Author Topic: How "Free transactions" feature have to be promoted - VERY IMPORTANT NOTE!  (Read 3370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Guys .. this is a decentralized business .. there is no need to agree on everything!
Just pick your preferred method and bring in users! :P

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
There is a reason why I really like the term "Rate limited Free Transactions" and the reason is that it contains only very simple words. As you have probably noticed ;) I am not a English native speaker. That gives me additional perspective, which I believe I share with most people on the world for which English is not a native language.

There is a great website http://www.wordcount.org/ where you can check the rank of English words based on the frequency in which they are appear in a real language.

For example words from "Proof of Work" have ranks:

Proof - 3435

of - 2

Work - 103


So I consider term "Proof of Work" as quite simple.

What about "Rate Limited Free Transactions"?

Rate - 500
Limited - 984
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

So... the worst rank in that case has a word "Transactions", which I think we cannot avoid to properly describe our feature. Besides "Transactions" worst rank is only 984.

What about "Transactions for shareholders"
Transactions - 4094
for - 12
shareholders - 3101

As you can see, shareholder is not a not very commonly use words. Besides... term "shareholders" is not very commonly used in cryptocurrency world. The reason for that is... because most of the world do not think about Bitcoin as a company. Of course Bitshares introduced DAC concept, but still it is not commonly used term.

How about Zero fee transactions?

In that case rank is:
Zero - 3895
Fee - 3251
Transactions - 4094

But the whole problem with that term is... that in my opinion it says nothing that you have to do something to have a possibility to make a free transactions (you have to have a stake)... or it not warns you that you that there is some limit for performing free transactions.

Perhaps something like "stake-weighted free transactions" would be more easily understood by most people.

This term is great in a describing how this actually is implemented. But in my opinion it is too technical.

Rank:
Stake - 4107
weighted - 1227
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

and... I have no information about conjunctions of words "stake-weighted"

And.. in my opinion stake-weighted term stands to close to mathematical concept of "weighted arithmetic mean"... which I guess a lot of people heard of in school, but I think it was not the favourite thing on math lessons in school for most of the world ;)

In summary:

"Rate Limited Free Transactions" for sure is not the best, but in my opinion it says a lot in a very simple way.

Good job with actually backing up your reasons with numbers.  I also like "Rate limited free transactions".  I think it will appeal and be understood by the broadest amount of people.

Outstanding! Agreed. +5% +5% +5%
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
There is a reason why I really like the term "Rate limited Free Transactions" and the reason is that it contains only very simple words. As you have probably noticed ;) I am not a English native speaker. That gives me additional perspective, which I believe I share with most people on the world for which English is not a native language.

There is a great website http://www.wordcount.org/ where you can check the rank of English words based on the frequency in which they are appear in a real language.

For example words from "Proof of Work" have ranks:

Proof - 3435

of - 2

Work - 103


So I consider term "Proof of Work" as quite simple.

What about "Rate Limited Free Transactions"?

Rate - 500
Limited - 984
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

So... the worst rank in that case has a word "Transactions", which I think we cannot avoid to properly describe our feature. Besides "Transactions" worst rank is only 984.

What about "Transactions for shareholders"
Transactions - 4094
for - 12
shareholders - 3101

As you can see, shareholder is not a not very commonly use words. Besides... term "shareholders" is not very commonly used in cryptocurrency world. The reason for that is... because most of the world do not think about Bitcoin as a company. Of course Bitshares introduced DAC concept, but still it is not commonly used term.

How about Zero fee transactions?

In that case rank is:
Zero - 3895
Fee - 3251
Transactions - 4094

But the whole problem with that term is... that in my opinion it says nothing that you have to do something to have a possibility to make a free transactions (you have to have a stake)... or it not warns you that you that there is some limit for performing free transactions.

Perhaps something like "stake-weighted free transactions" would be more easily understood by most people.

This term is great in a describing how this actually is implemented. But in my opinion it is too technical.

Rank:
Stake - 4107
weighted - 1227
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

and... I have no information about conjunctions of words "stake-weighted"

And.. in my opinion stake-weighted term stands to close to mathematical concept of "weighted arithmetic mean"... which I guess a lot of people heard of in school, but I think it was not the favourite thing on math lessons in school for most of the world ;)

In summary:

"Rate Limited Free Transactions" for sure is not the best, but in my opinion it says a lot in a very simple way.

Good job with actually backing up your reasons with numbers.  I also like "Rate limited free transactions".  I think it will appeal and be understood by the broadest amount of people.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
"Free Transactions for Shareholders"   is much more positive
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline EstefanTT

I think, we will get more people exited with "free transaction" than "rate limited free transcation".
There is too much words which lower the impact of the only word that matter ... " free". Also, the word "limited" is really not good, commercially speaking.

Besides, everybody knows that, off course, they won't be able to send thousand Tx for free. That some mecanism is build to avoid spamming. I don't think we need to specified it in the title.
We are not exagerating saying "free transaction". Anyone would be able to verify it by trying it, several times and it will be, indeed, free.

When you go a reception and it says on the card "free cocktails", you know that you can't come with a couple of big buckets to fill them with cocktails. What the card means is you can have some cocktails for free.

