BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: -banano- on February 08, 2016, 04:15:55 am

Title: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: -banano- on February 08, 2016, 04:15:55 am
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?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 08, 2016, 04:33:23 am
Yes. All things are decided by community votes.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: bitcrab on February 08, 2016, 04:37:14 am
anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: -banano- on February 08, 2016, 04:45:56 am
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
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: chryspano on February 08, 2016, 04:53:31 am
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts

BM speaks about this at 22:50

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 08, 2016, 05:12:06 am
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

Yes.. I am on the committee. How you arrived at nobody on the committee listens to BM anymore is beyond me though. I was the on that gave the Committee update just before BM. So yeah, I stuck around and listened afterwards to answer your question. :)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: twitter on February 08, 2016, 05:30:43 am
it is good sign for BTS in year of golden monkey as Chinese ppl wish
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clayop on February 08, 2016, 06:18:53 am
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts

BM speaks about this at 22:50

Thanks. Just listened the record, and found that the idea is very interesting. Looking forward to seeing more detailed proposal.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 08, 2016, 06:31:40 am
is it a big difference for witness to produce a empty block or with many many transaction?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: -banano- on February 08, 2016, 08:11:10 am
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

also algos make spammer fees go up

big players who dont trade often get priority too

i wish i knew about this feature before IOTA crowdsale because i sold BTS at bottom. Now IOTA ICO money is locked up and BTS go up because of this
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 08:35:50 am
all dex trades will be free or very cheap  and memberships rewards still in effect
I don't understand how the memberships rewards will be in effect if ALL free.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 08:41:36 am
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.

IMO we're far from needing rate limiting. However we can think/plan ahead.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 08, 2016, 09:52:33 am

Another question...

1. Is there any other cryptocurrency on the market, which do not have fees?

BTW, With not fees I see that UIA can be much more attractive
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: betax on February 08, 2016, 10:06:56 am
This is the best announcement and game changer. This will welcome anybody to use the platform, casual users and business alike will use it.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 11:14:40 am
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.

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: mf-tzo on February 08, 2016, 11:57:36 am
enabling micropayments in bitshares by eliminating fees to antispam is the way to go.. then we can contact "brave"..

https://www.brave.com/

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: freedom on February 08, 2016, 12:19:11 pm
Is there any dilution?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 01:02:31 pm
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!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 01:13:32 pm
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!
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.

Of course there will be dilution (to witnesses) if we make all operations free.

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Empirical1.2 on February 08, 2016, 01:55:01 pm
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!

Of course there *will" be increased dilution. (Because revenue from fees will decrease but expenses will stay the same.)

It could still be a good idea depending on increased network effect as BM says,  'zero fees'  is definitely very marketable. 

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 01:58:47 pm
brings us back again to the question what "dilution" actually is .. but I surrender :)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 02:06:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 08, 2016, 02:19:40 pm
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! ;)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: CLains on February 08, 2016, 02:30:15 pm
BM showing his unique talent for coming up with novel solutions yet again. Polls reads 93.8 % in favor right now!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: -banano- on February 08, 2016, 02:39:44 pm
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?!

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 08, 2016, 02:50:45 pm
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?!

IOTA can submit a Worker proposal to work with them and the community can vote.

BM can change his position as he pleases, but he doesn't represent the community.

IOTA if they were serious about wanting to work with Bitshares could submit their own worker proposal for microtransactions. If no action is taken, then it's open game to whom ever comes up with the solution.

Clearly though based on current results there is strong support for such an idea.

Note that all it is now is an idea.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: bytemaster on February 08, 2016, 03:04:25 pm
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?!

My intent is only to make BTS the best at what it does and to find a way to make free transactions possible.  The referral program still depends upon transaction fees and it will be up the committee / stakeholders to vote on what transactions result in fees. This proposal was mostly aimed at getting a user experience closer to what people expect from centralized exchanges.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 03:06:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: oldmine on February 08, 2016, 03:14:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 03:23:19 pm
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.
If they sign more they get ignored by the protocol.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: pc on February 08, 2016, 03:44:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 03:47:05 pm
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.

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??
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: mf-tzo on February 08, 2016, 04:01:44 pm
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..
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 04:10:13 pm
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 you want the committee members to pay the witness's to produce blocks?  Why even separate the 2 then?  There would be no separation of power and the witness would be at the mercy of the committee member that is paying them.

