Author Topic: Please Update Your Nodes For Zero Fee Transactions  (Read 3619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
1) Was this put to a community vote?  This seems like one of those issues that we should have a formal community process for...like officers propose an amendment, assign a voting address and a voting window, community members & officers vote, officers store vote/address results independently in another blockchain to prevent future manipulation and allow independent verification...like maybe datacoin?

No, rather this change was requested in order to allow community votes. I wasn't expecting it to be contentious. For future issues where we need broad consensus and a mandate, I think a community vote would be appropriate. Don't think we need an independent blockchain - our blockchain is perfectly secure, all the coins depend on it.

2) Tx fees aren't much right now, probably won't even be noticed.  And I know it's only an optional zero fee, but some users will choose it.  I know other coins have changed tx fees, but MMC's long-term outlook - economics, ability to meet manifesto, effect on current price, etc - should be much more sensitive to network transfer fees than other coins, and so should be given more review.

Even an option for zero fee means an impact on future long-term network revenue.  And even changing fees creates future price uncertainty by signaling that monetary policy can change arbitrarily.  (A formal community review and voting process would counter that...)

You're overthinking this a lot. My view is that transaction fees in other coins are really broken and we'll likely be the first coin to do it right. At the moment transaction fees are 99% a usability issue.

We just sent a strong market signal to value MMC relative to future fiat (i.e., network energy costs), rather than relative to future BTC/other cryptos.  MMC market volatility should increase in the short-term as beta with BTC/USD moves to unity.

3) Long-term, if you assume the MMC "product" is voting on the blockchain, and the cost of a vote is a tx fee, network revenue approaches network tx fees.  Especially as block rewards go down in the future.  Long-term, margin between network tx fees and electricity costs gives market incentives to mine and provides economic empowerment to meet the manifesto.  We've now reduced long-term mining margins, incentives, and empowerment. 

My view is that (in the long term) transaction fees should be related to cost of processing, applied to every transaction, and not require any action or decision from the user.



“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
Overall, probably no real effect - the network will adapt - but I like discussing valuation.  From an economic perspective, still not sure I like this...though I probably would have made the same decision...

1) Was this put to a community vote?  This seems like one of those issues that we should have a formal community process for...like officers propose an amendment, assign a voting address and a voting window, community members & officers vote, officers store vote/address results independently in another blockchain to prevent future manipulation and allow independent verification...like maybe datacoin?

2) Tx fees aren't much right now, probably won't even be noticed.  And I know it's only an optional zero fee, but some users will choose it.  I know other coins have changed tx fees, but MMC's long-term outlook - economics, ability to meet manifesto, effect on current price, etc - should be much more sensitive to network transfer fees than other coins, and so should be given more review.

Even an option for zero fee means an impact on future long-term network revenue.  And even changing fees creates future price uncertainty by signaling that monetary policy can change arbitrarily.  (A formal community review and voting process would counter that...)

We just sent a strong market signal to value MMC relative to future fiat (i.e., network energy costs), rather than relative to future BTC/other cryptos.  MMC market volatility should increase in the short-term as beta with BTC/USD moves to unity.

3) Long-term, if you assume the MMC "product" is voting on the blockchain, and the cost of a vote is a tx fee, network revenue approaches network tx fees.  Especially as block rewards go down in the future.  Long-term, margin between network tx fees and electricity costs gives market incentives to mine and provides economic empowerment to meet the manifesto.  We've now reduced long-term mining margins, incentives, and empowerment. 

We used to assume a share's price was equal to the net present value of all discounted future earnings.  In this case, network transaction fees.  Any fundamental analyst, if there are any left, would expect share price to go down from a zero fee option.  The only counterargument is that current fees were inhibiting growth of services denominated in MMC, which does not seem likely.  That argument seems very similar to Dodd-Frank, cash for clunkers, QE, etc...

Seems like the officers just lowered future network earnings, reduced margins for future mining, and lowered future network security.  In the best-case, in an attempt to spur investment in short-term service development.  In the worst-case, counter to the manifesto and in a manner that could be considered fundamental price manipulation (vice technical market manipulation) and without shareholder consent? 

4) On a related note, I would like to know who was part of the 15,000+ MMC sell-off on bter overnight.

Most movements are probably obscured by bter wallet addresses, but maybe we can work backward and do some snooping.  Or we could leave private individuals' private finances private......Nah.

I'll throw down a 150 MMC tip for anyone who does a network analysis and writes up anything the blockchain can tell us about movements into or out of bter last night. 

Anyone else interested?
You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg

Offline isaacgoldbourne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
You have a coin that's made for voting.  The miners count the votes.  The price is a transaction fee for each vote distributed out to the miners.  Transaction fees are miner incomes...

Did...did the Officers just unilaterally decide to take income away from the miners??
The amount miners earn in tx fees per block is tiny, not even 0.5% so I don't think this is a problem.
MemoryDice now available! https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1886.0
 Vote for me to be CNO of memorycoin if you want these services. Just send 1 satoshi!
CNO: MVTEcno2tbsJWj7AQEyEjgk72j94hbPHFm

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
So...did we just create a centrally controlled monetary / interest rate / market policy if Officers can arbitrarily change the value of future miner income expected from transfer fees?

No - miners get to choose which transactions to accept or reject. Officers can make recommendations and publish new software and even call it 'official' if they want, but so can anyone else.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
Add to that the variable number or miner, it will be hard to do it right. :(

Humans don't do well with non-linear systems, they're remarkably linear-minded.

So...did we just create a centrally controlled monetary / interest rate / market policy if Officers can arbitrarily change the value of future miner income expected from transfer fees?

So...what if the Officers change?

 :)

PWR UP: MVTEceoftKAgPVbf7BgbqkPaRmKoZdbZRQ

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg

Offline SlyWax

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
No! The miners are free to ignore any transaction they see fit - allowing zero fee transactions is just a convenience until we can calculate transaction fees properly based on block difficulty (energy price)

Block dificulty doesn't always relate to energy price.
The last example was the increase in efficiency of CPU miner : same energy, higher efficiency, higher difficulty.
Add to that the variable number or miner, it will be hard to do it right. :(

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
No! The miners are free to ignore any transaction they see fit - allowing zero fee transactions is just a convenience until we can calculate transaction fees properly based on block difficulty (energy price)
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
You have a coin that's made for voting.  The miners count the votes.  The price is a transaction fee for each vote distributed out to the miners.  Transaction fees are miner incomes...

Did...did the Officers just unilaterally decide to take income away from the miners??

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg

Offline SlyWax

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Fine, but relaying 0 fee transaction is still DDOSable.
Maybe setup a maximum for the buffer of 0 fee transactions, so that no one can flood the network.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Accepting 0 fee transaction open you to DDOS, I hope there is a priority system.
People should be able to refuse 0 fee transactions.

There is a priority system so transactions with fees will get accepted first if there is contention - shouldn't happen for a while, or if there's a DDOS. We'll be re-implementing fees based on difficultly, but not yet.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline SlyWax

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Accepting 0 fee transaction open you to DDOS, I hope there is a priority system.
People should be able to refuse 0 fee transactions.

emre

  • Guest
192.241.155.129 - updated to latest commit.

Offline agran

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
MMC: MEKdGj95hNjuYn8xiw4iz1iQUQGA47UBMB | BTC: 1agran1xQ4Nwiqv1qegBDF6kqZdfESMUG

Offline Delinquency

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Updated my node.

Are these transactions lower priority vs. 0.0001 MMC transactions?

Offline FaSan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile