summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/eb/f059831db700bf84a45a0ddc767d9538bdcecc
blob: 65668af2e6cf14b1d045912a09c3c9b8d729653f (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>) id 1WwS23-0007Kb-2H
	for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:12:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WwS21-0007mf-Ab
	for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:12:47 +0000
Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
	Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified))
	by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ACF4275F
	for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	(Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla@fulvetta.riseup.net)
	with ESMTPSA id 19EE82B0
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1)
	(SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla)
	by fulvetta.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:12:39 -0700
Message-ID: <87aaf81b20e17332175a3fbcd091c317.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:12:39 -0700
From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
To: Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
	0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
	lines
X-Headers-End: 1WwS21-0007mf-Ab
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:12:47 -0000

I have been noticing for some time the problem which Mike H. identified a=
s
how we are bleeding nodes ~ losing nodes over time.

This link was referenced in the coindesk article of May 9, 2014:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/CANEZ=
rP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV%2Bs-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg%40mail.gmail.com/#msg321=
96023

(coindesk article for reference: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-ne=
ed/)

The proposed solution is noted here as a portion of an issue at:
 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4079

Essentially that part which has to do with helping reduce
the loss of nodes is as follows:

"a feature similar to that suggested by @gmaxwell that would process smal=
l
change and tiny txouts to user specified donation targets, in an
incentivized process. Those running full nodes (Bitcoin Core all the
time), processing their change and txouts through Core, would be provided
incentives in the form of a 'decentralizing lottery' such that all
participants who are running nodes and donating no matter how infrequentl=
y
(and no matter who they donate to) will be entered in the 'decentralizing
lottery,' the 'award amounts' (which would be distinct from 'block
rewards' for any mining) would vary from small to large bitcoin amounts
depending on how many participants are involved in the donations process.
This would help incentivize individuals to run full nodes as well as
encouraging giving and microdonations. The option could be expressed in
the transactions area to contribute to help bitcoin core development for
those that are setting up change and txouts for donations, regarding the
microdonation portion (which has also has been expressed conceptually at
abis.io"

This addresses the issue of how to incentivize more
interested individuals to run full nodes (Bitcoin Core).  The lottery
concept (which would be applicable to anyone running the full node
regardless of whether or not they are mining) is attractive from the poin=
t
of view that it will complement the block reward concept already in place
which serves those who mine, but more attractive to the individual who
doesn't feel the urge to mine, but would like to have the chance of being
compensated for the effort they put into the system.

I hope that this leads to additional development discussion on these
concepts regarding incentivizing giving. This may also involve a process
BIP.  I look forward to your remarks.

Respect,

Odinn