While that would be a good idea, that is unfortunately the way Bitcoin currently operates. Working now, and ofr the foreseeable future. There seems to be no fatal flaw in this.
For now, but a disease left untreated,
might cause complications later on, metaphorically.
I see we agree. Such is not an inevitable conclusion.
Not exactly. If you don't run a node, you are incapable of making trustless transactions on the blockchain. It is not altruism that causes one to run a node, it is enlightened self-interest.
Ah c'mon that is a weak argument that I have heard a million times.
Look, nobody cares about trustlessness, other than the VIP bitcoiners who have upwards of 10,000
BTC.
Most folks just want a quick and easy way to send money.
This is in no way 'a weak argument'. Trustlessness is central to Bitcoin's USP. For everything else, there is Visa.
Expensive servers? Don't be ridiculous. I run a full node on a computer I bought years ago for under 0.3 BTC ($300). While using that computer for other tasks as well. Sure, at some point in the future I may need to upgrade. But 0.3 BTC is not an inordinate amount to expect someone to spend to be a first-class member of the network.
Just a reminder that Bitcoin adoption is currently growing in 3rd world countries, not 1st world.
For some reason 1st worlder are perfectly happy with WU, Paypal and their banks.
And in the 3rld world, your
daily wage might be only 2$. So keep that in mind.
Here you argue against yourself. You argue that nodes not being incentivized is a fatal flaw. I point out that implementing a full node is relatively negligible for anyone who already owns a computer and an internet connection. Your rebuttal is that third-worlders only make $2/day? Such a economic citizen is unable to overcome this financial barrier no matter the incentive to run a node.