Quote from: bytemaster on June 10, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
In the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee.  The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1".   

How do you pay for anything at a store if you always send less than the amount you specify?

However, if you provide an option to do both, you will confuse users. IMO better to stick to the original method.

Quote from: fav on June 10, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
as for micro transactions:

wouldn't it be possible to charge a % fee for payments under 20 BTS? on the other hand, people could spam the chain to save fees...

or give basic users 1 TX under 20 BTS for 1BTS fee per month?

IMO, micropayment should be applied only to *SmartCoins* not to BTS.

maybe we should have a separate thread to brainstorm microtransactions, just to make sure we're not missing out on anything

Quote from: Ander on June 10, 2015, 05:28:08 PM
Implement ACCT between Qora and Bitshares, then use Qora for micropayments, because its cheap and the transaction fee is low?  :)

+5% +5% +5%  ;D

as for micro transactions:

wouldn't it be possible to charge a % fee for payments under 20 BTS? on the other hand, people could spam the chain to save fees...

or give basic users 1 TX under 20 BTS for 1BTS fee per month?

OR

Quote from: Ander on June 10, 2015, 05:28:08 PM
Implement ACCT between Qora and Bitshares, then use Qora for micropayments, because its cheap and the transaction fee is low?  :)

Implement ACCT between Qora and Bitshares, then use Qora for micropayments, because its cheap and the transaction fee is low?  :)

Quote from: bytemaster on June 10, 2015, 04:52:06 PM

Quote from: liondani on June 10, 2015, 04:47:29 PM
If I sent to a basic account that has a balance of 20 bitUSD ,100 times 1 cent, will I empty his account?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

No... "sender still pays". 

Look at it this way, if a merchant requests payment of $100 there are several options:

User sends $100 and merchant receives $99
User sends $101 and merchant receives $100

All that really matters is if the merchant is willing to accept $99 after fees as payment equal to $100. 

In the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee.  The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1".   

So simply by changing how we interpret the input and display the output we can change the appearance of who is paying the fee.    This is all MasterCard and VISA are doing.

Can user choose including fee in the payment or not?
Sometimes receivers ask exact amount of payment (e.g. $12.34) and the current method seems to be inconvenient for this purpose (how much do I have to send including fee? 12.35123???)

Quote from: liondani on June 10, 2015, 04:47:29 PM
If I sent to a basic account that has a balance of 20 bitUSD ,100 times 1 cent, will I empty his account?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

No... "sender still pays". 

Look at it this way, if a merchant requests payment of $100 there are several options:

User sends $100 and merchant receives $99
User sends $101 and merchant receives $100

All that really matters is if the merchant is willing to accept $99 after fees as payment equal to $100. 

In the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee.  The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1".   

So simply by changing how we interpret the input and display the output we can change the appearance of who is paying the fee.    This is all MasterCard and VISA are doing.

If I sent to a basic account that has a balance of 20 bitUSD ,100 times 1 cent, will I empty his account?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Quote from: bytemaster on June 10, 2015, 03:29:20 PM
Ok... lets see some estimates:  how many total "micropayments" need to be made before the cost of implementing support for them is covered?

The total might be less than zero, if the value gained exceeds the cost. 

If it means scrapping the referral program then i think the cost goes through the roof and possibly no conceivable amount of micro transactions would cover the cost.

What is the value gained by supporting?
What do we lose by not supporting?


There are certainly applications for micro-transactions.  If we don't have them, we can't support those applications.
That's a loss.

I suppose someone who expects to receive more than 625 micro-transactions, as a lifetime member, would (after the 625th tx) at least be on par with Bitcoin @ $0.04 per tx.  I think this may be a significant barrier though.

is $0.10 even considered 'micro'?  How does bitcoin support sub 4 cent transactions? no fee and pray?

Maybe micro services just need to be centralized offchain, or use some other blockchain that's cheaper.  or a cheap/slow/efficient bitshares sidechain w/ smart contracts to pool and release over thresholds.    BitShares-Micro. IDK

Ok... lets see some estimates:  how many total "micropayments" need to be made before the cost of implementing support for them is covered?

Quote from: Shentist on June 10, 2015, 05:33:56 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:49:19 PM
Micropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.

i would love if you can explain in a new post what does this really mean!

me too, as i think, the micropayment sector is an important feature!  +5%

Quote from: betax on June 09, 2015, 07:42:25 PM
Apple is something completely different and surreal. It attracted millions of users on their second phase, because they sold a mp3 player with big storage. The good thing about it is that it did not look like a big hard drive, was "easy" to use and locked them into iTunes. Those locked in users were later on (with more money) marketing lure into the other iThings.  Saying so the iPod with a touch screen was a good innovation.

Back to costs, if I want to send some tokens to 200,000  (>1 cent value) to users that will cost a fortune, and they won't be happy if they have to pay for it. My idea was to reward for usage of an application.

Now available.  The exact same thing we sold you last year, but now 10% smaller and available in gold.

Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 01:06:24 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:56:33 PM
Not mentioned, but we plan on showing the receiver of the funds paying the fee rather than the sender.   So it will work just like paypal.

If that means I can buy something online without paying a transaction fee then

+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

That's a game-changer to me

Quote from: favdesu on June 09, 2015, 12:57:33 PM

Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 12:55:19 PM

Why would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?

paypal 0 fees? that's news to me

Merchants pay fees. Transferring balances between currencies incurs a fee. But spending money when shopping online from a regular account does not incur any fees. Same with debit cards - yes there are high fees, but the consumer never sees anything about them. To the card holder, making a purchase is free.

I have no problem with fees being paid, I just think it should be the merchant and not the consumer who pays them.

Why?

If you mistated, and meant to say, I think merchants should pay the fee in regards to bitshares because that is what they are used to, and I have a vested interest in ensuring that bitshares gains market share, then I fully understand and retract my statement. 

If you honestly believe that merchants should pay the fees, then I must press on.  Why?  You do realize that the consumer always actually pays the fee.  Although in most cases the fee is socialized and thus subsidized by those paying with a less costly mechanism.

As someone that sees tens of thousands of dollars wasted away on a monthly basis paying visa and mastercard, while we literally (I do know what that word means) pay less to have an armored truck with armed men show up three times a week to remove excess cash, I may have a slightly different view. 

I have great respect for businesses that offer a cash discount. 

Also.  Fuck American Express.

Also.  Fuck Discover.

Also there aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:49:19 PM
Micropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.

i would love if you can explain in a new post what does this really mean!

for example: 100.000 Transaction per second - for me as a user i undestand that we can transfer in a day

100.000 x 60 x 60 x 24 = 8.640.000.000 transactions per day

what is the problem to make the transactions cheaper? I don't get it,

so, maybe the question is - what is a micropayment? maybe we should set a floor for the transaction amount like minimum transfer is xxx BTS