Worker Proposal Review

[Brekyrself]

Regarding proposal #1:

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case.  At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders.  A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.

I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.

Agreed with Ander. In my opinion, 0.5 BTS for trading operation would be good (0.1 BTS for LTM).

To some extent lowering the fee to below $0.03 (BTC fees) starts to lose its anti-spam benefits. Once you lose anti-spam benefits you need to start looking into rate limiting. Once you have rate-limiting solutions you might as well take the fee to 0.

At 100 TPS sustained spam and $0.01 per transaction for LTM you end up generating $3600 per hour in revenue. I suppose that might be enough to make spamming unprofitable and unsustainable.  $0.05 for non lifetime member.

So perhaps we can get by with simply lowering most fees and avoid the rate-limiting worker proposal saving $8000 of development time. 

We will still want to have the market fees go into the referral rewards program and implement the cash-back on order cancelation.

This sounds logical to forget about #1.  #2-5  make sense, should be implemented asap, and CNX deserves to be compensated for their work.

Questions:
-What determines an issue that requires workers compared to open issues on GitHub?
-Can CNX post a road-map of issues that are included with the 2.0 launch and another road-map of features they would like to propose for workers?

[jakub]

#2 I can't say I understand it fully. More details needed.

#3 It's nice but low priority for me. I think we have many more important things on our plate than this, e.g. bringing all BTS functionality to the GUI level.

#4 Excellent, especially the standardized API for trading bots.

#5 Excellent, definitely needed for the BTS gateways to have such tools integrated in the GUI.

[bytemaster]

Once upon a time.......(not calling a member on the forum , just a sentence ) , there was something called "the new dilution can be vested in years" . Is that still the case ?

The blockchain supports "dilution being vested for years".

So here is a question, what is the present value of a BitShares to be delivered in 2 years?  You must discount todays BTS price by risk and time value of money. Stated another way, how much additional BTS would we have to pay to convince someone to lock up their BTS liquidity for 2 years. Stated another way, how much BTS would be required as collateral for a USD loan payable in 2 years?

If we have a price of 21M BTS payable upon delivery, then we would have to charge much more for BTS payable in 2 years and might even go out of business if we are unable to finance the work.

[bytemaster]

@bytemaster, In your quest to make BitShares more like the centralized exchanges, (your  "0 fees" plan) you have proposed a solution that will once again take BitShares farther away from the centralized exchanges, by creating a "global volume" based fees system that toggles up and down at random times, depending on total global usage of the exchange. As far as I know (I might be wrong), there are no centralized exchanges that do this.

Think about it - you are talking about penalizing people for using the exchange while many other people are using it - how absurd is that? Sure, there might be a logical reason for it (as an anti-spam measure, you cannot have 0 fees without this - or so you have determined), but it will almost certainly be PERCEIVED as a random tax on users.

You can't have uncertainty in the fee schedule. It must be reliable - users must know how much they are going to pay before they initiate the transaction. We can't say "you might get this or you might get that, depending on factors beyond your control." If we do this, Mark my words, we are going to have a bunch of pissed off users every time the global volume increases. We are going to run into the same problem as we have now - people are not going to look at this in a 100% rational way.

They won't see the big picture. They will say "I assumed that I would only pay 2 cents, but a bunch of people were online and trading that day so I ended up paying 10 cents. What a ripoff. Screw this". Sure, this thought might be subconscious, and they might continue trading for awhile, but you will be hitting them where it hurts - their perception. They will have uncertainty - they will never know for certain how much fees they will be paying. In the long term, IMO this is worse than just having them pay a relatively high fixed fee (like we have right now.)

I agree that fee uncertainty is a major problem. As a decentralized exchange somethings will have to be different because we don't have a natural way to do anti-sybil like the centralized counterparts. Fees are an anti-sybil attack solution.

A major goal of BTS 2 was to remove fee uncertainty and that is why every transaction explicitly states the fee that will be paid.

[CryptoPrometheus]

"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??

Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.

So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?

I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.

Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...

"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"

I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways. 

It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.

Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.

Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?

Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?

Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!

I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! 

It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. 

Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.

So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. 

By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! 

Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.

Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! 

Think about it this way

No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.

- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.

How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative?  Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?

Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro!  But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed and this forum. Constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".

There are two different ideas that I believe you are conflating, and it would be good to separate them for purposes of clarity.   

The notion that recognizing the FACT that Cryptonomex has proven their qualifications as expert coders (and thus capable of auditing any future graphene code) is the same thing as agreeing with the SUBJECTIVE features/ developmental decisions that they have made thus far is false. These are two separate things.