Let's not waste a amazing opportunity to put BitShares back where it belongs, under the spot lights !
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline noisy

There is a reason why I really like the term "Rate limited Free Transactions" and the reason is that it contains only very simple words. As you have probably noticed ;) I am not a English native speaker. That gives me additional perspective, which I believe I share with most people on the world for which English is not a native language.

There is a great website http://www.wordcount.org/ where you can check the rank of English words based on the frequency in which they are appear in a real language.

For example words from "Proof of Work" have ranks:

Proof - 3435

of - 2

Work - 103


So I consider term "Proof of Work" as quite simple.

What about "Rate Limited Free Transactions"?

Rate - 500
Limited - 984
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

So... the worst rank in that case has a word "Transactions", which I think we cannot avoid to properly describe our feature. Besides "Transactions" worst rank is only 984.

What about "Transactions for shareholders"
Transactions - 4094
for - 12
shareholders - 3101

As you can see, shareholder is not a not very commonly use words. Besides... term "shareholders" is not very commonly used in cryptocurrency world. The reason for that is... because most of the world do not think about Bitcoin as a company. Of course Bitshares introduced DAC concept, but still it is not commonly used term.

How about Zero fee transactions?

In that case rank is:
Zero - 3895
Fee - 3251
Transactions - 4094

But the whole problem with that term is... that in my opinion it says nothing that you have to do something to have a possibility to make a free transactions (you have to have a stake)... or it not warns you that you that there is some limit for performing free transactions.

Perhaps something like "stake-weighted free transactions" would be more easily understood by most people.

This term is great in a describing how this actually is implemented. But in my opinion it is too technical.

Rank:
Stake - 4107
weighted - 1227
Free - 449
Transactions - 4094

and... I have no information about conjunctions of words "stake-weighted"

And.. in my opinion stake-weighted term stands to close to mathematical concept of "weighted arithmetic mean"... which I guess a lot of people heard of in school, but I think it was not the favourite thing on math lessons in school for most of the world ;)

In summary:

"Rate Limited Free Transactions" for sure is not the best, but in my opinion it says a lot in a very simple way.
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Xeldal

  • Guest
I disagree with most of you.

Rate limited transactions is not a good marketing term because it has the word limited in it and won't mean much to average joe.

Why can't we just say free

"transactions for shareholders"
I agree.  I don't think we should be so fearful of saying free.  They are in fact free.
I think use free right up front and heavy with reckless abandon.  An exact explanation of the other governing factors can be found upon further investigation in a very simple follow up description.   I don't think it's necessary or wise to water down free. 

FREE TRANSACTIONS!!  (click here to find out how it's possible)

Transactions are in fact free so its not like it's a lie or deceiving. It would only be deceiving if you said "free unlimited transactions".

Even the caveat "transactions for shareholders" isn't necessary.  As no transaction is possible if you don't at least have something to transfer.  That's true everywhere with everything.

I've introduced the idea of free transfers to someone and I also got the response along the lines of a libertarian/anarchists critical bernie sanders free college unicorn and rainbows meme, so I understand that the potential is there for people to react that way.  However, the vast majority of people will not see it that way.  And those who do, it is not difficult to clarify.  It may be what you want to get people asking questions.  It could be a good sign that it so easily strikes a nerve, the follow up is what will be important.  Or I could be wrong of course.  IDK. : )

Quote
Sure, I'll pony up 10k BTS for the bounty.  Let me know who to pay when it's finished.
Whats the target amount here?  I'd be happy to chip in 10k also.

Offline onceuponatime

Sure, I'll pony up 10k BTS for the bounty.  Let me know who to pay when it's finished.







I'll add another 10k

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
I disagree with most of you.

Rate limited transactions is not a good marketing term because it has the word limited in it and won't mean much to average joe.

Why can't we just say free

"transactions for shareholders"
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline Thom

I would love to help by writing a formal BSIP proposal for this, however I am heavily involved with work on a local conference and several other related committees so I don't have the time this month.

Thanks for asking tho.

I should also withdraw my name from any significant editing work on the newsletter Stan & Cass are in the process of putting together. Not sure where that effort is, not much has been said about it. But that's off topic here anyway.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
Yeah, I agree that speaking only about "free transactions" is probably misleading and not a good way to market the feature. But still "rate limited free transactions" might not be the easiest way of marketing the feature. I'm not sure if people will get the point, especially if they don't know anything about Bitshares.

Can anybody come up with name or phrase that will tell more clearly what this is about?

My suggestion: "Subsidized transactions for BTS owners".

Offline Erlich Bachman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
  • I'm a pro
    • View Profile
Sure, I'll pony up 10k BTS for the bounty.  Let me know who to pay when it's finished.





You own the network, but who pays for development?

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4619
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
I'd like to quote something here, to see if anybody will respond to do something as a volunteer or a paid worker.
@Akado @noisy @Empirical1.2 @bitcoinsatan @jakub @tbone @cube @xeroc @kenCode @BunkerChain Labs @Xeldal @Thom @Samupaha


If I understood correctly, the Rate Limited Fees feature is super high priority? Would you like to write a feature definition document in the formal BSIP format for us? I'm a bit sick of requesting for deployment/hard fork without a detailed feature definition document.
Please refer to :
* BM's blog post: http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
* BSIP example: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0010.md
* my implementation post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.0.html
* Github feature request: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/603

Thanks a lot!
@Erlich Bachman will you help?
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline MarkoPaasila