All these no fee ideas are non-starters... No one has been able to identify a viable way to pay witness's once the reserve pool runs out.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: mf-tzo on February 08, 2016, 04:22:42 pm
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..
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 04:22:50 pm
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??

Look at my post. "What this means" section if you do not want to read it all.
TLDR: the new fee system do not force no one to remove *all* fees. The new system would just give the *ability* to decide *if* and *which* fee we do not want. Without the risk of spam attacks.
This does not necessarily mean remove revenue income for the network.

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.


Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 04:48:12 pm
Will bitcoin have it's own fee thread?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44rdhp/mycelium_set_to_2_cents_fee_on_1_transaction/
Once again, our community is weeks (if not months) ahead of them :)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clayop on February 08, 2016, 06:25:02 pm
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?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 07:05:49 pm
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?

1) ATM there is a cap on 100 tps. That could probably be considered the network capacity atm.

2) In theory you are always allowed to use your allocated "bandwidth". Even if everyone is using all their allowed cut, you would still be able to use your own, since it is kind of "reserved" for you.

You should also consider that it would be very difficult that all the shareholders will be using the network as much as they can, in the exactly same time.

Moreover there are algorithms that could give you* priority over others**

*you as user asking for a low-normal usage of the network
**others as users using all the bandwidth they can use
(maybe depending on coindays earned)


Anyway, if we want to allow an user to allocate more than what he have right on (based on his % bts owning), we should charge a fee for it. The amount of that fee would be decided exactly as all the current fees are (shareholders/committee)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: puppies on February 08, 2016, 07:27:01 pm
I really like the idea of no fees, and some form of coin days being used to prevent spam.  Free transfers would be a huge marketing plus.

I would like to see the ability to transact above and beyond the limited number of free transactions.  This would charge a fee of course.  I would also like to see the rate at which coin days are earned higher for LTM. 

It would also be good if you could point your coin days earned on one account to another account.  That way you could run a bot, without having all of your funds accessible to your bot.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Pheonike on February 08, 2016, 08:26:58 pm

We need to flush this out and begin working on it immediately. BM needs to put together a worker proposal so we can vote and get started. Now that the idea public, you someone when begin developing this. The clock is ticketing. Lets not let someone get crdit for bringing this innovation to market first!!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Ander on February 08, 2016, 08:36:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: yvv on February 08, 2016, 08:41:43 pm
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 08:48:40 pm
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

I invite you to read my post in the first page of this thread.

 tldr: having the ability to set some fee to 0, doesn't mean we have to to actually set *all* the fees to 0 and lose all the revenue for the network
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 09:01:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: puppies on February 08, 2016, 09:05:38 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Erlich Bachman on February 08, 2016, 09:41:40 pm
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.

He's not talking about giving away "FREE" premium account names.

Don't get your panties in a bunch:

When BM says "FREE"

he does not mean that "EVERY" fee is free for everyone

You only get a few "FREE" trades based on how much stake you own, and how many "coin days" you hold it.

Ever hear the term "coin days"?

Geez, it's like we have not been talking about this for the past 20 years... er, um, I mean 2

Here, let me proceed to "blow" your mind:

TIME = MONEY

yeah, no shit, in business it is anyway, and BM is applying this simple basic economic math to our fee structure finally (you know, like how people are finally learning that Bitcoin2.0 ain't no joke (via ETH).  If he had applied this simple math to our fee structure from day one (when we launched a year before Ethereum), then we might not be begging for the tinniest little taste of their table scraps.  You spent the past 2 years trying to convince the world that crypto 2.0 even existed, while Ethereum was busy designing a simple consistent, logical and simple structured pitch based on basic shit that the masses intuitively understand.  You know, basic common sense shit like:

TIME = MONEY

Well, OK, I realize that that just blew your mind because you geniuses are obviously do not in any way shape or form think like the masses do.  But the Ether team had a few marketers who did, and that is why they are kicking your ass royally right now (and it is well within you right to want to continue this ass beatin, but don't count on me to stick around genius).

Don't worry man, there are still plenty of "expensive" fees that will pay your salary..

The only difference here is that:

There are going to be more people paying you cash money making you rich than there are currently

(if that is indeed what you are into)

(if not, then feel free to vote no, it's within your right)

Or maybe I'm no longer "hip" to today's "jargon" and "coin day" means "to steal coins from miners every single day"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW80639zCTU

The pitch is:

FREE TRADES ON BITSHARES!!!

