Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?

[merivercap]

Hey all...

1)  Last year we had 93.8% in favor of BM's "zero fee" proposal. (75 out of 80 votes).   I'd like to make a push to implement this.    That's as unanimous as you may ever get in this community.  BM wrote a blog about it here: How to build a decentralized application without fees.

2) @abit has already created an implementation of this feature that works! See here: https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-2/tree/bts2-bts-limited-free-trx  Thanks @abit!!!

I'd like to make a push to have a vote on this and have this implemented as a priority in the coming weeks! 

That will solve a lot of the complications around fee structures and the current variable and high fees we are experiencing .  What do you guys think? 
 

[bytemaster]

To be fair, speculating and trading are very different skills than software development and thus something we wouldn't necessarily use.

I get the point about eating our own dog food though. 

[Akado]

Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.

Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?

In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost

at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...

I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.

You are suggesting that BM may have a tendency to recommend more new features/changes in order to gain from worker proposals for those features/changes.  Being a salesperon, one might want to sell you his product (whether you need it or not) and being a worker, one might want to find more work to do.  It does present a possibility of a conflict of interest.

However, even though a salesperson may try to sell you his product, you, as the consumer, have a choice to buy it or not.  And you would need to know if you indeed need the product, how much the product cost and whether it is worth the price tag.   How would you evaluate it?

When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.

PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously'  correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do more  work speculation.

Because BM and the devs are working hard on bts each day. And because there are many others in the community, who like you, are passionate about bitshares.  Only working together can we make it a success.

I think he meant, since BM has so many ideas, that at least he should put his money where his mouth is. The colateral was used as an example because it's known liquidity is a problem and from Tony's view (correct me if I'm wrong) not even the ones who designed, use the system. The creators of the system did, indeed, create it but don't even use it, which seems odd. Something like they taking the initiative so everyone could follow up and the problems we complain about get solved instead of having people just complaining about how things don't get better. They don't because not even the creators of the system use it. That is my interpretation from Tony's post, which - although I dhink we shouldn't depend on them - makes sense and would set a good precedence. If people see the big boys with large stakes doing it, means it's safe, hence, they can do it too and the ball gets rolling.

If they don't even feel comfortable using that much collateral it's because they don't trust the system they designed themselves. If they did, however, this problem could probably be solved or at least have a better chance of being solver. That's what I get from the post and while everyone is free to do whatever they want with their own money, it makes sense.

[cube]

Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.

Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?

In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost

at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...

I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.

You are suggesting that BM may have a tendency to recommend more new features/changes in order to gain from worker proposals for those features/changes.  Being a salesperon, one might want to sell you his product (whether you need it or not) and being a worker, one might want to find more work to do.  It does present a possibility of a conflict of interest.

However, even though a salesperson may try to sell you his product, you, as the consumer, have a choice to buy it or not.  And you would need to know if you indeed need the product, how much the product cost and whether it is worth the price tag.   How would you evaluate it?

When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.

PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously'  correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do more  work speculation.

Because BM and the devs are working hard on bts each day. And because there are many others in the community, who like you, are passionate about bitshares.  Only working together can we make it a success.

[clemahieu]

The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

Could you elaborate more on how the shorting can be done and what are the gains one can get out of it?  How expensive it is to carry out such a shorting move?

I forgot where I heard it but they were trying to say someone could short-sell assets on a Proof of Stake protocol and then use their stake to make destructive changes to the network, they would lose their stake but make a greater profit through the short sale.

To be clear I think this attack is completely impractical and I think the easiest counter argument is you can make this conceptual attack on any asset including a PoW system.

[kenCode]

So far I'm for. Like to hear from @kenCode

I love what @xeroc and @jakub are collaborating on.
I like what the marketing effect of touting "zero fees" would do for us, but I'd rather hear what they have to say. I am not a unique snowflake.
If we can profit from the referral program AND micro-transaction offerings, increase liquidity and make spamming/squatting undesirable then I'm happy.
Good luck with that guys, I've got work to do. Peace

[fav]

Raiblocks looks nice. If it works... Well once again bitshares missed an opportunity to be first in line.

[tonyk]

I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and

maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members

If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea

Zero-Fee (rate limited) is a cool exciting idea!

I am all for free lunches.   Who would not like free lunches?  I have seen the advantages of it being stated.  I would like to see the disadvantages (if any) being discussed too.  And what is the cost for implementing it.  I like to have tonky's view on it too.

Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.

Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?

In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost

at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...

I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.

When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.

PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously'  correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do more  work speculation.

[cube]

The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

Could you elaborate more on how the shorting can be done and what are the gains one can get out of it?  How expensive it is to carry out such a shorting move?

[btstip]

Hey fuzzy, here are the results of your tips...

• -banano-: has been credited 20 COPPERTICKET

Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21359.msg278144/topicseen.html#msg278144

Created by hybridd

[fuzzy]

I sold some BTS for IOTA because IOTA has free transactions for micropayments, but now BM propose "zero" transaction fees for low balances with scaling algos that still compensate lifetime members. I would sell IOTA and get back into BTS if this happens but committee must still vote right?

For bringing us such a valuable initiative i would like to thank you.  though it isnt much right now i suspect there will likely be times someday in the future when these will have value.
#sharebits "-banano-" 20 COPPERTICKET

Consider it thanks forngoing above and beyond.

[fuzzy]

The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

IMO fee PoS never had any advantages toward the larger ideal of cryptocurrency adoption.

always interested in having hangouts to bring people on board.  Also talking to some peeps from other cool projects.

[clemahieu]

The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

IMO fee PoS never had any advantages toward the larger ideal of cryptocurrency adoption.

[cube]

I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and

maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members

If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea

Zero-Fee (rate limited) is a cool exciting idea!

I am all for free lunches.   Who would not like free lunches?  I have seen the advantages of it being stated.  I would like to see the disadvantages (if any) being discussed too.  And what is the cost for implementing it.  I like to have tonky's view on it too.

[Akado]

I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and

maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members

If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea