

[cakir]

Bitnodes is incentivizing node operators:
Bitnodes Project Issues First Incentives For Node Operators

Interesting read.  I did not see it maybe I'm blind.  How much is it paying?

Coindesk has a interesting article on false nodes: http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/  

It's not much. If you're on the top of the list, you get 10$ worth of bitcoin for a week.
2 weeks are paid already; https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/
Also leaderboard is here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/leaderboard/

[goosoodude]

Thing is, there are enough exchanges, pools, merchants, big holders who have a vested interest in keeping the network running smoothly and have enough resources to run several nodes. It is not an issue.

Counterparty also was trying to pay for some nodes.

Your stance is noted. But I'm wondering, is not a stronger network a network with more nodes? Would not a network with 100000 nodes be far stronger than a network of 10000 nodes?

What in your opinion is sufficient network strength?

The question you need to ask is, how many is enough? Ideally we would want everyone to run a full node to make it as decentralized as possible. But after a certain number it is diminishing returns, and in practice I think a few hundred full nodes with good connectivity and spread out is good enough.

100000 nodes is stronger than 10000 nodes, but not by 10 times. The curve flattens out.

[Cryptowatch.com]

It's not much. If you're on the top of the list, you get 10$ worth of bitcoin for a week.
2 weeks are paid already; https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/
Also leaderboard is here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/leaderboard/

Bitnodes Incentive Program

Bitnodes Incentive Program is an experimental incentive program to allow reachable nodes with Bitcoin address set to receive weekly incentive paid in bitcoins. The program ends by Thu Dec 31 2015 23:59:59 GMT+0000 (GMT) or when the network sustains 10000 or more reachable nodes for 24 hours, whichever comes first.

Bitcoin address for a reachable node can be set using the Bitnodes API. The weekly incentive will be paid in bitcoins to the Bitcoin address of a node selected randomly from a pool with at least 100 eligible nodes. A node is considered eligible if it has a verified Bitcoin address set and its Peer Index (PIX) value is greater or equal to 8.0.

The weekly incentive varies according to the number of reachable nodes as per the schedule below. The amount of bitcoins will be calculated using CoinDesk BPI and will be paid out from my personal funds throughout the duration of the program.
REACHABLE NODES   WEEKLY INCENTIVE
>= 5000   USD 10.00
>= 7000   USD 20.00
>= 9000   USD 30.00

Source: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/

So if you have a PIX value higher than 8.0, you're in the draw, and the winner is chosen randomly.

Here's how to register a bitcoin address for your node, to be able to participate in the draw.

Currently there are 1374 nodes with a PIX higher than 8.0. This means that anyone entering the program has a chance of 1/1374 to win, or 0.07%, now if only 10% cares to register a bitcoin address for their nodes, the chance increases to 0.7%. So indeed, not a high reward at all, but at least it's free to participate.

[tspacepilot]

Fun that there's a drawing for full nodes, I had never seen that before.  I'm not currently running one so I guess I can't play but I think it's great that this drawing exists.  I also wanted to add that while most people running full nodes now probably aren't solo mining there was a time when most people running full nodes probably were solo mining and for sure running a node is pretty much a prerequisite to solo mining (which presumably some people can still do although I'd love to hear some figures about how many actually are).

[Geremia]

Bitnodes is incentivizing node operators:
Bitnodes Project Issues First Incentives For Node Operators

Interesting read.  I did not see it maybe I'm blind.  How much is it paying?

See this: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/

[kepo07]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

[Geremia]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

Yes, BTC is all about decentralization.

[goosoodude]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

That depends on the total number of nodes out there. If there are a 1000 still left running even that is good enough. In fact I would say even 40-50 nodes would work. If we count the pools, big exchanges then we easily have that number.

[tspacepilot]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

That depends on the total number of nodes out there. If there are a 1000 still left running even that is good enough. In fact I would say even 40-50 nodes would work. If we count the pools, big exchanges then we easily have that number.

In my opinion there's a difference between what "would work" and what would be ideal.  I'd prefer to see more nodes running than less.  40-50 seems like a very small, very attackable network, IMO.

[goosoodude]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

That depends on the total number of nodes out there. If there are a 1000 still left running even that is good enough. In fact I would say even 40-50 nodes would work. If we count the pools, big exchanges then we easily have that number.

In my opinion there's a difference between what "would work" and what would be ideal.  I'd prefer to see more nodes running than less.  40-50 seems like a very small, very attackable network, IMO.

40-50 nodes spread is decentralized enough. If it comes to robustness more bumber is necessary, and figures of 1000 or more which is easily available is more than enough.

The nodes is not an issue, only 10 or so miners signing the blocks is.

[tspacepilot]

It is better to have more nodes at different locations than at one location. If a datacenter experiences a blackout and lets say 1000 nodes run there, the network would instantly lose 1000 nodes which isn't good.

That depends on the total number of nodes out there. If there are a 1000 still left running even that is good enough. In fact I would say even 40-50 nodes would work. If we count the pools, big exchanges then we easily have that number.

In my opinion there's a difference between what "would work" and what would be ideal.  I'd prefer to see more nodes running than less.  40-50 seems like a very small, very attackable network, IMO.

40-50 nodes spread is decentralized enough. If it comes to robustness more bumber is necessary, and figures of 1000 or more which is easily available is more than enough.

The nodes is not an issue, only 10 or so miners signing the blocks is.

Seems like at 40-50 nodes, a serious DDOS could take down bitcoin, am I wrong?  I agree about miners, obviously at only a handful of miners we'd have the 50% attack real easy.  But maybe I'm missing something.