The fine print is:

limited to 10 free trades per staked coin day on a minimum of 500 share purchase, unlimited time offer, side effects may include drowsiness, vomiting, erections lasting longer than 5 days, and witnesses getting filthy rich as 5       15 year old Ethereum investors diversify 1/100th of their their crypto 2.0 portfolio to invest in the number 2        2.0 crypto causing the BTS volume, user base, and market cap to skyrocket

So, yeah, genius, we are not actually talking about FREE FEES

We are talking about FREE SAMPLES

But "FREE FEES IN BITSHARES"  has a nicer ring to it eh genius?

Get it yet?

NOT FREE EVERYTHING!

Am I the only guy here who would be thrilled with just a teeny tiny "piece" of Ethereum's 15k BTC daily volume (today) (we only hit 0.071k BTC in volume today if you had not noticed)

and here, I thought that an offer of wealth, riches, and plain old cash money was an offer that no one could refuse:

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/33109738.jpg)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Thom on February 08, 2016, 10:04:29 pm
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..

This is crazy logic! Who pays who are the shareholders in your scheme. A scheme of proportional taxation based on their stake, irrespective of their use of the BitShares resources and irrespective of their contribution to those resources. It's just a wealth redistribution scheme.

I gotta say, that it was an interesting introduction of a topic, but it now reminds me of a politician's "New Plan" for XYZ, a fantastic program to feed the poor, create jobs, conquer unemployment, heal the sick etc. When asked how will the program be funded given that same politician's statement, "READ MY LIPS: I will filibuster anybody that seeks to raise taxes!" Yeah, right. A non-answer!

As BM went on to flush out the details as he talked and mentioned using the reserve pool to fund liquidity, I connected the dots like  lil_jay890 and have to wonder how will the network maintain itself without fees?

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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Ander on February 08, 2016, 10:34:12 pm
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.

That works, and its also a reason to hold BTS!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 10:36:05 pm
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
Sorry dude, TL;DR.

I think I've spent much more time than you on the fee structure  ;) If you want to educate me, please make it short  8)

Thank you for replied to my post anyway.

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: abit on February 08, 2016, 10:39:49 pm
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
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 10:56:35 pm
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.


Quote
What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses
Same source of now maybe? The fact that the network could operate even without any fee does not mean we would remove them all.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Still, these decisions would be on shareholders. It is not about the implementation of the new fee system.

ps: I made some example in my post on the first page.


Quote
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.
AFAIR the revenue from transfer fee is only a tiny part of the overall revenue (coming from account_upgrade)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: puppies on February 09, 2016, 02:25:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Riverhead on February 09, 2016, 02:50:00 am
[
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Xeldal on February 09, 2016, 04:38:54 am
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. 
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: puppies on February 09, 2016, 04:41:51 am
@Xeldal   +5%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Zapply on February 09, 2016, 05:58:53 am
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

I don't work for free too.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: xeroc on February 09, 2016, 06:10:56 am
@Xeldal   +5%
+5%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: liondani on February 09, 2016, 09:28:19 am
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%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: vegolino on February 09, 2016, 09:43:24 am
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.

 +5%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 09, 2016, 03:07:24 pm
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.


So this is awesome. I just wonder then if Bitshares is going to get to the moon by removing fees as a barrier to entry, what does this mean to businesses using FBA to build with Bitshares? Right now Stealth is going to contribute a hefty 20% of its revenues to its operation in Bitshares. Would FBAs looking to build on Bitshares likewise be allowed to build with lower to zero fees?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 09, 2016, 03:10:15 pm
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.

An FBA like that would be very difficult to justify unless there was some kinda of other revenue model.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 09, 2016, 04:13:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 09, 2016, 04:30:16 pm
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?

I think bytemaster would need some times to really figure out all the details.
I would really like if those details were defined also with community input.

Once the details are figured out, cnx should have an estimation about cost and time needed.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: fuzzy on February 09, 2016, 04:40:01 pm
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?

I am very much for doing this...but I think we need to TEST it by making it this way for only a small period of time (perhaps 3 months?)  to try it and see its effects.  We can offer it for a limited window of time and couple it with something like a "buy one get two free" for accounts during this period to help offset the lower fees.  If they both work together to bring in more income, while also incentivizing the use of lifetime membership accounts...the ltm's might actually far outweigh the value lost from trading fees. 

