pull down to refresh
I largely agree.
A personal node that exists only for self-verification has a very different role from a publicly reachable node that relays transactions, serves blocks and helps bootstrap new peers.
One of the questions I'm exploring is whether protocol-level incentives make sense specifically for the second category.
Not because every user should run a node, but because publicly available infrastructure tends to be provided by a relatively small number of operators, and keeping that infrastructure healthy may have value for the network.
The hard part, of course, is distinguishing genuine contributors from Sybil nodes pretending to be independent infrastructure.
The only incentive for running a bitcoin node: you are your own bank.
Why do you need more ? Maybe you do not understand that power of being your own bank ?
Even if are just few full reachable nodes out there and people run their own limited node at home, is enough.
I completely agree that "being your own bank" is already a powerful incentive for running a personal node.
The question I'm exploring is slightly different.
Many users don't run publicly reachable infrastructure. They run a node for their own verification, which is perfectly fine.
But there is also a smaller set of operators running publicly available nodes, relaying traffic, serving blocks and helping new peers connect to the network.
Do you think those operators create additional value beyond their own self-custody, or are they simply another form of self-sovereign user?
These reliable nodes can be run by anybody that have knowledge and resources, in a more altruistic form than another. I do not think is necessary to pay them directly as miners with fees. They are free to post any address for donations.
For example a miner also can run such a node.
These reliable nodes can be run by anybody that have knowledge and resources, in a more altruistic form than another. I do not think is necessary to pay them directly as miners with fees. They are free to post any address for donations.
For example a miner also can run such a node.
That's a fair point.
Bitcoin's history is actually evidence that a network can attract enough altruistic and self-interested operators without explicit node rewards.
What I'm curious about is whether incentives change the long-term distribution of infrastructure.
For example, if operating a high-availability public node has a real cost, does relying purely on altruism lead to enough independent operators over decades, or does infrastructure gradually concentrate around miners, companies and large service providers?
I don't have a strong answer yet, which is partly why I'm experimenting with the idea.
If you want incentives, run a public LN node, be a LSP.
Base onchain is NOT for incentives (except mining), is for proving settlement.
But that is another story...
If you want incentives, run a public LN node, be a LSP.
That's probably the strongest argument against protocol-level node rewards.
Lightning routing, LSPs and other higher-layer services create market-based incentives without changing the base layer.
The question I'm wrestling with is whether there is any infrastructure that benefits the network as a whole but doesn't have a natural market attached to it.
If every useful node service can be monetized voluntarily through higher layers, then protocol incentives may be unnecessary.
If not, there may be a case for experimenting with them.
I'm genuinely not sure where the line is.
There are many types of nodes and use cases.
IMHO not everybody MUST run a full node.
You can run a simple Bitcoin Core on a lazy laptop and not even have to sync it every day, only when you need it for yourself. That is almost 0 cost and effort.
You can also use a neutrino mode and is perfectly fine for personal use.
Important are the public FULL nodes, that are few and is not even necessary to be many. Just enough and well distributed across the world,, running independently.
If a node is not a REAL visible and sharing machine (with port 8333 open) with unlimited connections (not just the 8 default for seeding) and with reliable hardware, it DOESN'T COUNT, is just a leecher.
And for a real full node you need a serious hardware and connection not bullshit crap residential dialups in the colombian jungle, and also over Tor. Those nodes are joke...
All this crazy mania with every bitcoiner must run a bitcoin full node at home is kind of stupid. Yes, is good to run a full node, but not in all cases.