I will not take your comments about "going along with everything Dan says" personally, as I have often disagreed with Dan's approach (you can check my posts in this very thread), but nevertheless I agree that there are perhaps a number of people who think this way. So be it.

I am much less concerned with the "masses" of followers, than I am with the few who would seek to undermine a legitimate organization because there is some "better solution" that might be out there. Of course there is always a better solution.. If you are going to get upset with someone for pointing out the flaws in your argument, or throw up straw men to vent your frustrations, you are welcome to do that. But I stand by my statement - it is foolish to "hire someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assume that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing".

If you intended your original post to be a springboard for further discussion, then perhaps you should consider my comments as a reflection on the situation as it currently stands, rather than an attack on your personal philosophy about whether or not things should continue in the same way.

[NotSmart]

Points if you can guess who's who

[bytemaster]

Regarding proposal #1:

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case.  At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders.  A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.

I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.

Agreed with Ander. In my opinion, 0.5 BTS for trading operation would be good (0.1 BTS for LTM).

To some extent lowering the fee to below $0.03 (BTC fees) starts to lose its anti-spam benefits. Once you lose anti-spam benefits you need to start looking into rate limiting. Once you have rate-limiting solutions you might as well take the fee to 0.

At 100 TPS sustained spam and $0.01 per transaction for LTM you end up generating $3600 per hour in revenue. I suppose that might be enough to make spamming unprofitable and unsustainable.  $0.05 for non lifetime member.

So perhaps we can get by with simply lowering most fees and avoid the rate-limiting worker proposal saving $8000 of development time. 

We will still want to have the market fees go into the referral rewards program and implement the cash-back on order cancelation.

[kuro112]

"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??

Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.

So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?

I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.

Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...

"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"

I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways. 

It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.

Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.

Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?

Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?

Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!

I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! 

It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. 

Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.

So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. 

By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! 

Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.

Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! 

Think about it this way

No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.

- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.

How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative?  Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?

Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro!  But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".

you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.

I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.

[Tuck Fheman]

"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??

Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.

So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?

I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.

Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...

"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"

I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways. 

It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.

Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.

Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?

Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?

Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!

I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! 

It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. 

Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.

So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. 

By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! 

Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.

Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! 

Think about it this way

No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.

- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.

How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative?  Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?

Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro!  But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".

[clayop]

Why don't we go back and try BTS1 fee level again?
0.5 BTS for transfer and 0.1 BTS for order (0 for cancellation)

In BTS1, we didn't have any malicious attacks nor users complains.

[CryptoPrometheus]

@bytemaster, In your quest to make BitShares more like the centralized exchanges, (your  "0 fees" plan) you have proposed a solution that will once again take BitShares farther away from the centralized exchanges, by creating a "global volume" based fees system that toggles up and down at random times, depending on total global usage of the exchange. As far as I know (I might be wrong), there are no centralized exchanges that do this.

Think about it - you are talking about penalizing people for using the exchange while many other people are using it - how absurd is that? Sure, there might be a logical reason for it (as an anti-spam measure, you cannot have 0 fees without this - or so you have determined), but it will almost certainly be PERCEIVED as a random tax on users.

You can't have uncertainty in the fee schedule. It must be reliable - users must know how much they are going to pay before they initiate the transaction. We can't say "you might get this or you might get that, depending on factors beyond your control." If we do this, Mark my words, we are going to have a bunch of pissed off users every time the global volume increases. We are going to run into the same problem as we have now - people are not going to look at this in a 100% rational way.

They won't see the big picture. They will say "I assumed that I would only pay 2 cents, but a bunch of people were online and trading that day so I ended up paying 10 cents. What a ripoff. Screw this". Sure, this thought might be subconscious, and they might continue trading for awhile, but you will be hitting them where it hurts - their perception. They will have uncertainty - they will never know for certain how much fees they will be paying. In the long term, IMO this is worse than just having them pay a relatively high fixed fee (like we have right now.)

[clayop]

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?

Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS  for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.

Glad some others are seeing this the same way.  Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS.  I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well.  Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?

I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.

@Ander Why don't you comment on the google drive document? I support your idea and by following your solution, we can save a lot of time and money (approximately 16% of the costs).

[tonyk]

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?

Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS  for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.

Glad some others are seeing this the same way.  Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS.  I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well.  Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?

I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.

Are you positive you understand all the element in #2?

As I said up the thread it has some big potential negative impacts, which need addressing.
For example - It seems the LM traders might get the LM discount only on half of their trades.

[Ander]

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?

Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS  for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.

Glad some others are seeing this the same way.  Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS.  I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well.  Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?

I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.

[btswildpig]

Once upon a time.......(not calling a member on the forum , just a sentence ) , there was something called "the new dilution can be vested in years" . Is that still the case ?