Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - StephenReed

Pages: [1]
1
From the Bitcointalk thread:
Quote
I introduced a new thought that is not in the whitepaper and that is that the block creation reward, in addition to funding infrastructure and developers, could also subsidize transactions to the extent of negative transaction fees, should the abuse problem be addressed. Imaging paying Amazon or any other global Internet retailer a week's worth of block creation rewards, i.e. $13 million to get them to accept bitcoins as payment. I call this notion paying for order flow.
Would negative tx fees allow anyone to send coins back and forth and make money this way? Would the increased demand for coins through this way of making money overcompensate Bitcoin holders (on the one site the price might increases and on the other side negative tx fees have to be paid through dilution by holders)?

Yes, paying for order flow invites abuse. Human organizations prevent this by audits of the paid organization by the paying organization. This could not be easily automated, but one can imagine in some possible world, a software agent that contracts with auditing companies to perform this role.
Do you mean that an auditing company would ban every address that abuses this. Can someone not write a script/program that generates a new address for every tx?

I would have an auditing company send humans to the payment processor site for a policy, procedures and software program audit to observe payments in action. Negative transaction fees are sufficiently high motivation for honest behavior.

Another issue is that an autonomous system may need to be a legal entity for the purpose of enforcing contracts. I suppose that you all have an alternative and I would like to know more about how an anonymous bitcoin network could negotiate contracts with human organizations.

2
From the Bitcointalk thread:
Quote
I introduced a new thought that is not in the whitepaper and that is that the block creation reward, in addition to funding infrastructure and developers, could also subsidize transactions to the extent of negative transaction fees, should the abuse problem be addressed. Imaging paying Amazon or any other global Internet retailer a week's worth of block creation rewards, i.e. $13 million to get them to accept bitcoins as payment. I call this notion paying for order flow.
Would negative tx fees allow anyone to send coins back and forth and make money this way? Would the increased demand for coins through this way of making money overcompensate Bitcoin holders (on the one site the price might increases and on the other side negative tx fees have to be paid through dilution by holders)?

Yes, paying for order flow invites abuse. Human organizations prevent this by audits of the paid organization by the paying organization. This could not be easily automated, but one can imagine in some possible world, a software agent that contracts with auditing companies to perform this role.

3
Thanks for inviting me. It was enjoyable and will help me polish the presentation of my ideas. I plan to listen when I can to the progress of the bitshares project and learn what I can.

I linked to here from my bitcointalk forum project thread.

Pages: [1]