Re: Will there ever be any monetary incentives to run a full node?
Let's assume that we have full nodes in the amount that is sufficient for the full operation of all users and the system. Let it be 5 thousand.
After that, we will increase the number to 10 thousand. What will we get? The answer I came up with after much thought: NOTHING.
After that, we will increase the number to 10 thousand. What will we get? The answer I came up with after much thought: NOTHING.
Without a concrete measure of the value of a node and a way to determine how many are sufficient or if any number is sufficient, it is impossible to say with any certainty that any particular number is sufficient or that any additional nodes provide no value.
It is reasonable to assume that an additional node provides additional benefit simply because it increases the connectivity of the network. It is not reasonable for you to make your claim (that at some point additional nodes provide no benefit) without supporting it.
Here, I'll help you. It could be argued that an additional node provides benefit at a cost, and the point at which the cost exceeds the benefit is where additional nodes no longer provide a benefit. Now, if you wanted to support your claim, you would need to identify the cost and show how it can outweigh the benefit after some number of nodes.
"full nodes in the amount that is sufficient for the full operation of all users and the system"-means that there are no problems connecting to network. And if there are no problems, adding additional nodes does not increase the ability to connect to the network.
Are you suggesting that it is impossible to estimate the number of full nodes that is sufficient for the network to function?
Now we have ~10 thousand full nodes. ~350 thousand transactions are added to the system every day. That is, on average, through each full node the system receives 35 transactions per day, or 1 transaction per 40 minutes.
And you think that 10 thousand full nodes can't handle it, that there may be problems connecting to the network. So, should we still increase the number of full nodes? Seriously?
There is no such thing in a decentralized p2p system as "full operation" you are an old hand in cryptocurrency, registered here in 2013 according to your profile, and yet you use such a loose terminology, why?
Network could "function" (your term again) using just ONE full-node, but functioning is not the concern as you already know, being secure and safe is. Security is a not ever ending demand in all monetary systems and a decentralized system bases its security on proper distribution of power. It is what makes bitcoin the most secure in its clone is its checks and balances system that maintains a steady state of equilibrium between three important branches: miners, developers and users where the later group are presented solely by full-nodes (and not spv wallets) the concern discussed in this topic, which you are trying to derail, is the incentive mechanism behind running full-nodes and potentials to improve it.
If you are seriously questioning the philosophy behind the common rhetoric in bitcoin community about favor ability of full-nodes, you can start a topic and make your case. I suppose it is pretty off-topic to make this case here.