thank you graphite,


higher transaction fee will benefit classic banking systems and approves the benefits of their cross-border CBDCs. so this is not a good idea.


putting such inflation on btc is against its whitepaper, but adding new fee structure could pass by a BIP, I think.

I do appreciate your explanation, Stompix.. but can't agree with.

you know, I am from banking sector and could say your money is not safe at banks which invest with your money (commercial banks) and this is why you always see "Bank Run" happen anywhere. if you do not let your bank to do business with your deposit money, then you should pay them to keep your money safe, because they also pay their armed guards for protecting the whole vault system 24/7 and this is a cost for bank.

in blockchain system with PoW consensus, miners have similar duty as armed-guards do in banking system. the one who pays the fees for regular transaction (6 month ago) are in business with blockchain but those who just left their coins to a blockchian system also need to pay the miners to watch their value with oxidation fee. your point of view is coming from rewarding system that does not wexist any more, and if you do not fix it, miners (armed guards) will turn off their miners and leave everything (including the safety of that guy with a transaction at 6 month ago) unprotected to 51% attackers.


true. once we agree on the concept, then there could be lots of solution out there for these sort of valid problems that your have mentioned above. for example there might be an extra space in new generation of blocks dedicated for older transactions and give the priority for formal transaction. an upgrade in protocol layer could solve it. but also think about all those lost BTCs in blockchain that could revive and get into circulation as rewards to miners. think about all aspects of this oxidation fee.

thank you BlackHat,


in fact the size of such prune-nodes for addresses with only one unspent tx will remain unchanged, but addresses with more than 1 unspent tx will summarize into one out tx, that I look for these sort of compression effect in blockchain-size.


true. and I really do not mean a tax system could help btc blockchain. just do research on situations that emerges hidden costs and try to pay them by new fees.

You know ABC, basically just think we need this brainstorming to meet more and more "Core Wallets" out there among BTC hodlers, instead of hardware and SPV wallets. [1] so prune nodes are very close to the concept if they save ALL unspent transactions (non-oxidized transactions) - which amazingly this could also provide potential compatibility with GDPR principles in future [2].

I also do follow ideas like assumeUTXO which shows us there are still some sort of improvements needed to get considered[3]:

"Rather than the status quo — setting a number of blocks and compressing historical blocks prior to that milestone — O’Beirne’s assumeUTXO is an experimental way for new Bitcoin full nodes to delay their need to verify historical transactions until the user receives recent transactions."

now look at this oxidation fee how forces the entire network and hodlers to achieve better performance of prune-nodes in bitcoin blockchian and facilitate ideas like assumeUTXO.


[1] https://coinguides.org/bitcoin-blockchain-pruning/
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5453832.0
[3] https://protos.com/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-new-type-of-pruned-node/

Thank you Stompix for reply,


Taxation is not a bad thing if spend in its true ways. spending taxes out of the taxed system is harmful but investing taxes on infrastructure of the taxed system always improves and creates value.

but lets look at the oxidation concept as a hidden cost, not taxation. imagine you have 6 x 50 USD banknote in your pocket. you are happy that have this money in cash and can spend it anywhere freely (lightening channels), but nothing more. the only cost of it for you is about finding the nearest ATM and pay the cost as time. just take in mind that central banks also pay for printing those banknotes at the beginning (genesis block), because each banknote could spend in more than 1000 transactions, so the cost of providing those cash will break into plenty of transactions - so imposes small rates of fees on society and economy.

but when you have 3000 USD as banknote with you, you will begin to worry about its safety, so instead of walking in the street to home, you may hail a cab for more safety. therefore as you could see, your 3000 USD in cash in fact has lower value - after pay the cab driver, something like 3000 minus 55 USD (the cab fee, not cab tax).

now imagine you have 30'000 USD in cash and you are in real trouble, because the problem is how to keep it safe in home! so you need to pay for a vault. and now your 30'000 USD worth can calculate after reducing the cost of buying and installing a vault in your home! so as you could see none of them are taxes to your money. they are all about preserving your money.

p.s.: while miners are responsible for providing equivalent level of security for coin hodlers in a blockchain, why hodlers should not pay their cost? that is why I call it FEE.


the oxidation fee makes everybody to move their coins into new blocks, so after a while older blocks will be full of data that may not get accessed for a verification process for new transactions. so in new generation of nodes that only save non-oxidized transactions, you always find free spaces for bigger amount of transactions per new block.

