Should running a Bitcoin node be financially incentivized on the protocol level? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

The author of the above article argues that to decrease centralization trends in Bitcoin, running a Bitcoin node should be financially incentivized.

However, he also argues that this could lead to Sybil attacks (which, however, could be prevented or manageable).

What do you think?

view all related items

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @supratic 1 Apr

Some incentives cannot have a price. if you don't understand the benefits of running your own node, well... I think you're missing something #186992!

Don't be fool by these type of articles, are just noise.

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 1 Apr

I think the question is whether the current incentives are enough to maintain a good enough level of decentralization.

Personally, I think they are... but it's still worth thinking about.

65 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 1 Apr

Maybe there's, we are probably confusing things. The issue of decentralization is more about the big players, these are just two interesting posts on the topic . I like to compare with servers, there are the big four and there are who know how many private servers. Yes, they are more costly and less efficient, agree.

Recent increase in solo miners mining blocks is a good sign that the network is getting more and more decentralized in a small scale. It's a signal that maybe worth running a node and start mining with it (if we want to consider the monetary incentives)

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 1 Apr

This.

There is an incentive to run your own node. You just need some level of understanding as to why its important.

35 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 1 Apr

With incentives, it's less a matter of should but how.

55 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 1 Apr

Are there any active proposals on incentivizing node runners?

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 1 Apr

I haven't seen any. I've been curious about it for a long time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 1 Apr

...