Bitcoin (BTC) Has Long Been Hailed as Unbreakable and Untouchable

Bitcoin (BTC) has long been hailed as unbreakable and untouchable, a digital stronghold against the forces of change.

Bitcoin (BTC) is known for its resilience and strength, but a new threat is quickly approaching. As institutions increase their presence in crypto, the narrative of individual users forming the backbone of Web3 is quickly changing.

Bitcoin’s node count is growing, but incentives are still absent

Bitcoin’s full node network has grown over time, a sign of increasing adoption and a more robust infrastructure, but the core issue remains. The voluntary act of running a node still has no financial incentive. Miners earn rewards for securing the network, yet full node operators get nothing for their role in keeping Bitcoin decentralized.

At the same time, a significant portion of these nodes are run by exchanges, custodians and large mining pools. These are centralized entities with financial incentives to maintain control. Suppose Bitcoin’s node network continues to expand without proper incentives. In that case, the risk remains that validation will become increasingly dependent on a few well-funded players rather than a truly distributed base of individual users (see Figure 1).

FBitcoin node operation has increased by only 15,605 in 8 years. Source: Bitnodes.io

All of this comes as running a Bitcoin node has never been easier. Plug-and-play solutions like Umbrel, Start9, RaspiBlitz, Cubit and Ronin Dojo allow anyone to set up a full node on low-cost hardware with minimal technical knowledge. These tools have lowered the barrier to entry, making node operation more accessible than ever before.

Yet adoption remains stagnant. Despite the ease of setup, most Bitcoin users still do not run their own nodes. The reason is simple: There is no financial incentive to do so.

Recent: Decentralization is in danger — We can fix itUnlike miners, who earn block subsidies and transaction fees for securing the network, full node operators receive nothing. They validate transactions, enforce consensus rules, and contribute to Bitcoin’s decentralization, yet their efforts go unrewarded. As a result, node operation remains an ideological commitment rather than an economically viable activity.

If Bitcoin must be forked, we must use it to strengthen decentralization

Bitcoin is quickly approaching a crucial moment with the upcoming quantum-resistant hard fork. This upgrade will be fundamental in ensuring the long-term security of Bitcoin's blockchain against the threat of quantum computers, which could render current cryptographic algorithms obsolete.

However, while this technological change is widely recognized, another pressing issue that needs immediate attention is the lack of proper incentives for full node operators.

Full node operators play a critical role in Bitcoin's decentralized governance and surveillance. They download and process the entire blockchain, ensuring the integrity of transactions and the adherence to Bitcoin's code. Without a sufficient number of nodes, Bitcoin would become more vulnerable to censorship and manipulation.

Despite this crucial contribution, full node operators are currently not financially rewarded for their efforts. Miners, on the other hand, are incentivized to secure the network with their hash power, and they receive both block subsidies and transaction fees.

The absence of incentives for full node operators is becoming increasingly problematic as institutions and large players are deploying more nodes, potentially leading to a scenario where a smaller number of well-funded entities could exert disproportionate influence over Bitcoin's validation process.

This would be a step back from Bitcoin's original vision of a decentralized and community-driven network.

To mitigate this risk and ensure the long-term health of Bitcoin, it is essential to introduce a mechanism that incentivizes individuals to run full nodes. This could be achieved by allocating a portion of the block reward to full node operators or by creating a separate token that is distributed proportionally to the amount of time a node is online and actively validating transactions.

It is important to note that poorly designed incentives could introduce new risks. For example, a poorly designed program could backfire and be open to Sybil attacks, where bad actors spin up thousands of fake nodes to exploit the reward system.

This would defeat the whole purpose of the incentive program and could destabilize the entire network. Moreover, it is crucial to consider the technical challenges involved in measuring node uptime and performance accurately.

If Bitcoin must be forked, we must use it to strengthen decentralization

Critics of the proposal argue that Bitcoin’s monetary policy should remain untouched. Others warn that introducing full node incentives could lead to Sybil attacks, where bad actors spin up thousands of of fake nodes to exploit rewards. These concerns are valid — but they ignore the larger reality.

Bitcoin is on the path toward a forced consensus change. The honest debate is not whether Bitcoin should change but whether we will use this moment to strengthen it.

If full Bitcoin node incentives are implemented correctly, they could drive a surge in node adoption, strengthening the network’s censorship resistance and reinforcing its decentralization. This would reduce dependence on large mining pools and exchanges for validation, spreading control more evenly among individual participants. Bitcoiners will have to continue pushing to keep Bitcoin resilient against corporate influence in a post-quantum world where security and decentralization will matter