I'd like to add to this. There is definitely a barrier of entry with regards to
setting up a full node. Unless you're living in a first world country, the
bandwidth requirements alone, will outright prevent you from even setting up a
full node (sync since genesis).
To maintain that also becomes a sunk cost, as there is no financial incentive
to run a node, only an idealogical one. Most of the people who benefit and will
benefit from Bitcoin, are the un-banked. Which you will find in 3rd world
countries, that don't have ISPs that provide the data packages, to cater for
the requirements of running a full node. I'm sure many would like to, but
simply cannot afford it.
A user may not want to run a node at home, but rather on a digital ocean or AWS
server, which they cannot afford to do either considering the bandwidth and
storage costs associated with it. However, I don't think they should be
excluded from participating in the network (supporting proposals, voicing their
opinions, running their own wallets, writing their own applications on top of
Bitcoin [which I think is extremely important]).
So I would definitely be in favour of a small node of sorts. It will present us
with some interesting technical challenges along the way but it's definitely
worth while looking into.
Financially incentivising nodes is a really weird area because it would allow
someone to essentially automate the deployment of nodes. i.e. if a node can pay
for itself 100% (even at a lesser value, it just becomes cheaper overall), you
could write an application that uses an AWS API or a digital ocean API to
automatically deploy 100's of nodes. Which sounds great but not if that person
is malicious and wants to prevent the community adopting proposals.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
