Author Topic: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?  (Read 33721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
its simple

rate limited / time share

all dex trades will be free or very cheap  and memberships rewards still in effect

small players cant make trades and cancel too many times or they get locked out for short period

big players can spam network, but need to purchase big stake first

coupled with % based fees, BTS now is competitive with DAG mesh networks like IOTA and cheaper than Ethereum

Wow this is actually...a good idea!

So essentially one could make a limited number of 'free' transactions in a time period, and trades made would have a percentage based fee.  (I've wanted to see a percentage based trading fee with incredibly low base fee for a while).  Power users would need to buy a lot of stake to get enough free trades?



One worry is that we need to make sure we avoid blockchain bloat so that Bitshares is sustainable in the future. 

We need to ensure we do not allow spamming (including the possibility of someone making 10000 accounts and using all of them to spam, essentially performing a sybil attack on the free transaction limit). 

We need to ensure that the network is still generating some fees.  (Percentage based trading fees is great).  This is needed both for the referral program to work, and for BTS to have value.

One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils.  If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake.  If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?
No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

I invite you to read my post in the first page of this thread.

 tldr: having the ability to set some fee to 0, doesn't mean we have to to actually set *all* the fees to 0 and lose all the revenue for the network

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 08:45:03 pm by yvv »

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
its simple

rate limited / time share

all dex trades will be free or very cheap  and memberships rewards still in effect

small players cant make trades and cancel too many times or they get locked out for short period

big players can spam network, but need to purchase big stake first

coupled with % based fees, BTS now is competitive with DAG mesh networks like IOTA and cheaper than Ethereum

Wow this is actually...a good idea!

So essentially one could make a limited number of 'free' transactions in a time period, and trades made would have a percentage based fee.  (I've wanted to see a percentage based trading fee with incredibly low base fee for a while).  Power users would need to buy a lot of stake to get enough free trades?



One worry is that we need to make sure we avoid blockchain bloat so that Bitshares is sustainable in the future. 

We need to ensure we do not allow spamming (including the possibility of someone making 10000 accounts and using all of them to spam, essentially performing a sybil attack on the free transaction limit). 

We need to ensure that the network is still generating some fees.  (Percentage based trading fees is great).  This is needed both for the referral program to work, and for BTS to have value.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike


We need to flush this out and begin working on it immediately. BM needs to put together a worker proposal so we can vote and get started. Now that the idea public, you someone when begin developing this. The clock is ticketing. Lets not let someone get crdit for bringing this innovation to market first!!

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
I really like the idea of no fees, and some form of coin days being used to prevent spam.  Free transfers would be a huge marketing plus.

I would like to see the ability to transact above and beyond the limited number of free transactions.  This would charge a fee of course.  I would also like to see the rate at which coin days are earned higher for LTM. 

It would also be good if you could point your coin days earned on one account to another account.  That way you could run a bot, without having all of your funds accessible to your bot.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Q1. How can we measure the network capacity?

Q2. When network is actively used and I own a small portion of BTS, how much I have to pay to transfer or order creation?

1) ATM there is a cap on 100 tps. That could probably be considered the network capacity atm.

2) In theory you are always allowed to use your allocated "bandwidth". Even if everyone is using all their allowed cut, you would still be able to use your own, since it is kind of "reserved" for you.

You should also consider that it would be very difficult that all the shareholders will be using the network as much as they can, in the exactly same time.

Moreover there are algorithms that could give you* priority over others**

*you as user asking for a low-normal usage of the network
**others as users using all the bandwidth they can use
(maybe depending on coindays earned)


Anyway, if we want to allow an user to allocate more than what he have right on (based on his % bts owning), we should charge a fee for it. The amount of that fee would be decided exactly as all the current fees are (shareholders/committee)

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Q1. How can we measure the network capacity?

Q2. When network is actively used and I own a small portion of BTS, how much I have to pay to transfer or order creation?
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
So if we get rid of fees and remove the ability for the blockchain to make money... How are we going to pay the witness's to sign blocks once we run out of bts in the reserve pool??

Look at my post. "What this means" section if you do not want to read it all.
TLDR: the new fee system do not force no one to remove *all* fees. The new system would just give the *ability* to decide *if* and *which* fee we do not want. Without the risk of spam attacks.
This does not necessarily mean remove revenue income for the network.

anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?

As you already know, with the current fee system, we have to charge a fee on any operation just to prevent possible spam attacks.

We have several operations that really do not represent, for their nature, a revenue for the network; just to list some: call_order_update, account_update, asset_publish_feed, proposal_ops, witness_update and others.

Among these operations, there are a couple that are already preventing some business to move on bts. I am referring to metaexchange, that fairly stated that having to handle order_create and order_cancel operations fee for their costumers, is a no-go.


