did not you guys attend the weekely Bitshareholder meeting?
are you two not on committee?
So nobody on committee listen to BM no more?
his proposal offers zero fees for small users, reimbursement for lifetime member referrals and is spam proof
low barrier for entry means more new users
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts
BM speaks about this at 22:50
all dex trades will be free or very cheap and memberships rewards still in effectI don't understand how the memberships rewards will be in effect if ALL free.
is it a big difference for witness to produce a empty block or with many many transaction?Sure it's different. More transaction means more calculation and more storage.
anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?
"Could you imagine a scenario where the blockchain have no fees at all, instead all the accounts were rate limited proportional to their balance?"
"As far as viewing your bts as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So if someone own 1% of bts, he can consume 1% of the network capacity."
"Think of it in another way: imagine everyone is doing time-share on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain space when they want to do a transaction, and with this method no one would be able to flood the network because they can only consume their allowed allocation of the bandwidth."
Is there any dilution?This is the perfect example of how the western community thinks the eastern community works ..
Of course there will be dilution (for development) if we all want this feature and don't want to pay fiat like OnceUponATime did for STEALTH.Is there any dilution?This is the perfect example of how the western community thinks the eastern community works ..
Of course there will *not* be any dilution!
Is there any dilution?This is the perfect example of how the western community thinks the eastern community works ..
Of course there will *not* be any dilution!
I still don't get how witnesses are going to continue producing blocks if we remove all fees and the reserve pool runs out... Am I missing something?
Please do not compete with micropayments until IOTA is liquid so I can get back into BTS, because right now, I have several BTC non liquid locked in IOTA ICO.
I thought BTS chose not to compete in micropayments
Why now do you choose to take market share from Internet of Things?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1299209.msg13394486#msg13394486
BM said that he would work with IOTA, not compete against them!
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19534.msg251719.html#msg251719
BM said:
"I think there is potential for IOTA and CNX to work together on providing the best possible technology for micro-transactions."
Now he states that he will instate competitive pricing?!
Please do not compete with micropayments until IOTA is liquid so I can get back into BTS, because right now, I have several BTC non liquid locked in IOTA ICO.
I thought BTS chose not to compete in micropayments
Why now do you choose to take market share from Internet of Things?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1299209.msg13394486#msg13394486
BM said that he would work with IOTA, not compete against them!
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19534.msg251719.html#msg251719
BM said:
"I think there is potential for IOTA and CNX to work together on providing the best possible technology for micro-transactions."
Now he states that he will instate competitive pricing?!
I still don't get how witnesses are going to continue producing blocks if we remove all fees and the reserve pool runs out... Am I missing something?
Yes... 40 minutes Q&A ;) Listen here - https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/e132 (from minute ~22). It is worth listening! ;)
I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.
If they sign more they get ignored by the protocol.I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.
Do witnesses actually need to pay a fee to sign a block? A fee is an anti-spam measure, and witnesses can be expected to sign at regular intervals and no more.
I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.
Do witnesses actually need to pay a fee to sign a block? A fee is an anti-spam measure, and witnesses can be expected to sign at regular intervals and no more.
I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.
Do witnesses actually need to pay a fee to sign a block? A fee is an anti-spam measure, and witnesses can be expected to sign at regular intervals and no more.
Uh... no. Witnesses don't pay fees to sign blocks, they *are* paid for signing blocks.
Witnesses do pay fees to publish price feeds, but I suppose that fee would be eliminated as well.
Can we consider not to have any fees whatsoever (just antispam fees) so we can enable micro transactions and do not pay witnesses or committee or anyone from the fees generated?
The way I see it is that if I am a big shareholder I have an incentive to pay people witness and committee to do what they do. So the shareholders should vote for committee and witness as usual, negotiate their salary and pay them accordingly proportionally to their shares. Eventually shareholders will find the balance of hiring the correct people to do the job done properly. Not all of them will have the same salary and their salary will be based on reputation and proper handling.
If I am a big company with lots of funds and I can take over bitshares, I would vote for the people I want and pay them a salary from my holdings and make sure they do the job properly otherwise my shares would fall in value.
So why do we need fees in the first place? Personally I think that current fees are very low but a lot of people have different opinion especially Chinese people who are used not to pay any fees. So it is more important to bring liquidity and these people to trade in a free fee platform than to generate some insignificant amounts from fees..
Maybe I am thinking something wrong here since I don't know the exact mechanics but anyway..
So if we get rid of fees and remove the ability for the blockchain to make money... How are we going to pay the witness's to sign blocks once we run out of bts in the reserve pool??
anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?
As you already know, with the current fee system, we have to charge a fee on any operation just to prevent possible spam attacks.
