BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 02:42:58 pm
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
Bytemaster, did you check bartercard. Would that be something achieved with a DAC ?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21372.msg277917.html#msg277917
-
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.
-
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.
I'm not trying to kill it. Just give BTS more flexibility in how to use it.
-
Once again, BM gives away his first mover advantage
while the world beats a path to someone else's door
It is a balancing act between openness and stealth. I this case, I think we could implement this in BTS faster than anyone else could implement in their protocol.
-
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.
this will give us a possibility to set each fee according to attractiveness to the user, not attractiveness to abuser of the network. Personally I think I would be good for bitshares to lower basic fees to 0 (transactions, all staff related to exchange), but leave or maybe even increase some fees for creating a LTM/AM, creating new assets, end so on. So far according to my knowledge profits from selling LTM are much grater than from regular transaction fees.
-
BM, this is incredible. Game changer. Very well done.
-
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.
this will give us a possibility to set each fee according to attractiveness to the user, not attractiveness to abuser of the network. Personally I think I would be good for bitshares to lower basic fees to 0 (transactions, all staff related to exchange), but leave or maybe even increase some fees for creating a LTM/AM, creating new assets, end so on. So far according to my knowledge profits from selling LTM are much grater than from regular transaction fees.
If I can transfer and trade for free, why the hell I need LTM?
-
No, I don't think that you will be "trading" for free. Those are the fees that pay the bills. But you will be able to transfer the money into your wallet for free, and maybe get some cheap trades before the price goes up (as you consume more bandwidth from you new 24/7 FOREX/COMEX trading addiction).
The more you trade, the more expensive it gets for you, and the more money our miners make.
The traders who get hooked on the gambling bug pay our network costs.
And after all, what is it that we are trying to "sell" here?
Our DEX man
bravo BM
This is basically a gimmick that we can use to trump bitcoin (and every other bitcoin1.0 featureless coin) only because we have "trading fees" and "account name creation fees" etc in addition to our normal "transfer" fees.
Dig?
So who wants to Trump the competition?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndv1_c48JoM#t=1m6s
(yes a stupid question, but I won't quote ya, cuz I'm not Geraldo, Phil or Oprah)
(http://news-donaldtrump.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/schlonged-hillary-01.jpg)
-
I love the idea of rate limited transfers. I think it could be truly revolutionary.
If LTM had a higher rate of earning the ability to transact in addition to 80% back on the remaining flat fees such as asset creation, or name registration. then I think LTM would still be very attractive. As long as LTM is attractive I think the referral program will be attractive.
Please please please include the ability for users to pay a fee to transact above and beyond what their balance would allow. Nothing is more annoying than being willing to pay for a service, but not being able to. Imagine how much users will be turned off they are 2 transactions into a 3 transaction deal, and the rate limiting kicks in and now all of a sudden they are unable to complete their transaction. It just needs to be very clear, what fee you are paying, and how long you can expect to wait before you can transact without a fee.
-
I love the idea of rate limited transfers. I think it could be truly revolutionary.
If LTM had a higher rate of earning the ability to transact in addition to 80% back on the remaining flat fees such as asset creation, or name registration. then I think LTM would still be very attractive. As long as LTM is attractive I think the referral program will be attractive.
Please please please include the ability for users to pay a fee to transact above and beyond what their balance would allow. Nothing is more annoying than being willing to pay for a service, but not being able to. Imagine how much users will be turned off they are 2 transactions into a 3 transaction deal, and the rate limiting kicks in and now all of a sudden they are unable to complete their transaction. It just needs to be very clear, what fee you are paying, and how long you can expect to wait before you can transact without a fee.
LTM can give users a larger "burst window" by averaging their bandwidth over a month rather than a week.
Alternatively, LTM can be allocated X% of capacity and regular users can be allocated Y%.
In other words LTM is like the HOV lanes, there is less traffic so you can move faster.
-
duh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMV-fenGP1g#t=3m1s
(what are you waiting for?)
(someone to fork BitShares and implement this algo?)
-
So do small balances have to wait or not ? Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.
Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay. 0 fee opens that back up.
If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?
-
I love the idea of rate limited transfers. I think it could be truly revolutionary.
If LTM had a higher rate of earning the ability to transact in addition to 80% back on the remaining flat fees such as asset creation, or name registration. then I think LTM would still be very attractive. As long as LTM is attractive I think the referral program will be attractive.
Please please please include the ability for users to pay a fee to transact above and beyond what their balance would allow. Nothing is more annoying than being willing to pay for a service, but not being able to. Imagine how much users will be turned off they are 2 transactions into a 3 transaction deal, and the rate limiting kicks in and now all of a sudden they are unable to complete their transaction. It just needs to be very clear, what fee you are paying, and how long you can expect to wait before you can transact without a fee.
