Rate Limited Free Transactions Feature Implemented

[xeroc]

How about a codename for this hard fork: "Fast Forward"?

[Samupaha]

Come on people, we can't repeat again all the marketing mistakes we always do.

When (or if) this will be rolled out, everybody should be marketing in any way they can. Version number will be changed to 2.1 to signal that Bitshares has been changed in a major way. This is not even a cheap gimmick but totally true. After this change Bitshares will become somewhat usable for projects that need micropayments. And Bitshares can be used all over the world, even in poor countries where people can't afford to pay our current fees. This will be first economically viable option for third world countries – with smartcoins this is a huge opportunity for billions of people.

All the basic things have to be done:
- Information on the website: main page, technology overview page and blog
- Press release
- Try to get Bytemaster to as many podcasts as possible
- Pictures to be shared on social media
- etc, add your own

Let's not fail again and keep a new feature as our own secret. Hasn't anybody been wondering why FBA isn't getting any traction? Because nobody knows about it. There's not even a mention about FBA in the website!

I'd like to see some marketing budget to be included in the worker proposal, for example for a short video that explains clearly how Bitshares will function from now on. This revolutionary feature has to be understood, otherwise people won't get interested and won't care.

[abit]

So this is being developed already? What are the costs? I know the feedback was very positive but it still needs to go through the voting process.

You bid? 

Could we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.

E.g.
I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.

But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.

It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.

I just don't like to do that right now. A bit complex but not impossible. Whales is likely to lease they coin-days to others so the platform will earn less if this is implemented. If somebody jumps out and say "hey I pay you to do it" maybe I'll do it.

[Thom]

Dang, you didn't have to be rude.

Everyone knows that Dan works for us, but you don't have to rub his nose in it all the time

You  and I may know that, but not everyone is as tuned in as we are. Perhaps it was a but forceful but it's threads like this that erode the public's perception of BitShares governance not being centralized.

We need to deeply internalize the concept of decentralization such that it exudes from everything we do and say. So I disagree, we DO need to keep pushing this in anyone's face that doesn't first ask, "What do the shareholders want?"  It's a metter of PR & marketing.

[Erlich Bachman]

Because we have the highest barrier to entry (must have BTS to create a wallet that costs money), we must have free (rate limited) transactions to make up for the initial ridiculousness.

[Akado]

So this is being developed already? What are the costs? I know the feedback was very positive but it still needs to go through the voting process.

[Thom]

Yeah, maybe we are jumping the gun a little with the 2.1 name change.

If anything, this needs to be put to a vote.

I concur on both points completely. If we deviate from the publicized version convention moves out of the technical arena an into marketing. In that arena the shareholders not CNX should be the "deciders".

Who owns this project anyways? Lets get in the habit asking that question more often and challenging centralized decisions.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.

I think it can stand on it's own without a version numbering change.

Given current updates and the proposal for the change, it is likely going to come in at maybe 2.0.2.

I think it would be best to stick to our versioning setup to keep it consistent for all devs.

[Bhuz]

Could we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.

E.g.
I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.

But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.

It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.

[bytemaster]

I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.

Good call.  It will be a hard forking change.

[Samupaha]

I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.

[pc]

Still don't get, what is coin days and how is this related to fees?

If you hold one BTS for one day you have accumulated one coin-day. If you hold two BTS for a day (or one BTS for two days) you have accumulated two coins-days.
The idea is to allow (partial) payment of fees with coin-days instead of BTS. I. e. if you're holding a certain number of BTS for a certain time you can for example make one transaction for free.

[yvv]

Still don't get, what is coin days and how is this related to fees?

[abit]

@abit:

Great work!  Just wondering if you've made any progress with dynamic adjustment based on load?

Won't do that in the near future.

[tbone]

@abit:

Great work!  Just wondering if you've made any progress with dynamic adjustment based on load?