Hello ABC, thanks for reply.

please correct me if I have misinformation, but we have full and partial nodes in btc. partial nodes only collect hash of roots so are fully depended on other full nodes to function properly. but just try to offer a new version of nodes (non-oxidized node) that download and sync like a full node, but after that begins to drop all its old blocks - sequentially from the genesis block - that contain no verifiable (unspent) transaction data. so I hope this decreases the size of storage needed for a node to run with most important blockchain data to be trust-able enough.

so this is not about compression algorithms, just a compressing behavior.

thank you odolvlobo, we ha the same chat before about "demurrage" here in bitcointalk and I still could remember your key notes about the topic.

the oxidation fee may get stem from the idea that - by inventing btc - wants to introduce the digital form of gold as we find / lose in nature. everyday people find / buy / lose / reward gold all around but once you lose your address keys in btc, they never revive and get back to the circulation.

but with this oxidation fee in the protocol, the whole halving process could remain unchanged but the reserve amount of remaining BTCs may increase in future, so rewards also increases. eventually I expect this oxidation fee with formal transaction fee could provide a continuous balanced profit for miners to keep high level of hashpower for the network and secure at all.

p.s.: just think what monero is doing in its reward system (unlimited amount of fix rewards) will devaluate it at all. but reviving lost / oxidized coins and make them back to the circulation will end to situation that taxes directly convert into more investment for infrastructure.

Thanks, bitbollo

as said, this is not going to be a simple decision. a complete simulation may help to understand the side-effects of such upgrade. but when we increase the block-size and decrease the block-chain length, the whole btc protocol may get more closer to its goals in whitepaper, when in the first sentence we could see it was going to be a payment system, not a system for Saving of Value.

this is not that terrible, Findingnemo )

thanks for reply, but please be advised that that 10% was just an example to explain the concept, but I would offer a logarithmic approach to the oxidation fee that just gets curvy shapes in last years.. and please consider that, a blockchain system is not a bank. the closest entities in decentralized echo-systems to the banks are crypto exchanges, which already have several EARN programs for customers too and charge their own level of fees.

but miners should work and benefit to make everything safe for end users.

p.s.: blockchains could get consider as digital version of Safe Deposit Boxes that everybody could RENT and put banknotes in it. I really do not know a bank in the world that pay interest to values in safe boxes.

Thanks for reply, mocacinno..

there might be a trade-off among enforcing holders to participate in decreasing the block-chain length and block-size. in other words, when we compress the block-chain by oxidation-fee, then we could increase the block-size on the other hand. so once the idea show its merit, then we could set all these variables to fit in.

hi there..

while rewards are decreasing by series of halving events and higher prices for a crypto or transaction fees are somehow not rational / possible, may we get back on paper and try to design a new fee structure to both satisfy miners and incentivize people to install more nodes all around?

my two cents here is about getting back to an old idea which was about the frozen old transactions in old blocks, that once they decide to move then should pay extra fee (oxidation fee) to the miners. for example if oxidation fee increases 10% by each year, after 10 years of being frozen, the total asset in that specific transaction may vanish by 100% oxidation fee for the owners and convert into reward to miners.. at the end of the day, once the oxidation fee structure get online, then we could see significant compression for old block data and new series of nodes (we may call them non-oxidized nodes) appear with only non-oxidized transactions.

in fact this is about the price that each participant should pay for preserving the supportive blockchain system of a coin (the bit-gold-layer).

any feedback welcome.

totally true,

but exchanges (with strong KYC that offer) are there to solve it for you - pretty easy. just give your indivisible 3.5784565 bitcoins to an exchange and ask for different amount of BTCs (e.g. 2 BTCs as others Bitwise NFT + 1.5784565 classic bitcoins).

no body hates the fees to provide such services..

