Yes, but I don't think that many others are aware.
The more brothers and sisters that take up residence on the BitShares blockchain, the stronger and more secure your business becomes overall.
You sir are savy enough to know a great deal when you see it. The initial install cost (to be allowed on-board the BitShares blockchain) will only increase over time, as supply of open business slots decreases and voting shareholders become more critical of what business are awarded the honor.
Why would the shareholders want to stifle innovation and stop new fee-paying businesses from joining?
Sounds a bit too centralbanky for my liking.
The effect would be exactly the same as if existing bts businesses grew by an amount equal to the value of this new business.
Wouldn't the profit seeking shareholders do better to invest some of their hefty profits in R&D to increase the maximum capacity of the blockchain?
If the shareholders were to even entertain the idea of preventing new businesses joining the blockchain, then it must be almost at max capacity of 100k transactions.
At an average of $0.05 per transaction in fees, that would be $5000 in fees paid every second.
That's $157B a year in fees.
I'm sure with that kind of capital the transaction limit and blockchain capacity could be increased and witnesses compensated for whatever expense necessary to continue to increase the volume of transactions possible.
There's no such thing as blockchain bloat!
If a fee was paid, a fair transaction has occurred. Remember that the fees are set by the shareholders. If the fee is too low to cover the cost of storage in the blockchain, then its up to shareholders and delegates to raise it.
BitShares is about freedom and arbitrary limits are counter to that.
Welcome Mark!
Thanks for being the guinea pig case study that shows everybody else what's possible with BitShares!
We've got CCEDK showcasing BitShares the orderbook and Banx Capital showcasing BitShares the asset manager.
Who's next?? (Proud of that pun
)