pull down to refresh

Many nodes are available to anyone who wants to use them therefore they are quite explicitly providing a service free of charge. The network would struggle to be functional if there were no node providers providing this free service to friends in some cases, and in many cases, anyone who wants access.
reply
deleted by author
reply
I think it is rather similar actually.
Democracy may not be perfect but given that it gives all citizens a voice in governance and that good governance is crucial to the wealth of nations, its probably better than the alternatives.
Nodes operate along similar principles and although as in democracies most people are largely freeloaders, as long as there are enough nodes, the system functions as intended.
reply
deleted by author
reply
The node is an integral part of the protocols proper as designed functioning. Without the voluntary constructive participation and contribution of enough node operators the protocol could not provision the decentralised, censorship resistant, p2p payments it was designed to enable. If Satoshi was still the sole node operator we would not have a useful protocol. I do not currently operate a node, but can still enjoy the utility of p2p payments due to the generous provision of nodes, by others. You might argue neither democracy nor Bitcoin protocols are altruistic in their outcomes, although they both do seek to treat all participants equally and without fear or favour. But to function both fundamentally require that some 'people work for the benefit of others for nothing in return'...ie that some people act altruistically....by running a node or participating in good faith in the contest of ideas that is core to a functional democracy, or at the very least, voting on the merits of the contestants. In a similar manner node runners can and do choose to adopt and enforce the rules of the protocol, or not, at their own expense. Fiat money in contrast might be compared to a one party state autocracy/kleptocracy...where a small elite enjoy huge privilege and power at the expense of the majority who are forced to participate.
reply