Am I the only one feeling something's off with this statement?

Maybe it's just my English skills, but this statement feels pretty unclear and a bit misleading. I get that you can run a node without making money, but the way it’s presented suggests that miners don’t run nodes at all, which isn’t true. It generalizes that nobody can profit from the network just by running a node, and that’s not accurate. So what's my point? This statement lacks clarity and makes broad assumptions about earning from the network. I wanted to create this thread to gather different perspectives. I think the wording might just be the issue here.

Wow. Never expected to be called out in a thread. Like I said running a node doesn't earn one any Bitcoin. Many do to keep with the ethos of verify. Don't trust  And also for privacy and supporting the network. So yeah Running a node in my opinion doesn't pay any Block rewards or transaction fees. Open to correction.

Running a node Alone doesn't give any reward... People who earn from running a node, do not run a node Alone... They are majorly miners who require it for mining... So if I'm to answer your question, No...people do not  earn simply  from running a node as it just helps to strengthen the network

Yes, miners are exceptional. I mean solo miners and mining pool. Miners do more than running a node, they are also mining but they have to run a node before they can be able to mine. I mean solo miners and mining pools. Yes, they are exceptional, but Ambatman is also not wrong. It can let people easily know that they have nothing to earn if they want to be a node runner. This Ambatman post is 100% correct. I mean with what Obim34 posted. The correction is correct. He is referring to node runners and not miners.

Running a nodes isn't limited to verifying transactions and bkocks, you can as well earn but not from block perspective. You can earn fees from node when you run a lightning network, people pay some sats to route transactions through channels, if you have large channel with more people, you are going to earn decent sats after some period of time. If you are not running your node to send and receive transaction, know that another person is doing it for you but that's at the expense of your privacy, that's if you care about it. Other than that, you are also strengthening the network so people don't have to rely on few nodes, the more nodes we have the more decentralized the network becomes.

The blockchain or the on-chain nodes are entirely different from the lightning nodes. This discussion is about running on-chain nodes which is the blockchain node and not off-chain nodes, which means this discussion is not about running the lightning node (which are off-chain nodes).

I don't think the sentence is misleading judging by what i quoted above. AFAIK, Miners earn their reward from validating a block, but they need to run their nodes so as to keep up with block height, and the others that I underlined above.

If you then are coming from the direction of nodes run by miners, that's quite different different. they actively create and validate new blocks, and they do earn rewards. You can also earn small fees by running specialized nodes, e.g a Lightning Network node like Cookdata already said. The only confusion here is your view on what Ambatman said, not that he was actually incorrect. Running Nodes which simply validates transactions and secures the network is generally not profitable. its main benefit is improving the network's health and your own security.

It is worth knowing that not all miners are having full nodes. Any miner that join a mining pool does not have the full node. Also those that prefer to be a solo miner but join solo pools like ckpool are not running nodes. That is even the reason they join the ckpool. They do not want to be a node runner but want to be the one to earn the block reward of the blocks that they mined.

Well the statement assuming countering what the other guy said is fine but on a stand alone basis it's not. Saying nobody earns from running a node is not true if you are viewing from the perspective of a miner since miners are running nodes too and they earn too. The whole stuff is vague if you are generalising not earning if you are running a node. Well my argument is the statement is generalizing what ought not to be generalized. It would have been totally correct if you don't need a node to mine but unfortunately it's not the case.

Miners are not earning because they are running nodes, they are earning because they are miners (mining blocks). Node runners not earning any reward answer that.

Valid point, which still means they're literally earning rewards for block validation, While the pool operators runs the node I guess.

For me I will go with the idea or statement that you do not earn just by running because of two conditions which is 1. Node runners are not miners 2. Miners do not necessarily need to run a full node. I think the first statement itself is actually clear since we have node runners not mining bitcoin. As for the second one the misconception is that miners need to be node runners like full node runners but it is not entirely true because a miner can simply connect to a full node and then get information from their and then create his candidate and rely this candidate block back to the full node. The only reason why the node is actually run by miners is simply because of d trust, they shouldn’t trust other party node information so they don’t get wrong information. So if a miner can by pass running this full node and still mine bitcoin which is where the incentives are then running node doesn’t earn one a dime except you double as a miner. I think the misconception is usually from the bitcoin whitepaper which had actual addressed miners as node. But we all know this two are separate All full nodes validate the block and transactions but miners are not full nodes they rather take information or connect to full node and it is miners that earn block reward after mining a block

Nodes do not offer an incentive for clear reasons in my opinion.  If you incentivize nodes you end up creating a system of leeches.  Bitcoin runs just fine with only Miners getting the incentive.  Look how many Full Nodes there are.  Who ever wants to be entirely decentralized wants a Full Node and it is better if they are NOT incentivized because then you see if people actually use Bitcoin or not. Give people 5 Dollars per cigar butt taken off the street and they will start collecting and throwing them out but not because they want to.  Because of the incentive.  The Bitcoin network can not survive by sort of 'enforcing' adopters.  Now I do get what you mean but Miners who also run Nodes do not make Nodes incentivizing.