This also gives people who buy ltm's a good reason to consider sharing it (or selling it) to someone else.  This opens up the market for people to want to start grabbing named wallets (at a significant cost) and selling them or finding other profitable ways to get them into the hands of others.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Pheonike on February 09, 2016, 04:57:15 pm

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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: TravelsAsia on February 09, 2016, 05:12:40 pm
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%

+5%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 09, 2016, 06:32:26 pm

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.

Haha.. try saying this two weeks ago! :D
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Shentist on February 09, 2016, 07:33:51 pm
i like the idea and i think if this works like expected it would be great.

and it would not really hurt the referral program. If the transactions are picking up, more people are in need to transfer and pay. the pay is still in place. But if we have capacity it will be zero. great :D
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: openledger on February 09, 2016, 07:42:57 pm
 +5% +5%
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 09, 2016, 07:55:18 pm
So this seems something that both sides of the fee argument are okay with?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Pheonike on February 09, 2016, 08:09:00 pm

A big reason for the fees (besides making money for the network) was to stop people from spamming the network. With this solution spamming is not an issue so setting fees can now focused on user experience and features. Charging fees for things users want to do instead of have to do.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: EstefanTT on February 09, 2016, 08:43:48 pm
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 !
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 09, 2016, 09:26:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: EstefanTT on February 09, 2016, 09:29:07 pm
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.
Lol, you're right !

After "3 sec blocks ... must be centralised"

We will have "free Tx ... must be a scam"
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: bytemaster on February 09, 2016, 09:29:54 pm
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! 
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Pheonike on February 09, 2016, 09:37:26 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 09, 2016, 09:40:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: giant middle finger on February 09, 2016, 10:37:00 pm
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!

NOT ONLY IS A FEE-LESS BLOCKCHAIN INPOSSIBLE BUT MARKET PEGGED ASSETS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TOO !!!

DREAM ON YOU CLUELESS DREAMER!!!!!


seriously though, it's a good thing that we have many other fees that we can use to pay the miners, members, and shareholder dividends

bitcoin and ethereum would both have to change their fee structure in order to compete with the world's 1 and only "Free Real Time Smartchian" (has a nice ring to it), and IOTA would launch DOA!  WTF?!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: EstefanTT on February 09, 2016, 11:08:24 pm
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.
You are right ! We have to deliver this properly. It's our chance to change the way BitShares is perceived !

I hope we will be able to keep a steady open conversation with the devs during the process, feed the BM amazing idea with our constructive feedback as a smart community and finally stryke the crypto sphere with revolutionary new way to deal with fees and blockchains.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: giant middle finger on February 09, 2016, 11:18:13 pm
^^^

It's like we haven't even launched yet!

how much is too much liquidity?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Bhuz on February 09, 2016, 11:38:48 pm
All I have to say is that the white paper I am producing on this is mind blowing...

I hope to see the possibility of setting modular and very flexible fees if needed.

I also hope you will be open to community suggestions and ideas. I already have some, but I will wait for your white paper first.

Can't wait!
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: konelectric on February 09, 2016, 11:46:14 pm
So far I'm for. Like to hear from @kenCode
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 09, 2016, 11:55:34 pm
I have to admit one thing. This change could turn the biggest disadvantage of bitshares into its biggest asset.

And the funny thing about that is... I truly believe that no one would came up with this idea, if some mistake were not be made in the first place. And the way, how BM presented this idea...

https://youtu.be/EmHrwuvoK3I?t=22m50s

Quote
Could we imagine a scenario where a blockchain has no fees at all...?

this deserve to be printed on t-shirts as our vision for next months.

(http://i.imgur.com/drtUCUh.png)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 12:04:54 am
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
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 10, 2016, 12:12:45 am
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! :)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 10, 2016, 12:13:07 am
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

This is nice, to have something to compare to
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 12:17:32 am
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?

For sure.  The biggest similarity is using PoS to resolve conflicts instead of PoW.  We went one step farther and eliminated the bulk conflicts by organizing the ledger in a graph instead of a monolithic chain.  The biggest difference is this is a single-asset system, it makes no attempt to do multi-assets like BitShares.  We have a similar mechanism to delegates called representatives but there's no fixed number, anyone can name anyone else as representing their stake for fork resolution, this way nodes can be offline and representative nodes can vote with, but not spend, people's balances.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 12:19:11 am
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! :)

Another difference is our distribution mechanism.  We're distributing through a captcha-limited faucet on the "Get Blocks" tab, this way anyone can jump in and get a small quantity to play with.  It's live right now.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 12:33:15 am
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: noisy on February 10, 2016, 01:10:06 am
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.