Totally true.

financial institutions who wish to invest heavily on crypto currencies will embrace it. if cryptocurrency needs to provide wholesale procedures with trusted B2B interactions, then such a feature may need to get considered. this is not suitable for household level savings.


the problem is not about introducing an address as a pre-process solution.

just imagine a pool-address with almost 1000 BTCs in it and cyber criminals steal 0.5 BTC from a victim and send into that pool, then vanish the track of the BTC by extracting three separated 0.1, 0.15 and 0.25 BTC on-chain to 3 new different addresses, so nothing remains traceable with this specific 0.5 BTC, any more. but if you convert it into 0.5 "Bitwise NFT", the post-process nature of the solution guarantees the foot print of those specific 0.5 BTCs to any destination..

this is exactly the point.
I am with you in weaknesses of NFT, but this is also the same reason that also NFT could enrich back the blockchain technology as a feature.


absolutely disagree.

with such deduction, we will lose the value that we save over blockchain and this is a harmful approach to what we know as "BitGoldLayer" to evaluate BTC. preserving and circulating of value takes place at the same time, Pooya. this is what we have and know about whitepaper [1]:

"The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation"

[1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

this may consider a new kind of FORK that could happen anytime in any blockchain system. if a feature become popular, this means there was a valuable function in it, isn't it?

and why you call it "frozen" bitcoins / alt-coins? they just do not merge into other coins, so lower / higher amount of fees related to the block size may be needed to get processed. market will find its way.

of course no..

this has nothing to do with peer-to-peer nature of Bitcoin / any other crypto system. and you can still pay them. just an optional feature in case of request - mostly by enterprise entities.

hi there..

you all know very well how NFT stemmed from blockchain for managing digital assets, but I'm curious to know how NFT could enrich back blockchains and bring added value to their main function in return?

based on description of NFT from Wikipedia [1] we have "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that is recorded on a blockchain, and is used to certify ownership and authenticity." and Forbes [2] we know "An NFT is a digital asset that represents real-world objects like art, music, in-game items and videos.", therefore certifying and clarifying the ownership of something in real-world is the most capability of NFT.

so why we do not convert a specified amount of e.g. 3.698521 BTC into an NFT asset and store on the same blockchain, that never again could break apart into its original fungible nature and fully assign and belong to an entity (person / AI / organization) in real-world? then no body could steal and sale it without serious consequences but also buyers could feel free when pay for it at KYC level. this is what I call it "Bitwise NFT".

obviously there are some sort of possible advantages in "Bitwise NFT" feature on blockchains, but this is still a raw idea for more discussion and evaluation before implementation. thanks for reading and any feedback welcome.

-- shahiN

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token
[2] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/nft-non-fungible-token/

Appreciate d5000,


let me give you an actual attack by hackers on paychecks from HBR [1]:


now the problem that you should solve as the security manager of such organization is about:

1- providing a database that doesn't let anybody change its data (for example, a local one-node blockchain)
2- and this DB also should be GDPR compliance!

so as you could see, all those solutions that you have mentioned above will be useful, while a "reorg_gdpr" or "prune_gdpr" command could get considered as a solution in such sensitive data bases. in fact this is a "data structure" problem that we are going to solve it..

[1] https://hbr.org/2023/04/cyber-thieves-are-getting-more-creative

what my good lawyer tells about being GDPR compliance in decentralized system, is something like this quote you have provided above - where the consensus on an improvement proposal get affected in the main protocol, which shows the main chain is permitted all around the GDPR zone.. so as you could see, the problem is the consensus on protocol.

what other people do with versions before the improvement or offline data, does not consider.

excluding bitcoin from this general topic on all blockchains really could help.
but what I could count quickly as analysis by bitcoin node: tracking transaction data, credit assessment by reserve of coins on-chain, custody crypto by neo-banks for loans, etc..


this is not a new fork. I wish we had this ability here to share my whiteboard, but please be informed, what this "reorg_gdpr" or "prune_gdpr" command among nodes provides us would be something like "Simplified Payment Verification" in whitepaper. by this command we do not begin a new fork, just simplifies payload of an old block (removes a record) on all nodes based on a REQUEST that writes down in a new block.. if this new command gets its approval by an Improvement Proposal and find its legitimacy in the protocol, then the main chain could consider as the GDPR compliance..

so existing a copy of the original data in other nodes that doesn't follow the new improvement in the protocol, do not cause banning the main network in GDPR zone.