How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]

[cube]

Also @bytemaster I would like to see your reply to Vitalik's comment on this
http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1241/implementing-fractional-reserve-bandwidth-concept-in-evm-on-serenity

I don't know if I understood correctly but does he mean with 2 bank accounts you can get twice the bandwidth? Because that's exactly the problem this method solves.. No sybils right

I think his message is "the time value of money is itself worth money". 

With 'rate limited' -> time value of money (from the locked down bts)
With 'tx fee' -> actual bts (money) involved.

[Akado]

I have a question: dynamic fees result in poor user experience. Plus there needs to be a consensus, etc
What about dynamic fractional reserve? In the end isn't it the same? It is mentioned that "blockchain will automatically adjust the reserve ratio for the network during times of congestion." I think this could be done by the algorithms that you mentioned during the mumble?

But isn't everything that is dynamic require consensus since there needs to be an agreement on a certain value and doesn't that also affect user experience? Then why not to the same with fees? I think it's pretty much known we can't given all the polemics it caused at that time changing the fee schedule. Doesn't this make the use of algorithms useless? What makes adjusting fractional reserves different?

I admit people probably won't have as much interest on dynamic fractional reserves as dynamic fees, at least for now, since the fees can have a better management, however that doesn't guarantee we won't reach a point where the fractional reserve will have to be adjusted. At that time won't things be just like when we tried to change the fees? I mean, it sounds like it can decrease the damage created and of course there might not be a 100% solution but it seems like we are only delaying the date where we will eventually have to sit around a table and discuss how the fractional reserve should be adjusted, which will again create polemics and is a very slow process.

Unless we all reach consensus on an algorithm previously.. but then again, if we didn't do it with the fees

Also @bytemaster I would like to see your reply to Vitalik's comment on this
http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1241/implementing-fractional-reserve-bandwidth-concept-in-evm-on-serenity

I don't know if I understood correctly but does he mean with 2 bank accounts you can get twice the bandwidth? Because that's exactly the problem this method solves.. No sybils right

[abit]

i just listend to the last mumble session

i have a question

1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?

I am not sure I understand your question.

I think: Assuming i have 1% stake, is 1% relative to max supply or to from-genesis-claimed stake?

Here are some comments in my code:

             // Theoretically, 100 tps means 8.64M transactions a day.
             // Total quantity of core asset is 3.7BB, so 1 transaction = 3.7BB/8.64M ~= 428 core assets,
             // which means with 428 core assets you can do 1 transaction a day.
             // If we set conversion rate to 5000, and set transaction fee to 1, then about 1/10 of network
             // capacity can be used freely. A whale with 10M core assets can accumulate same value as
             // 1 core asset of coin seconds in 43.2 seconds. An average user with 10K core assets can
             // accumulate same value as 1 core asset of coin seconds in 43200 seconds = half a day.

Makes sense?

[xeroc]

i just listend to the last mumble session

i have a question

1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?

I am not sure I understand your question.

I think: Assuming i have 1% stake, is 1% relative to max supply or to from-genesis-claimed stake?

[bytemaster]

i just listend to the last mumble session

i have a question

1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?

I am not sure I understand your question.

[Shentist]

i just listend to the last mumble session

i have a question

1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?

[merivercap]

This is a good idea and I support its implementation.  Although having people pay transaction fees can validate the value a network provides, it's not always necessary and most people can use cost savings as a proxy for value.  Ultimately people will recognize the value of the network effect.

Minimizing mental transaction costs, minimizing irrational politics, maintaining fee flexibility and improving the perception of the blockchain all should have very positive effects.

[cube]

I like the idea of making better use of our underutilised super tps express network.  The transformation into a time-share/co-op model requires further thoughts on possible implications.  But I see that tonyk is already expanding on the co-op concept.

[mike623317]

It's indecently brilliant. i love this idea.
I cant believe nobody has thought of this before.
 