LTM can give users a larger "burst window" by averaging their bandwidth over a month rather than a week.
Alternatively, LTM can be allocated X% of capacity and regular users can be allocated Y%.
In other words LTM is like the HOV lanes, there is less traffic so you can move faster.
Yes... that sounds good in itself.. but it's not what puppies is looking for. I think he sees an opportunity for fees to kick in if you go above your limit, not just get kicked back.
-
LTM can give users a larger "burst window" by averaging their bandwidth over a month rather than a week.
Alternatively, LTM can be allocated X% of capacity and regular users can be allocated Y%.
In other words LTM is like the HOV lanes, there is less traffic so you can move faster.
Could we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.
E.g.
I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.
But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.
It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.
-
Can this be done like yesterday? This is a great idea, one of the things that attracts businesses and users to use crypto is the cheap transfers. Referrals won't be affected as more traders will use the system as most normal users use the DEX.
-
Yes... that sounds good in itself.. but it's not what puppies is looking for. I think he sees an opportunity for fees to kick in if you go above your limit, not just get kicked back.
I would like both Data. I want to see LTM remain an attractive value add. Either one of the options BM mentioned should work. I was thinking more of option 2 myself, but that seems like it would require us to raise the balance requirements for non LTM users. Option 1 gets around that, but might not be enough of a benefit for LTM.
The second thing I would like is the ability to still be able to transact by paying a fee, even if I have used up all of my coin days. Imagine that you are putting in bids on ebay for that thing you really really need to have, and the auction is about to expire, and you could put in the winning bid, but you used up all of your coin days placing previous bids. At that point it may be worth $0.16 or more to you to be able to place that final bid. I think we should retain the option.
-
If I can transfer and trade for free, why the hell I need LTM?
- creating an assets
- cheaper stealth transfers
- premium accounts, shorter nicks
- ability to be a part of referral program (fees from things above + (for LTM) profit from possible future revenue from transaction fees)
duh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMV-fenGP1g#t=3m1s
(what are you waiting for?)
(someone to fork BitShares and implement this algo?)
That would be great! Seriously! BM is a great developer, but second implementation of this same idea, especially based on this same code base, would be a great source of informations and inspiration. IMO, no coin which is no open source has the future, what means, other cryptocoins can and always will can copy best idea or implement them even better.
In my opinion, right now is better to "waste" a few days for discussion to make sure, that this could actually work. The worst thing we could do would be to say: "this is great, start immediately!". With this article BM gives another professionals a chance to speak up about drawbacks of this approach. If this idea is truly very good, it will survive. If it has some major problem not discovered yet, it would be better to spot it sooner, than later. This could save us moths of development.
I really appreciate an effort and the transparency of this workflow. Appearance of such people like @clemahieu proves, that openness could bring attention of other skilled developers, who are eager to show their code and maybe even help with its development.
-
The second thing I would like is the ability to still be able to transact by paying a fee, even if I have used up all of my coin days. Imagine that you are putting in bids on ebay for that thing you really really need to have, and the auction is about to expire, and you could put in the winning bid, but you used up all of your coin days placing previous bids. At that point it may be worth $0.16 or more to you to be able to place that final bid. I think we should retain the option.
+5%
-
+5% +5% +5% to do
-
So do small balances have to wait or not ? Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.
Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay. 0 fee opens that back up.
If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?
The system is not subject to sybil attacks.
-
Great analysis.. the ISP metaphor makes a lot of sense. Transactions are free yet prioritized. Micropayments viable unless a bandwidth hog drives the price up. Businesses compete for bandwidth & get higher priority for their customers by acquiring more stake.
-
Minimum balance requirement is good to prevent some types of spam, like account creation spam, but don't get rid of transaction fees altogether. Let people buy higher bandwidth. Make small tps per account free, but charge fee for those who exceed the limit which depends on current network usage. Make it exponential depending on number of tps over limit.
-
So do small balances have to wait or not ? Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.
Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay. 0 fee opens that back up.
If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?
It's proportional to the stake. It doesn't matter if you have an account with 1 million BTS or 100000 accounts with 10 bts, hence, no sybils like Dan said.
You can read about it here @gamey https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21396.0.html
-
Great analysis.. the ISP metaphor makes a lot of sense. Transactions are free yet prioritized. Micropayments viable unless a bandwidth hog drives the price up. Businesses compete for bandwidth & get higher priority for their customers by acquiring more stake.
Exactly. As a business I will buy more to scale my reach.
-
Minimum balance requirement is good to prevent some types of spam, like account creation spam, but don't get rid of transaction fees altogether. Let people buy higher bandwidth. Make small tps per account free, but charge fee for those who exceed the limit which depends on current network usage. Make it exponential depending on number of tps over limit.