We have several operations that really do not represent, for their nature, a revenue for the network; just to list some: call_order_update, account_update, asset_publish_feed, proposal_ops, witness_update and others.
Among these operations, there are a couple that are already preventing some business to move on bts. I am referring to metaexchange, that fairly stated that having to handle order_create and order_cancel operations fee for their costumers, is a no-go.
What Bytemaster come up with on last mumle?
Basically a new fee system that would allow us to really decide *which* operation should have a fee and which don't, *without* the risk of exposing the network to a spam attack.
From mumble:Quote"Could you imagine a scenario where the blockchain have no fees at all, instead all the accounts were rate limited proportional to their balance?"
"As far as viewing your bts as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So if someone own 1% of bts, he can consume 1% of the network capacity."
"Think of it in another way: imagine everyone is doing time-share on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain space when they want to do a transaction, and with this method no one would be able to flood the network because they can only consume their allowed allocation of the bandwidth."
What this means?
-We could limit ourselves to remove the fee *only* on operations that do not represent a revenue income for the network, allowing business like metaexchange to easily move their backend on bts platform. All of this without the risk of being attacked by spammers and without losing the ability of the network to be profitable.
-We could push ourselves a bit forward, allowing LTM to have discounts on some operation and actually 0 fee on others. This would allow the network to remain profitable meantime being marketed as *free* for some aspects.
(e.g. profit stream from: trading, account_create, account_upgrade, asset_create, ltm restricted features like bond market etc. plus: marketing bts as the first(?!) blockchain allowing free transfer)
-We could remove *all* fees, being marketed as a totally free blockchain, losing all kind of revenue stream
Fact is: it would give us lot more freedom from fees point of view.
Edit: and could also allow new business to arise, eg. microtransactions, maybe chat on the blockchain...
IMO. In general it is a very nice idea.
I would really like to see the community discussing it seriously.
There are for sure some sensitive points that need to be addressed tho.
Q1. How can we measure the network capacity?
Q2. When network is actively used and I own a small portion of BTS, how much I have to pay to transfer or order creation?
its simple
rate limited / time share
all dex trades will be free or very cheap and memberships rewards still in effect
small players cant make trades and cancel too many times or they get locked out for short period
big players can spam network, but need to purchase big stake first
coupled with % based fees, BTS now is competitive with DAG mesh networks like IOTA and cheaper than Ethereum
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.
its simple
rate limited / time share
all dex trades will be free or very cheap and memberships rewards still in effect
small players cant make trades and cancel too many times or they get locked out for short period
big players can spam network, but need to purchase big stake first
coupled with % based fees, BTS now is competitive with DAG mesh networks like IOTA and cheaper than Ethereum
Wow this is actually...a good idea!
So essentially one could make a limited number of 'free' transactions in a time period, and trades made would have a percentage based fee. (I've wanted to see a percentage based trading fee with incredibly low base fee for a while). Power users would need to buy a lot of stake to get enough free trades?
One worry is that we need to make sure we avoid blockchain bloat so that Bitshares is sustainable in the future.
We need to ensure we do not allow spamming (including the possibility of someone making 10000 accounts and using all of them to spam, essentially performing a sybil attack on the free transaction limit).
We need to ensure that the network is still generating some fees. (Percentage based trading fees is great). This is needed both for the referral program to work, and for BTS to have value.
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.
As I said I am not sure how all this works and who pays who..
We need people to verify the transactions (witness) , people who want to develop further bitshares (workers) and people who make decisions (committee) about the fees and other things not the salary of witness . The way I am thinking it is that these are 3 different and separate categories of people who can be paid by the shareholders proportionally to each shareholder holdings i.e. everyone's shares will be reduced everyday by a small amount and be paid to those people. If one wants to retain his % of holdings on the system he will have to buy back the shares..it is a circular mechanism and no need for fees..
One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils. If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake. If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.
Sorry dude, TL;DR.No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.
um , dude, have you not seen the number of fees in BTS? This ain't bitcoin, if you had not noticed. Our fee structure is anything but simple.
blah blah blah
Thus SOME fees are absolutely necessary. BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info. What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses. Would the remaining fees need to be raised? Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain? The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.Please check this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21368.0.html
BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info.Let's just say that bm idea is about giving the ability to the network to not charge fee and still be spam resistant.
What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expensesSame source of now maybe? The fact that the network could operate even without any fee does not mean we would remove them all.
Would the remaining fees need to be raised?This depends on some factors we can not easily foresee, but in general this question could be asked already in the current fee implementation.
Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain?Looking at all the network fee is quite easy to find some fees that could be easily removed, others that instead should definitely remain to guarantee revenue, and others that could bring some heated discussion in the community.