That would be awesome! Cooperation with skilled developers could make bitshares and cryptocurrency world even better :) Maybe you can join next hangout session ( I am not sure when they are organize on mumble (https://beyondbitcoin.org/mumbleinfo/). @fuzzy should know :)).
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 10, 2016, 02:17:40 am
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
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: cube on February 10, 2016, 04:36:12 am
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.

Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 05:05:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: fuzzy on February 10, 2016, 05:34:02 am
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.

always interested in having hangouts to bring people on board.  Also talking to some peeps from other cool projects.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: fuzzy on February 10, 2016, 05:38:52 am
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?

For bringing us such a valuable initiative i would like to thank you.  though it isnt much right now i suspect there will likely be times someday in the future when these will have value.
#sharebits "-banano-" 20 COPPERTICKET

Consider it thanks forngoing above and beyond.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: btstip on February 10, 2016, 05:39:53 am
Hey fuzzy, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21359.msg278144/topicseen.html#msg278144
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: cube on February 10, 2016, 06:10:19 am
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?
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 06:27:00 am
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.

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 more  work speculation.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: fav on February 10, 2016, 07:16:33 am
Raiblocks looks nice. If it works... Well once again bitshares missed an opportunity to be first in line.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: kenCode on February 10, 2016, 07:24:48 am
So far I'm for. Like to hear from @kenCode

I love what @xeroc and @jakub are collaborating on.
I like what the marketing effect of touting "zero fees" would do for us, but I'd rather hear what they have to say. I am not a unique snowflake.
If we can profit from the referral program AND micro-transaction offerings, increase liquidity and make spamming/squatting undesirable then I'm happy.
Good luck with that guys, I've got work to do. Peace
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 07:42:27 am
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?

I forgot where I heard it but they were trying to say someone could short-sell assets on a Proof of Stake protocol and then use their stake to make destructive changes to the network, they would lose their stake but make a greater profit through the short sale.

To be clear I think this attack is completely impractical and I think the easiest counter argument is you can make this conceptual attack on any asset including a PoW system.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: cube on February 10, 2016, 11:07:44 am

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 more  work speculation.

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.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: Akado on February 10, 2016, 08:14:01 pm

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 more  work speculation.

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.

I think he meant, since BM has so many ideas, that at least he should put his money where his mouth is. The colateral was used as an example because it's known liquidity is a problem and from Tony's view (correct me if I'm wrong) not even the ones who designed, use the system. The creators of the system did, indeed, create it but don't even use it, which seems odd. Something like they taking the initiative so everyone could follow up and the problems we complain about get solved instead of having people just complaining about how things don't get better. They don't because not even the creators of the system use it. That is my interpretation from Tony's post, which - although I dhink we shouldn't depend on them - makes sense and would set a good precedence. If people see the big boys with large stakes doing it, means it's safe, hence, they can do it too and the ball gets rolling.

If they don't even feel comfortable using that much collateral it's because they don't trust the system they designed themselves. If they did, however, this problem could probably be solved or at least have a better chance of being solver. That's what I get from the post and while everyone is free to do whatever they want with their own money, it makes sense.
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 09:09:21 pm
To be fair, speculating and trading are very different skills than software development and thus something we wouldn't necessarily use.

I get the point about eating our own dog food though. 
Title: Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
Post by: merivercap on May 08, 2017, 11:51:20 pm
Hey all...

1)  Last year we had 93.8% in favor of BM's "zero fee" proposal. (75 out of 80 votes).   I'd like to make a push to implement this.    That's as unanimous as you may ever get in this community.  BM wrote a blog about it here: How to build a decentralized application without fees (http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/).

2) @abit has already created an implementation of this feature that works (http://(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.45.html))! See here: https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-2/tree/bts2-bts-limited-free-trx (https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-2/tree/bts2-bts-limited-free-trx)  Thanks @abit!!!

I'd like to make a push to have a vote on this and have this implemented as a priority in the coming weeks! 

That will solve a lot of the complications around fee structures and the current variable and high fees we are experiencing .  What do you guys think?