[xeroc]

So do small balances have to wait or not ?  Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.

Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay.  0 fee opens that back up.

If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?

The system is not subject to sybil attacks.

I wasn't talking about sybil attacks but it seems you have a minimum transfer/balance in mind which fixes the sort of things I was concerned about. It works in place of a fee.

 I like the idea all and all. Very similar to spending coin-age to create transactions.

I would suggest you choose better metaphors in your writing if they are to be key to the article. fractional reserve etc for bandwidth/networks just doesn't fit very well for me and made it hard to read the whole thing.

Over-provisioning is the correct technical term for ISPs

[giant middle finger]

You could use the guy who's always running around here holding up 2 fingers as your official marketing logo:

Here's a marketing slogan to get you started:

BitShares2.0 - "That number behind our name means that we love second place"

It's an age old marketing technique that is older than you my friend and it is simply called:










subsidization:
(google it)









Ever go to Vegas Dark Lord?

Drinks are FREE
The Buffet is FREE
Hell, if you search hard enough, even the hookers are buy one, get one FREE
Whales get flown and blown for free, they don't pay for shit.  Everything is free for the whales.  So how can the Casinos afford to pay their "workers" when they are giving away free limousines, and wedding suites?

you guessed it genius

(from the income from their other operations)

Sounds like you need to get back to your roots Dr Evil:











This marketing ploy by BitShares was destined to follow whatever has succeeded here in the evil real world, and sorry to break it to ya, but Las Vegas is still making $$$$$$$ even though they have FREE EVERYTING.  This is the apex business model for human psychology.  If you don't get what BM is saying then you have obviously never been to Macau or Vegas. 


WAKE UP EVERYBODY AND FACE THE TRUTH:

P2P FOREX/COMEX = GAMBLING

Wall St. = Gambling

Buying a house or a car is a gamble, hell, trading your cash for anything is simply gambling.  I bought a hot dog the other day, and it tasted like shit.  Food is a gamble. Sex.. well, I think you got it by now evil genius.

Subsidization is the bedrock of every successful Casino business.



Vegas: Come for the free lunch, stay for the gambling

BitShares: Come for the free transactions, stay for the gambling


pshht, this shit was inevitable, like death and taxes.  Humans (and Chinese I hear) love to gamble, and no matter how you slice it:



 SMART CONTRACTS = GAMBLING

If you own BitShares, or any Smartcoin for that matter, then you simply own shares in a Casino.  And we all know what successful business marketing strategy has dominated every other Casino business strategy for longer than you have been on this planet, so market accordingly


Fuck, number 2, BitShares is NUMBER :






everybody loves Vegas, and we are Sin City

It's like we haven't even launched yet

[twitter]

after reading BM's blog for no tx fee blockchain , it is brilliant  and  we should give him full  support . That's exactly what future blockchain should be ....

[facer]

Can we give each accout 100 times to transfer for free in initial

[Bhuz]

Yep, I did not understand that part too xD

What about the linking-account thing?

Do you think it is valuable and feasible?

[puppies]

Perhaps the most relevant part of the entire document is a rationale on how to set transaction fees that is completely objective.

If a blockchain wished to avoid locking up funds for a week, then it can set fees based upon an very high interest rate, say 100% APR. Users could then choose between locking up $1 for a week or paying $0.02. Either way the network is guaranteed to win while preventing spam. During heavy usage the minimum fee might raise to $8 for a week or $0.16.

Ideally users wouldn’t be forced to make this decision because they will have a sufficient balance to permit free transactions without future obligations or fees. Their non-transferrable accrued right to transact makes the perceived cost of a transaction to be 0.

I don't think I understood that correctly the first time I read it.  I think you are saying that if we have already exceeded our coin days, we could lock up a balance for a week, during which it would not accrue any coin days, but would instead be paying back the coin days we had already spent.  Or we could charge a fee.  Either would good.  Both would be better.