The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.Those numbers are already out there, in some other post of some other thread.
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?I don't work for free too.
@Xeldal +5%+5%
One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils. If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake. If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.
For perspective:
If the network were to take 0 fees on everything.
With 1,000,000,000 in reserves, you can safely pay witnesses for 130 years. ($100 per 21 witnesses per month)
$30,000 per year to pay all witnesses. $75 a day.
After 130 years, can BitShares bring in $75 a day? or will we have to dilute? (:
BitShares itself can be seen as a giant FBA, even with 0 fee. You can buy the token(BTS). Develop your upgrade/smart contract/feature and get paid from the market interest(market-cap) in the platform because of your, or any other, feature. It becomes even more attractive when your specific feature can also be an FBA and you more directly benefit from its use.
We are all incentivised to build our feature on BitShares because of the market increase.
We are all further insentivised to charge a fee for our feature that the market will bare and reward us for our effort.
Taxing over-rate-limit use and special or limited-supply core features(SmartCoin creation, Short names, etc) could be enough to cover everything.(after 135 years)
Remarkably, BitShares can actually afford near zero fees. The wide-open frictionless nature is a huge advantage, simplifies everything, and puts whatever profits can be made, directly in the hands of business.
For a jump start(early on) or later for odd situations where there is no other means or incentive to fund changes or development(unlikely/very rare) we can agree to cut our 135 year cushion or agree on a tax somewhere to pay for it. With heavy use we would be adding to the cushion. Tax could end once paid for.
I think BitShares is so efficient that this task of paying to maintain the system, when mature, will be laughably easy.
BitShares can be invisible... , indestructible(graphene) and suitable for any and every form(~plasma).
Business and entrepreneurs will take BitShares to the moon, we just need get out of the way.
For perspective:
If the network were to take 0 fees on everything.
With 1,000,000,000 in reserves, you can safely pay witnesses for 130 years. ($100 per 21 witnesses per month)
$30,000 per year to pay all witnesses. $75 a day.
After 130 years, can BitShares bring in $75 a day? or will we have to dilute? (:
BitShares itself can be seen as a giant FBA, even with 0 fee. You can buy the token(BTS). Develop your upgrade/smart contract/feature and get paid from the market interest(market-cap) in the platform because of your, or any other, feature. It becomes even more attractive when your specific feature can also be an FBA and you more directly benefit from its use.
We are all incentivised to build our feature on BitShares because of the market increase.
We are all further insentivised to charge a fee for our feature that the market will bare and reward us for our effort.
Taxing over-rate-limit use and special or limited-supply core features(SmartCoin creation, Short names, etc) could be enough to cover everything.(after 135 years)
Remarkably, BitShares can actually afford near zero fees. The wide-open frictionless nature is a huge advantage, simplifies everything, and puts whatever profits can be made, directly in the hands of business.
For a jump start(early on) or later for odd situations where there is no other means or incentive to fund changes or development(unlikely/very rare) we can agree to cut our 135 year cushion or agree on a tax somewhere to pay for it. With heavy use we would be adding to the cushion. Tax could end once paid for.
I think BitShares is so efficient that this task of paying to maintain the system, when mature, will be laughably easy.
BitShares can be invisible... , indestructible(graphene) and suitable for any and every form(~plasma).
Business and entrepreneurs will take BitShares to the moon, we just need get out of the way.
IMO we need to find the money to implement this. This would be best with a worker proposal paid direct from the shareholders. If they are unwilling to spend the money of such a massive upgrade then we should fund it with an FBA. How would this FBA make money? Perhaps on transactions that are above and beyond the rate limit a portion goes to the FBA.
ok... I believe we all see, that majority of community likes this idea. What should be done next to turn this idea into reality? Worker proposal?
ok... I believe we all see, that majority of community likes this idea. What should be done next to turn this idea into reality? Worker proposal?
One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils. If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake. If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.
+5%
By making basic transfers free, It makes the benefits of LTM/AM a lot simpler and clearer. Reducing and/or eliminated certain for membership is easy for users to understand. With the combination of percentage based fees the network could make a lot more.
I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and we will make peace with the chinese community.
I'm all for it ! This is a genius idea !
Lol, you're right !I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and we will make peace with the chinese community.
I'm all for it ! This is a genius idea !
It will be hilarious because everyone will immediately say "There's no such thing as zero fees blockchain". Only thing I'm curious about is the price, even though this is something that again, places us ahead of the rest, alt for example and I'm sure other members too, will not approve anything that creates dilution.
