What is better name for "Rate Limited Free Transactions" feature?

[JonnyB]

Zero-fee = Fee-free = Feeless = Bytemaster's original idea -> Not suitable name for abit's implementation.

Balance based fees -> Also misleading, because fees are not going to change based on balance. Fees will be same for everybody, but depending on how much your balance is, you have credits that you can use to pay the fees.

Come on people, this shouldn't be so hard. Only scammers and pump'n'dumpers will market their products with vague and misleading names and descriptions.

This is what happens if we choose misleading name for feature:
"Oh, cool, you have zerofee transactions! That's best thing ever! I'm going to start using Bitshares and tell all my friends about it!"
"Uhh... Wait a minute... There are lots of fees here... This is not a zerofee system..."
"So you lied to me! Bitshares must be a scam project. Fuck you guys, I'm going to tell everybody that Bitshares sucks and it should be avoided like a plague."

Never ever lie to your customers. It will backfire every time.

free transactions is what it people will call it. Lets use that to avoid confusion.

[Samupaha]

Zero-fee = Fee-free = Feeless = Bytemaster's original idea -> Not suitable name for abit's implementation.

Balance based fees -> Also misleading, because fees are not going to change based on balance. Fees will be same for everybody, but depending on how much your balance is, you have credits that you can use to pay the fees.

Come on people, this shouldn't be so hard. Only scammers and pump'n'dumpers will market their products with vague and misleading names and descriptions.

This is what happens if we choose misleading name for feature:
"Oh, cool, you have zerofee transactions! That's best thing ever! I'm going to start using Bitshares and tell all my friends about it!"
"Uhh... Wait a minute... There are lots of fees here... This is not a zerofee system..."
"So you lied to me! Bitshares must be a scam project. Fuck you guys, I'm going to tell everybody that Bitshares sucks and it should be avoided like a plague."

Never ever lie to your customers. It will backfire every time.

[tbone]

ZERO-FEE transactions


Moto:
ZERO-FEE are FREE !!!

How about [NO FEE transactions]?  It's a little easier to say.  Either that or simply [FREE transactions].

[Pheonike]

How about,

Balance based fees

[hadrian]

"ZERO-FEE Transactions" is good.

Also consider "FEE-FREE Transactions".

( I prefer zero-fee though! I think)

[Stan]

ZERO-FEE transactions


Moto:
ZERO-FEE are FREE !!!

I love it!

[liondani]

ZERO-FEE transactions


Moto:
ZERO-FEE are FREE !!!

[Samupaha]

just call it what it is:  free transactions

if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders

You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

Yeah, I like this too.

Samupaha makes a good point from the newbie perspective: their transactions are not free unless they acquire a sufficient stake. What amount of stake they need to acquire to do X is not necessarily obvious. To enable micro-transactions for example for apps like IoT, how much stake is necessary for what period of time?

I still like abit's approach, I think it has some advantages over BM's, primarily that it achieves most of the desired affect with a huge reduction of effort to implement, as well as preserving existing fee structures for those that may rely on them. I do see it more as a "fee subsidy pool based on stake" than rate limitation. There is nothing that limits the transaction rate, not a thing. It's just a matter of whether the cost of those transactions will be higher or lower, which is based on transaction rate and stake size.

Abit's implementation is great because it doesn't change the functionality of current Bitshares model that much. We can implement it without any troubles. It's really fine compromise between our current system and Bytemaster's idea of feeless blockchain.

But the idea of feeless blockchain is still pretty damn attractive. Graphene-based feeless blockchain would be just perfect for IoT-projects. Truely state of the art what comes to performance. It would be very valuable as a sidechain for Bitshares (as I wrote on the Possible sidechains projects thread).

[Thom]

I agree with karnal. Rate-limitation is the technically correct term .. but no one precents us from using something like 'blockchain boost' as a marketing name ..

Talking about @abit's implementation, if shareholders earn a tradable token for fees .. we could literally establish a 'fee-market' .. people can buy fees or become a BTS shareholder

Current implementation doesn't support trading/proxy of coin-days-as-fees. I have ideas about implementing it (like you mentioned above), but will only do that when really needed -- I wrote some details in Chinese board earlier, got almost 0 support so far.

I don't know if such an extension would be a good thing or not, but I do agree with Samupaha that it would change the nature of the core idea substantially. IMO the fee pool should not be transferable.

Samupaha makes a good point from the newbie perspective: their transactions are not free unless they acquire a sufficient stake. What amount of stake they need to acquire to do X is not necessarily obvious. To enable micro-transactions for example for apps like IoT, how much stake is necessary for what period of time?

I still like abit's approach, I think it has some advantages over BM's, primarily that it achieves most of the desired affect with a huge reduction of effort to implement, as well as preserving existing fee structures for those that may rely on them. I do see it more as a "fee subsidy pool based on stake" than rate limitation. There is nothing that limits the transaction rate, not a thing. It's just a matter of whether the cost of those transactions will be higher or lower, which is based on transaction rate and stake size.

[TravelsAsia]

just call it what it is:  free transactions


if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders



You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

I agree 100%.  Free transactions is what it is, and we should call it that.  Anything else will just sound negative or cause unnecessary confusion...aside from possibly adding "for shareholders", which I think would be the only sensible caveat.

  -- Not much to add.

[tbone]

just call it what it is:  free transactions


if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders



You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

I agree 100%.  Free transactions is what it is, and we should call it that.  Anything else will just sound negative or cause unnecessary confusion...aside from possibly adding "for shareholders", which I think would be the only sensible caveat.

[abit]

I agree with karnal. Rate-limitation is the technically correct term .. but no one precents us from using something like 'blockchain boost' as a marketing name ..

Talking about @abit's implementation, if shareholders earn a tradable token for fees .. we could literally establish a 'fee-market' .. people can buy fees or become a BTS shareholder

Current implementation doesn't support trading/proxy of coin-days-as-fees. I have ideas about implementing it (like you mentioned above), but will only do that when really needed -- I wrote some details in Chinese board earlier, got almost 0 support so far.

[Akado]

just call it what it is:  free transactions


if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders



You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

Yep, this. It's simple and good marketing.

[JonnyB]

just call it what it is:  free transactions


if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders



You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

[pc]

The original blogpost is IMO quite clear: How to build a Decentralized Application without Fees

You're right, the blog post talks about a blockchain without any fees, where you have to increase your stake if you want to make more transactions. I must have mixed that up.