Nick Szabo  🔑

Even if you don't use them to transact, doesn't the fact that you have a full node increase the network security by itself? (as it's validating/sharing)?

In theory, yes. If there was a shortage of reachable nodes on the network, or a shortage of nodes willing to provide the chain for bootstrapping to others, or a shortage of nodes able to quickly relay transactions. None of these services have been in shortage for years, though.

It cant hurt Besides, what about relaying, shunning, S2X and UASF?

The shunning by non-economic nodes is irrelevant as it has no force behind it.

Not if enough nodes do! So the others good?

Q: How many full nodes is enough? A: One, our own. I guess to some extent, if you really can't run one yourself, you'd rather have many independent parties depend on full nodes with rules compatible with the rules you want. But really, you should use your own.

One's own full node is far more trust-minimized than an SPV node, but an SPV node that depends on the consensus of 100s of jurisdictionally diverse full nodes of others still involves much less trust than PayPal. I favor former but "might as well run PayPal" ill describes latter.

Especially for people just starting out with Bitcoin. You can have a good mobile wallet like @SamouraiWallet running on your phone in no time to get your feet wet with pocket change and test drive the technology. If that gets you interested you can set up your full node later.