+5%
-
Minimum balance requirement is good to prevent some types of spam, like account creation spam, but don't get rid of transaction fees altogether. Let people buy higher bandwidth. Make small tps per account free, but charge fee for those who exceed the limit which depends on current network usage. Make it exponential depending on number of tps over limit.
+5%
Perhaps the most relevant part of the entire document is a rationale on how to set transaction fees that is completely objective.
If a blockchain wished to avoid locking up funds for a week, then it can set fees based upon an very high interest rate, say 100% APR. Users could then choose between locking up $1 for a week or paying $0.02. Either way the network is guaranteed to win while preventing spam. During heavy usage the minimum fee might raise to $8 for a week or $0.16.
Ideally users wouldn’t be forced to make this decision because they will have a sufficient balance to permit free transactions without future obligations or fees. Their non-transferrable accrued right to transact makes the perceived cost of a transaction to be 0.
-
So do small balances have to wait or not ? Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.
Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay. 0 fee opens that back up.
If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?
The system is not subject to sybil attacks.
I wasn't talking about sybil attacks but it seems you have a minimum transfer/balance in mind which fixes the sort of things I was concerned about. It works in place of a fee.
I like the idea all and all. Very similar to spending coin-age to create transactions.
I would suggest you choose better metaphors in your writing if they are to be key to the article. fractional reserve etc for bandwidth/networks just doesn't fit very well for me and made it hard to read the whole thing.
-
Perhaps the most relevant part of the entire document is a rationale on how to set transaction fees that is completely objective.
If a blockchain wished to avoid locking up funds for a week, then it can set fees based upon an very high interest rate, say 100% APR. Users could then choose between locking up $1 for a week or paying $0.02. Either way the network is guaranteed to win while preventing spam. During heavy usage the minimum fee might raise to $8 for a week or $0.16.
Ideally users wouldn’t be forced to make this decision because they will have a sufficient balance to permit free transactions without future obligations or fees. Their non-transferrable accrued right to transact makes the perceived cost of a transaction to be 0.
I don't think I understood that correctly the first time I read it. I think you are saying that if we have already exceeded our coin days, we could lock up a balance for a week, during which it would not accrue any coin days, but would instead be paying back the coin days we had already spent. Or we could charge a fee. Either would good. Both would be better.
-
Yep, I did not understand that part too xD
What about the linking-account thing?
Do you think it is valuable and feasible?
-
Can we give each accout 100 times to transfer for free in initial
-
after reading BM's blog for no tx fee blockchain , it is brilliant and we should give him full support . That's exactly what future blockchain should be .... +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
You could use the guy who's always running around here holding up 2 fingers as your official marketing logo:
Here's a marketing slogan to get you started:
BitShares2.0 - "That number behind our name means that we love second place"
It's an age old marketing technique that is older than you my friend and it is simply called:
subsidization:
(google it)
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/chap007competinginforeignmarkets-131119134104-phpapp01/95/chap007-competing-in-foreign-markets-30-638.jpg?cb=1384868535)
Ever go to Vegas Dark Lord?
Drinks are FREE
The Buffet is FREE
Hell, if you search hard enough, even the hookers are buy one, get one FREE
Whales get flown and blown for free, they don't pay for shit. Everything is free for the whales. So how can the Casinos afford to pay their "workers" when they are giving away free limousines, and wedding suites?
you guessed it genius
(from the income from their other operations)
Sounds like you need to get back to your roots Dr Evil:
(http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/85814/313262285/stock-photo-las-vegas-nevada-usa-july-a-devil-girl-statue-stands-on-the-top-of-diablo-s-cantina-313262285.jpg)
(https://coubsecure-a.akamaihd.net/get/b3/p/coub/simple/cw_timeline_pic/14a1eee9a5e/867235df2810a7400a3df/big_1411413065_1394720373_image.jpg)
This marketing ploy by BitShares was destined to follow whatever has succeeded here in the evil real world, and sorry to break it to ya, but Las Vegas is still making $$$$$$$ even though they have FREE EVERYTING. This is the apex business model for human psychology. If you don't get what BM is saying then you have obviously never been to Macau or Vegas.
WAKE UP EVERYBODY AND FACE THE TRUTH:
P2P FOREX/COMEX = GAMBLING
Wall St. = Gambling
Buying a house or a car is a gamble, hell, trading your cash for anything is simply gambling. I bought a hot dog the other day, and it tasted like shit. Food is a gamble. Sex.. well, I think you got it by now evil genius.
Subsidization is the bedrock of every successful Casino business.
