There are node runner risks to participating in p2p networks which provide privacy, self sovereignty, anonymity and bearer cash, going back decades to the extent there are people who don't like self sovereignty. And those risks are higher the more service you enable on your node. Eg an exit node in tor, remailer; a non-leech mode in p2p file sharing. And so on. Interesting parallels you can draw to concerns about Bitcoin node runner risks. I used to run an anonymous remailer, with all exit features enabled. Combatting false flag spam attacks on remailer was how I came to invent hashcash in 1997. And I implemented a distributed censorship resistant web (including images) called eternity usenet in 1997 (6 months after hashcash). So I find reactions as Bitcoin node runners and users start to discover and think about these risks interesting to observe as there are many parallels and historic lessons. And the Bitcoin node runner risks are not really new, as there has been content in the timechain for over a decade and during early periods where establishment banning Bitcoin was viewed as high risk. There are 3.5m image files some NSFW and maybe worse, 3d printed gun files, even going back long before Taproot (2021) and even before op return data (2014). And it's not really about policy change as big op returns existed in chain before the recent flare up in spam discussion. For many networks they simply don't exist and can't provide service if no volunteers step up to operate nodes, including exit nodes. Same for file sharing if everyone wants to be leech mode it won't work. The same is true of tor, which Bitcoin has support for. That reduces your node operator or miner risk, but you're benefitting from someone else taking risk operating for exit nodes. And it's also true for Bitcoin: particularly early it needed risk takers for the bearer money cause to develop, to operate nodes, to run miners, and build early sites and apps to use Bitcoin and give it network value. To trade it for cash OTC, to transfer it when the legality was unknown. It's still undefined in some countries, or even grey area banned. I never thought Ill of people running leech mode, it takes tactical thinking and street smarts and risk appetite for a cause you believe in - privacy, anonymity, self sovereignty to step up and be an operator. Sometimes risks increase as enemies of freedom go on the attack, sometimes they decrease as widespread use gets normalized, or economic factors mean there are no advantage any more for monetary interests to attack eg file sharing they eventually started offering paid music streaming and movie streaming themselves and competed in the market I think Bitcoin has lower risks than file sharing in one way, as it's explicitly not designed for that. But ofc with any complex protocol spammers, and attackers can abuse its native data structures. And it's hard to combat that in necessarily p2p systems. But bitcoin as bearer cash and hard money is much higher stakes, so maybe higher risk in other ways, because reforming money, separating money from state, is a much more impactful topic than eroding content licensing revenue with file sharing. Still today Bitcoin is grey area or illegal in some countries, but in others is in that stage where establishment is becoming somewhat ok with it. Regulations becoming more open for business. But it's useful context to understand this history, and the context of the node runner across time. Even being a core developer was considered rather high risk early on, and it probably actually was high risk then. And it's probably reasonable Satoshi saw that risk, from his choice to release Bitcoin anonymously.(Adam Back)