But they don't earn because they are running a node but because they are miners. Giving review online about books and Also being a paind author doesn't mean you earn as a a reviewer( if that's even a word) But atleast you get what I'm trying to explain. Nobody f You don't need go mine to be considered a Node runner So I'm quite finding it hard to understand where you coming from.

From my own point of view I can't exactly say nobody earns from running a node especially if we are talking about bitcoin, it depends on the kind of node you mean, most times people forget that Bitcoin miners also run nodes, and they actually earn from the network through block rewards and transaction fees. It’s only the regular full nodes that don’t get paid directly, even though they still play a very important role in verifying transactions and keeping the network secure and decentralized. So when you say “nobody earns,” it sounds like you’re talking about everyone but that isn’t really true, it’s better to say something like nobody earns from just running full nodes this way you are more specific, it may look like a small difference, but it really matters if you want to explain how the Bitcoin network actually works. I think the point here it that you still need a node, you just don't have to be running it yourself, you can always use a pool's node

The whole problem is coming from the word “only”, you can’t earn from running a node only.. this should solve it. But both of you are still right, it just depends on how the readers view it. No not for block validations, the nodes network handles that i.e if you run a node then you’re also helping with the validation process. Miners actually gets their rewards from finding a block, but the reward can’t be spend until after 100 blocks deep( confirmation), by then both the validation and the chain re-org( if there’s any ) would have been totally sealed . The validation actually checks if a block is valid by following all rules  , if it’s not, it get rejected and this goes for all other nodes in the network run by people .. This will eventually make the miner lose the block reward while another miner mines and gets the reward.

Bitcoin miners who are running a node doesn't earn any rewards, because running a node is not so easy.it requires a whole lot of technicalities except those running a lightning network node.so In all, there no reward for miners running a node.

It's also worth to mention that to open LN channel, it means 1. You or the other party need to pay the TX fee. 2. You, the other party or both need to have some Bitcoin as balance flow on the LN. And in case it's not obvious, there's possibility you'll suffer loss due to earning little/none fee from routing fee or running device that run LN software.

Nobody earns "yet". But there are no technical blockers from doing that. As long as the chain is small enough, that it can be distributed for free, and as long as it is essential to perform Initial Blockchain Download, it is, what it is. However, if IBD could be done without having all transactions in plaintext, then downloading ZK-proofs can be free, and downloading full, archival data, can be replaced with a paid service. If the block size will be increased from 4 MB to something bigger, or if enough years of history will be produced, that the chain will be too big to be handled by an average user, then expect "relay fees" for past transactions. Because doing a huge chain reorganization (for example 210,000 blocks reorg) would mean, that the system is broken anyway. Which means, that in the future, next versions could stop serving that data for free, because nobody is required to do so. It is how it works now, only because you have enough volunteers. But it can be changed (and it will be, if there will be too much data to process). Or, even if downloading all historical data will be free forever, then it can be simply limited. For example: downloading past blocks or transactions can be possible, but slower, than if you ask about more recent ones. And then, getting data from old Ordinals or NFTs can become less reliable, than it is now. Even today, depending on how recent a given block is, sometimes you can get it from literally every node, and sometimes, when there are too many pruned ones, you have to wait for a working connection to the full, archival node. They don't have to. If some miner for example mines some altcoin, and sells it immediately for BTCs, then that miner doesn't need the altcoin node. Because it cares only about BTCs being valid. And the same is true, if some miner cares only about dollars: then, that miner only needs to verify dollars, and on Bitcoin, it can be whatever from that perspective. You may not like that approach, but it can be reasonable for someone else, and there is nothing, which would stop people from thinking in that way. Also, historically, some miners stopped fully verifying blocks, which caused six blocks reorgs in the past. But it was quickly detected, and fixed. Even Value Overflow Incident was below 100 confirmations, so I guess we were always on the safe side, when it comes to things like chain reorgs. The only wrong thing is timing. Nobody earns from running a node "yet". But it can be changed, if the community will decide to do so. Because no consensus rule blocks that.