@abit: maybe this is too much, but could you prepare a brief video in which you could present new functionality? All of us will have a better understanding of this feature.Still testing.. I'm playing with CLI and transaction builder.
Pleasee.... :D :)
+5% Wow that was way faster then I expected.
I don't get how you're describing it though. why it should work this way? It sounds like fees are still being charged / still being paid, but accounts earn BTS to pay fees at a defined rate with a cap?
Is it just how its being described? or is that really how it works? Was it just the easiest, quickest way to get it done with existing code?
It sounds like saying fee = 10(old) - 5(new) - 3(limit) - 2 = 0 , instead of just saying fee = 0 with rate limit
If that's really how it works, it seems like a band-aid, but I really wouldn't know, and certainly mean no offense.
It shouldn't be described this way for a new user at least. :) Just say fee is zero with rate limit.
anyway,
Awesome effort abit!
So if you're an LTM, and you have 1M BTS in your account, ... you can transfer once for free every 10 minutes.
Example of developing back-end, or GUI, or example of using it? I will post my CLI commands here while testing through it.
I haven't looked at the code but I'm glad to see this sort of input. Great way to set an example for others to follow, Abit.
The "accumulated fees" can only be used to pay fees. Or say it's budgets. When you're running out of budgets, you can pay fee in the original way. Make sense?
And fees paid with coin-days wont go to referral program (or cash back for LTM), they are eliminated.
I did a quick review of the implementation and believe it accomplishes 90% of what I wanted to accomplish. The only thing this doesn't do is dynamically adjust the fee in response to load.Thanks.
Assuming this gets properly tested I would support integrating it.
awesome job!
for your next project ... could you please fork from graphene/develop? that would make it way easier to integrate this into MUSE or the testnet!!!
+5% anyway
chinese still pissed offCool thing is .. we dont need to put this on every asset .. but maybe just USD and CNY .. we can keep BTS transferes (comparable) expensive
fees still too expensive
you must send 100 BTC randsom to china or else suffer the wrath of the monkey new year (all chinese dump
all BitShares!)
按百分比计算转账手续费功能，开发完成
只要降低，就支持，降得越低越支持
sarc
actually, props to the red dragon for showing us that we can have our cake and eat it too.
subsidized microtransactions and happy Long Term Members!!
+5% +5% Don't know much about coding but you seem to be doing great fast work, abit, well done!
@abit:Won't do that in the near future.
Great work! Just wondering if you've made any progress with dynamic adjustment based on load?
Still don't get, what is coin days and how is this related to fees?If you hold one BTS for one day you have accumulated one coin-day. If you hold two BTS for a day (or one BTS for two days) you have accumulated two coins-days.
I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.
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.
I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.
Yeah, maybe we are jumping the gun a little with the 2.1 name change.
If anything, this needs to be put to a vote.
Dang, you didn't have to be rude.
Everyone knows that Dan works for us, but you don't have to rub his nose in it all the time
So this is being developed already? What are the costs? I know the feedback was very positive but it still needs to go through the voting process.You bid? 8)
I just don't like to do that right now. A bit complex but not impossible. Whales is likely to lease they coin-days to others so the platform will earn less if this is implemented. If somebody jumps out and say "hey I pay you to do it" maybe I'll do it.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.
I'd like to see some marketing budget to be included in the worker proposal, for example for a short video that explains clearly how Bitshares will function from now on. This revolutionary feature has to be understood, otherwise people won't get interested and won't care.
To be honest, I doubt there's enough interest.
We'll need to raise thousands to make this happen. With just 9 replies 3 retweets and 375 views.... in two weeks.
How will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
How will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
How will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
I remember he said it in Telegram BitShares channel. Perhaps I'm wrong though.How will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
If so I couldn't find it searching over the last 2 months using keyword "fee" and member ccedk.
Thanks for your efforts. :DHow will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
I agree, but it does kill the referral program right? It makes it a little bit useless now, not 100% sure, but it's possible revenues get severely restricted right?
I actually prefer it this way, I just want to know because of the rate limited fees BSIP. I havent got much time lately, was sick and only managed to get an introduction. Need more info on this kind of stuff, even though I think I won't be able to pull it off due to lack of time. I'll just try making what I can and have someone else complete 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.
I've been away, has this been done and currently live on chain?Nop ..
I've been away, has this been done and currently live on chain?Nop ..
a) We need a hard fork
b) there are some issues with it that make the code messy (iirc)
c) we need someone to properly audit the code
d) there is no money to pay any of the points above .. yet
e) If you think about it .. it may make sense to have a way more powerfull fee structure .. for instance, ideally bitUSD can be transfered for free, while stock shares shouldn't ..
what are you thinking , charging BTS on stocks or charging stocks on stocks ?The network takes BTS .. the issuer can decide to allow its holders to pay in stock via the fee pool ..