Why UIAs use BTS as fees when they are transferred?

[jwiz168]

For a UIA to become valuable, it must be promoted and exposed to investors and what are its benefits (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13184.0) . Surely, BTS as a transaction fee is the sensible method simply because assets are within BTS network.

[theoretical]

This could conceivably be implemented by a wallet that uses the UIA to buy BTS with market operations.

The problem is that I think market orders take 1-2 blocks to happen even if there is a matching order, thus a "self-funding UIA sell order" is not possible (where someone with a zero BTS balance and nonzero UIA balance creates a transaction to sell their UIA for BTS, paying the tx fee for the transaction with (part of) the proceeds).  And supporting it would require a ton of fundamental architecture changes and possibly open up new and interesting attack vectors.

It would be more feasible to have an "auto top-off" wallet function where if you have less than 10 tx fee worth of BTS, and you're transferring a UIA, the wallet will automatically "top you up" to 10 tx fees by withdrawing a little extra UIA and selling it for BTS at below-market rates (so the sale is basically guaranteed to match).  Of course it will have a confirmation prompt showing how much the top-up will cost and how many tx fees it will provide.

[fluxer555]

We don't know the value of a UIA in a decentralized, trust-free manner.

Maybe delegates could opt-in to accepting assets as fees on a per-asset basis, specifying the minimum fee they will accept for it.

[clayop]

1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.

Will it change the rule?

[Rune]

Eventually when our trading engine becomes more advanced we can probably fix this in some way. Maybe the UIA creator could have a tx fee pool where UIA can be exchanged for BTS at a fixed rate to pay for tx fees while still making it easy for nodes to validate that the fee exceeds the minimum relay fee.

[clayop]

You can pay the fees with any BitAsset or BTS.... just not UIA. 

So give your customers $1 worth of BitUSD and they can pay for 50 or so transactions.

Thanks

[bytemaster]

You can pay the fees with any BitAsset or BTS.... just not UIA. 

So give your customers $1 worth of BitUSD and they can pay for 50 or so transactions.

[arhag]

Can we have UIA transfers (and BitAsset transfers / market orders for that matter) optionally pay the fee with any BitAsset (fee amount determined by converting whatever the fee definition is, say 0.02 BitUSD, into the amount of the BitAsset in question using any available price feeds necessary) where these BitAssets get collected in a pool separate from the yield pools.

For now just dump them in the pool. Maybe make it accessible with a 51-of-101 multisig where the 101 are the current 101 active delegates. Much later on, code could be developed to automatically convert the fees collected in that pool to the appropriate asset type (BTS for "buyback" dividends, maybe BitUSD for delegate pay) using market/limit orders to pay for DAC expenses and profit.

[clayop]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?

We don't know the value of a UIA in a decentralized, trust-free manner.

If the UIA is being traded in the market, and providing information of its value, can we use UIA itself as a fee?

No, the blockchain doesn't know anything about how easy it would be to drive the price to 0.

So we have to own both UIA and BTS to transfer.
In case of that I would like to give my customers my UIA as mileage, I should give a small amount of BTS to my customer. Correct?

[toast]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?

We don't know the value of a UIA in a decentralized, trust-free manner.

If the UIA is being traded in the market, and providing information of its value, can we use UIA itself as a fee?

No, the blockchain doesn't know anything about how easy it would be to drive the price to 0.

[clayop]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?

We don't know the value of a UIA in a decentralized, trust-free manner.

If the UIA is being traded in the market, and providing information of its value, can we use UIA itself as a fee?

[onceuponatime]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?

Some UIA will have absolutely no value to the vast majority of bitshares stakeholders. The minority of users of a UIA cannot expect the majorty to subsidize their tranactions. Therefore they need to pay their transaction fees in a token of value to everyone.

[bytemaster]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?

We don't know the value of a UIA in a decentralized, trust-free manner. 

[clayop]

I found that I need BTS to transfer UIA. In my opinion, this is not convenient.

Some want to use UIA as a coupon or mileage, separated from BTS. But current system enforces people to have BTS to transfer. This means when customers, who do not know BTS at all, want to use their mileage, they should ask someone to give them a small amount of BTS for fees.

I argue for that an UIA should spend itself as a fee. Any thoughts?