> 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.

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...

![](https://m.stacker.news/143248)

DarthCoin

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.

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.

bitcoin

What is the biggest reason Bitcoin still has so many full nodes?

chipcoinprotocol

> 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.