Vegas: Come for the free lunch, stay for the gambling
BitShares: Come for the free transactions, stay for the gambling
pshht, this shit was inevitable, like death and taxes. Humans (and Chinese I hear) love to gamble, and no matter how you slice it:
SMART CONTRACTS = GAMBLING
If you own BitShares, or any Smartcoin for that matter, then you simply own shares in a Casino. And we all know what successful business marketing strategy has dominated every other Casino business strategy for longer than you have been on this planet, so market accordingly
Fuck, number 2, BitShares is NUMBER :
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/23/article-2252498-16450F33000005DC-559_634x710.jpg)
everybody loves Vegas, and we are Sin City
It's like we haven't even launched yet
-
So do small balances have to wait or not ? Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.
Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay. 0 fee opens that back up.
If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?
The system is not subject to sybil attacks.
I wasn't talking about sybil attacks but it seems you have a minimum transfer/balance in mind which fixes the sort of things I was concerned about. It works in place of a fee.
I like the idea all and all. Very similar to spending coin-age to create transactions.
I would suggest you choose better metaphors in your writing if they are to be key to the article. fractional reserve etc for bandwidth/networks just doesn't fit very well for me and made it hard to read the whole thing.
Over-provisioning is the correct technical term for ISPs
-
It's indecently brilliant. i love this idea.
I cant believe nobody has thought of this before.
+5% +5% +5%
-
I like the idea of making better use of our underutilised super tps express network. The transformation into a time-share/co-op model requires further thoughts on possible implications. But I see that tonyk is already expanding on the co-op concept.
-
This is a good idea and I support its implementation. Although having people pay transaction fees can validate the value a network provides, it's not always necessary and most people can use cost savings as a proxy for value. Ultimately people will recognize the value of the network effect.
Minimizing mental transaction costs, minimizing irrational politics, maintaining fee flexibility and improving the perception of the blockchain all should have very positive effects.
-
i just listend to the last mumble session
i have a question
1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?
-
i just listend to the last mumble session
i have a question
1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?
I am not sure I understand your question.
-
i just listend to the last mumble session
i have a question
1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?
I am not sure I understand your question.
I think: Assuming i have 1% stake, is 1% relative to max supply or to from-genesis-claimed stake?
-
i just listend to the last mumble session
i have a question
1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?
I am not sure I understand your question.
I think: Assuming i have 1% stake, is 1% relative to max supply or to from-genesis-claimed stake?
Here are some comments in my code:
// Theoretically, 100 tps means 8.64M transactions a day.
// Total quantity of core asset is 3.7BB, so 1 transaction = 3.7BB/8.64M ~= 428 core assets,
// which means with 428 core assets you can do 1 transaction a day.
// If we set conversion rate to 5000, and set transaction fee to 1, then about 1/10 of network
// capacity can be used freely. A whale with 10M core assets can accumulate same value as
// 1 core asset of coin seconds in 43.2 seconds. An average user with 10K core assets can
// accumulate same value as 1 core asset of coin seconds in 43200 seconds = half a day.
Makes sense?
-
I have a question: dynamic fees result in poor user experience. Plus there needs to be a consensus, etc
What about dynamic fractional reserve? In the end isn't it the same? It is mentioned that "blockchain will automatically adjust the reserve ratio for the network during times of congestion." I think this could be done by the algorithms that you mentioned during the mumble?
But isn't everything that is dynamic require consensus since there needs to be an agreement on a certain value and doesn't that also affect user experience? Then why not to the same with fees? I think it's pretty much known we can't given all the polemics it caused at that time changing the fee schedule. Doesn't this make the use of algorithms useless? What makes adjusting fractional reserves different?
I admit people probably won't have as much interest on dynamic fractional reserves as dynamic fees, at least for now, since the fees can have a better management, however that doesn't guarantee we won't reach a point where the fractional reserve will have to be adjusted. At that time won't things be just like when we tried to change the fees? I mean, it sounds like it can decrease the damage created and of course there might not be a 100% solution but it seems like we are only delaying the date where we will eventually have to sit around a table and discuss how the fractional reserve should be adjusted, which will again create polemics and is a very slow process.
Unless we all reach consensus on an algorithm previously.. but then again, if we didn't do it with the fees
Also @bytemaster I would like to see your reply to Vitalik's comment on this
http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1241/implementing-fractional-reserve-bandwidth-concept-in-evm-on-serenity
I don't know if I understood correctly but does he mean with 2 bank accounts you can get twice the bandwidth? Because that's exactly the problem this method solves.. No sybils right
-
Also @bytemaster I would like to see your reply to Vitalik's comment on this
http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1241/implementing-fractional-reserve-bandwidth-concept-in-evm-on-serenity
I don't know if I understood correctly but does he mean with 2 bank accounts you can get twice the bandwidth? Because that's exactly the problem this method solves.. No sybils right
I think his message is "the time value of money is itself worth money".
With 'rate limited' -> time value of money (from the locked down bts)
With 'tx fee' -> actual bts (money) involved.