4

So I am aware of the devs stance with regards to the incentives of running nodes (e.g. outlined here). However, despite all this I'd like to explore a different option here and discuss whether it's possible to run a self-financing node, which would potentially go along with a much higher level of trust by users. Renting a high spec server costs money, so I wonder if any of the following possibilities are viable:

1) One could create a subscriber based model and let only subscribed people access the node. Whitelisting IPs is not viable because client IPs change all the time, especially outside the US. So could I theoretically use the public part of their seed to make my node "private" to whitelisted users only?

2) If not, could I add a small fee to every transaction made? Obviously the users needs to opt-in into this somehow and I don't think this is supported (yet)?

3) I could run a node that relies on donations, but the only way to make this realistically work would be by a public node message that shows (and pleads for donation) when connecting. Is this integrated somehow? Are there plans to make this possible? Server messages would seem like a good thing regardless to inform users about downtimes, etc.

Helmar
  • 1,293
  • 1
  • 15
  • 28
Muppet
  • 908
  • 5
  • 8

1 Answers1

1

All three options are possible. You might need to combine some technologies though.

  1. Just wrap a login around accepting transactions. IOTA is on the transport layer. Wrapping OSI layers is age old.
  2. You can't add fees but you can issue fee transactions to the user and bundle them to the network.
  3. Donations are technologically decoupled so they would work as well. Not very good supported though as far as I know.
Helmar
  • 1,293
  • 1
  • 15
  • 28
  • Can you clarify what you mean in point 2 ? It's unclear to me. – ben75 Dec 01 '17 at 21:58
  • hmm, thanks for the answer, but I think it's still lacking some detail. I'd love to see more about this, before I accept this as answer – Muppet Dec 04 '17 at 18:51