What Bytemaster come up with on last mumle?

Basically a new fee system that would allow us to really decide *which* operation should have a fee and which don't, *without* the risk of exposing the network to a spam attack.

From mumble:
Quote
"Could you imagine a scenario where the blockchain have no fees at all, instead all the accounts were rate limited proportional to their balance?"

"As far as viewing your bts as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So if someone own 1% of bts, he can consume 1% of the network capacity."

"Think of it in another way: imagine everyone is doing time-share on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain space when they want to do a transaction, and with this method no one would be able to flood the network because they can only consume their allowed allocation of the bandwidth."


What this means?

-We could limit ourselves to remove the fee *only* on operations that do not represent a revenue income for the network, allowing business like metaexchange to easily move their backend on bts platform. All of this without the risk of being attacked by spammers and without losing the ability of the network to be profitable.

-We could push ourselves a bit forward, allowing LTM to have discounts on some operation and actually 0 fee on others. This would allow the network to remain profitable meantime being marketed as *free* for some aspects.
(e.g. profit stream from: trading, account_create, account_upgrade, asset_create, ltm restricted features like bond market etc. plus: marketing bts as the first(?!) blockchain allowing free transfer)

-We could remove *all* fees, being marketed as a totally free blockchain, losing all kind of revenue stream

Fact is: it would give us lot more freedom from fees point of view.
Edit: and could also allow new business to arise, eg. microtransactions, maybe chat on the blockchain...


IMO. In general it is a very nice idea.
I would really like to see the community discussing it seriously.
There are for sure some sensitive points that need to be addressed tho.



Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
As I said I am not sure how all this works and who pays who..
We  need people to verify the transactions (witness) , people who want to develop further bitshares (workers) and people who make decisions (committee) about the fees and other things not the salary of witness . The way I am thinking it is that these are 3 different and separate categories of people who can be paid by the shareholders proportionally to each shareholder holdings i.e. everyone's shares will be reduced everyday by a small amount and be paid to those people. If one wants to retain his % of holdings on the system he will have to buy back the shares..it is a circular mechanism and no need for fees..

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Can we consider not to have any fees whatsoever (just antispam fees) so we can enable micro transactions and do not pay witnesses or committee or anyone from the fees generated?

The way I see it is that if I am a big shareholder I have an incentive to pay people witness and committee to do what they do. So the shareholders should vote for committee and witness as usual, negotiate their salary and pay them accordingly proportionally to their shares. Eventually shareholders will find the balance of hiring the correct people to do the job done properly. Not all of them will have the same salary and their salary will be based on reputation and proper handling.

If I am a big company with lots of funds and I can take over bitshares, I would vote for the people I want and pay them a salary from my holdings and make sure they do the job properly otherwise my shares would fall in value.

So why do we need fees in the first place? Personally I think that current fees are very low but a lot of people have different opinion especially Chinese people who are used not to pay any fees. So it is more important to bring liquidity and these people to trade in a free fee platform than to generate some insignificant amounts from fees..

Maybe I am thinking something wrong here since I don't know the exact mechanics but anyway..

So you want the committee members to pay the witness's to produce blocks?  Why even separate the 2 then?  There would be no separation of power and the witness would be at the mercy of the committee member that is paying them.

All these no fee ideas are non-starters... No one has been able to identify a viable way to pay witness's once the reserve pool runs out.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Can we consider not to have any fees whatsoever (just antispam fees) so we can enable micro transactions and do not pay witnesses or committee or anyone from the fees generated?

The way I see it is that if I am a big shareholder I have an incentive to pay people witness and committee to do what they do. So the shareholders should vote for committee and witness as usual, negotiate their salary and pay them accordingly proportionally to their shares. Eventually shareholders will find the balance of hiring the correct people to do the job done properly. Not all of them will have the same salary and their salary will be based on reputation and proper handling.

If I am a big company with lots of funds and I can take over bitshares, I would vote for the people I want and pay them a salary from my holdings and make sure they do the job properly otherwise my shares would fall in value.

So why do we need fees in the first place? Personally I think that current fees are very low but a lot of people have different opinion especially Chinese people who are used not to pay any fees. So it is more important to bring liquidity and these people to trade in a free fee platform than to generate some insignificant amounts from fees..

Maybe I am thinking something wrong here since I don't know the exact mechanics but anyway..

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.

Do witnesses actually need to pay a fee to sign a block? A fee is an anti-spam measure, and witnesses can be expected to sign at regular intervals and no more.



Uh... no. Witnesses don't pay fees to sign blocks, they *are* paid for signing blocks.
Witnesses do pay fees to publish price feeds, but I suppose that fee would be eliminated as well.

So if we get rid of fees and remove the ability for the blockchain to make money... How are we going to pay the witness's to sign blocks once we run out of bts in the reserve pool??