If the fee wasn't supposed to be a price then they shouldn't have made it a price.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. If we replace the altruistic motivation with a monetary one, and we don't have enough money to incentivize people, they will just stop. They won't take the altruistic motivation plus the monetary one.
A daycare is not a place where people take care of your kids for free because they empathize with your need for childcare, It's a business which provides a service customers pay for. The responsibility customers have to pick up their kids on time is directly tied to how much it's going to cost them "feeling bad about being late" can be thought of as a cost in this example. All this example shows is "not feeling bad" is worth more than $5 and all they need to do to "solve" this new source of revenue is to raise the late fee until fewer people are late to pick up their kids than when there was no price at all. But what they really ought to do is raise the price until they reach an optimal profit per late child.
It's plain to see that altruism isn't enough to keep enough tor nodes going. I've never even considered running one until now because of the real costs and risk it incurs upon me. Now I'm actually considering it because it might be worth it. This is a good thing and there are more people willing do to something for money than people willing to do something out of the kindness of their heart to people they will never meet or interact with in any way.
OK I think you're missing what I said. The incentive is not altruistic impulse + money, it's altruistic impulse OR money. So far most of the Tor nodes really are run on charity!
"As it stands I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of nodes were operated by various national intelligence agencies simply because they have vastly more incentive to do so than anyone else.
Potentially being able to profit from this changes things dramatically and gives people who wouldn't consider themselves stakeholders actual reason to 'sell' their bandwidth to the tor network."
It's possible that most of the nodes aren't run for altruistic reasons at all. And are in fact run to datamine the network to discover the identity of people using it.
Paying people won't affect the people who are doing it for altruistic reasons alone, their price is already met. It's just an added bonus for them. But it will have the affect of bringing in additional people who wouldn't have considered it before. The only problem with the daycare's solution is the fact they didn't charge enough to offset the "cost" of feeling bad about being late. To the customers it was a worthy exchange.
Similarly, the tor coin needs to have a value that will offset the 'cost' of feeling bad about not contributing to the network which I know is extremely low.
Paying people won't affect the people who are doing it for altruistic reasons alone, their price is already met.
In the example, the parents picking up their kids on time beforehand were doing so for altruistic reasons alone. When the choice became framed economically, parents started picking up their kids on time less often.
You say they need to raise the fine, but the point here is that it's not economically feasible to raise the reward for running a Tor node indefinitely. The max amount paided out for running a node may be less of an incentive than the existing prosocial incentive to do so.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. If we replace the altruistic motivation with a monetary one, and we don't have enough money to incentivize people, they will just stop. They won't take the altruistic motivation plus the monetary one.