From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwbMf-0007fu-HQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:41 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.17]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1WwbMd-00068n-Mw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:41 +0000 Received: from omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F6441o00616LCl05A6AaMX; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:34 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f]) by omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F6AZ1o00Z4VnV2P3S6AZWg; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:34 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: Mike Hearn , Justus Ranvier Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:10:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1866054.ECx185lXld@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.1 (Linux/3.12.20-gentoo; KDE/4.13.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <87aaf81b20e17332175a3fbcd091c317.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net> <1801389.9PVWAZniMG@crushinator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.17 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Headers-End: 1WwbMd-00068n-Mw Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:41 -0000 On Monday, 16 June 2014, at 7:59 pm, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > This is a cool idea, but doesn't it generate some perverse incentives? If > > I'm running a full node and I want to pay CheapAir for some plane tickets, > > I'll want to pay in the greatest number of individual transactions possible > > Peers can calculate rewards based on number of inputs or total kb used: > you're paying for kilobytes with either coin age or fees no matter what. So > I think in practice it's not a big deal. So effectively, if you pay for your bandwidth/storage usage via fees, then the reward system is constrained by proof of burn, and if you pay for your usage via coin age, then the reward system is constrained by proof of stake. Now another concern: won't this proposal increase the likelihood of a network split? The free-market capitalist nodes will want to charge their peers and will kick and ban peers that don't pay up (and will pay their peers to avoid being kicked and banned themselves), whereas the socialist nodes will want all of their peers to feed them transactions out of the goodness of their hearts and will thus necessarily be relegated to connecting only to other altrustic peers. Thus, the network will comprise two incompatible ideological camps, whose nodes won't interconnect.