It's the beauty of being able to have exchange integrated into the blockchain. The exchange provides the revenue for the blockchain to function. Instead of charging for electricity and asics, we charge for functionality. Prediction market, bond market, stealth transactions, smart contracts, etc. These are value-adds that we can charge for and make profit from.
All I have to say is that the white paper I am producing on this is mind blowing...
I have never seen anything more universally agreed upon by forum members... 60:5 is HUGE!
The fact that no one thinks a blockchain can be implemented without fees.... is proof of innovation!
You are right ! We have to deliver this properly. It's our chance to change the way BitShares is perceived !It's the beauty of being able to have exchange integrated into the blockchain. The exchange provides the revenue for the blockchain to function. Instead of charging for electricity and asics, we charge for functionality. Prediction market, bond market, stealth transactions, smart contracts, etc. These are value-adds that we can charge for and make profit from.
The thing is, with this we can maximize the use of those same features. We can maximize the use of the DEX side of BitShares, bond markets, prediction markets, all of it.
We can potentially solve our fee struggle and guess what, Bitcoin and even other cryptos will still be at it. A new sunshine appears. Let's just hope this can be properly delivered assuming it gets funded.
^^^
All I have to say is that the white paper I am producing on this is mind blowing...
Could we imagine a scenario where a blockchain has no fees at all...?
The RaiBlocks PoS network has no fees and is also fully distributed, i.e. it doesn't need elected delegates.
https://raiblocks.net/#/
Whitepaper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13s6BKzRq9oD5Me55JBRzR7BdvjJ44QKqPu2lf-JsAlU/edit
The RaiBlocks PoS network has no fees and is also fully distributed, i.e. it doesn't need elected delegates.
https://raiblocks.net/#/
Whitepaper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13s6BKzRq9oD5Me55JBRzR7BdvjJ44QKqPu2lf-JsAlU/edit
The RaiBlocks PoS network has no fees and is also fully distributed, i.e. it doesn't need elected delegates.
https://raiblocks.net/#/
Whitepaper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13s6BKzRq9oD5Me55JBRzR7BdvjJ44QKqPu2lf-JsAlU/edit
I assuming that we are a developer of raiblocks [1] (https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/graphs/contributors). Reading your whitepaper will take me some time. Could you in the mean time describe similarities and differences between bitshares and raiblocks?
The RaiBlocks PoS network has no fees and is also fully distributed, i.e. it doesn't need elected delegates.
https://raiblocks.net/#/
Whitepaper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13s6BKzRq9oD5Me55JBRzR7BdvjJ44QKqPu2lf-JsAlU/edit
I am assuming that we are a developer of raiblocks [1] (https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/graphs/contributors). Reading your whitepaper will take me some time. Could you in the mean time describe similarities and differences between bitshares and raiblocks?
PS. great you are here! :)
I sent a PM to BM, maybe we all could work together on something. It might be easier than rewriting the network and storage layer since RaiBlocks has it implemented already.
I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and
maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members
I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and
maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members
If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea :P
The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees. People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain. I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.
IMO fee PoS never had any advantages toward the larger ideal of cryptocurrency adoption.
I sold some BTS for IOTA because IOTA has free transactions for micropayments, but now BM propose "zero" transaction fees for low balances with scaling algos that still compensate lifetime members. I would sell IOTA and get back into BTS if this happens but committee must still vote right?
The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees. People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain. I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.
I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and
maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members
If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea :P
Zero-Fee (rate limited) is a cool exciting idea!
I am all for free lunches. Who would not like free lunches? I have seen the advantages of it being stated. I would like to see the disadvantages (if any) being discussed too. And what is the cost for implementing it. I like to have tonky's view on it too.
So far I'm for. Like to hear from @kenCode
The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees. People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain. I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.
Could you elaborate more on how the shorting can be done and what are the gains one can get out of it? How expensive it is to carry out such a shorting move?
Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.
Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?
In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost
at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...
I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.
When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.
PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously' correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do moreworkspeculation.
Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.
Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?
In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost
at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...
I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.
You are suggesting that BM may have a tendency to recommend more new features/changes in order to gain from worker proposals for those features/changes. Being a salesperon, one might want to sell you his product (whether you need it or not) and being a worker, one might want to find more work to do. It does present a possibility of a conflict of interest.
However, even though a salesperson may try to sell you his product, you, as the consumer, have a choice to buy it or not. And you would need to know if you indeed need the product, how much the product cost and whether it is worth the price tag. How would you evaluate it?
When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.
PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously' correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do moreworkspeculation.
Because BM and the devs are working hard on bts each day. And because there are many others in the community, who like you, are passionate about bitshares. Only working together can we make it a success.