what about optional degressive fees?

[Borilla]

Just to try to propose something more sustainable after criticizing the dynamic of the fee system here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2446054.0

Optional degressive fees (as a function of block number or time): The person making a transaction choose few fee values, each with a different "life time". They are included in the transaction. When life time has passed its fee would be returned to the payer. So if he's in a hurry he would choose a high fee with a 1 block life time (or 10 minutes) , maybe an other fee with 2 blocks life time, and a 3rd fee with infinite life time. Maybe all options should have a total fee degressive in time, even if the payer doesn't care about time.

I think it would requilibrate the incentives. Even if it's not the solution it could be easily implemented and be helpfull.

[aleksej996]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime. I guess it can be called unlock time.
This could be done via a soft fork as it is just adding an OP code for the transaction script.
It would be a neat operation to have in Bitcoin scripts.

[Borilla]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

[aleksej996]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

Oh no, it was clear. I am just saying that it would make more sense to add the whole OP code as a soft fork then to do a hard fork to make it only for the fees.
This way we wouldn't have to do a hard fork and would get a new feature.

[Borilla]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

Oh no, it was clear. I am just saying that it would make more sense to add the whole OP code as a soft fork then to do a hard fork to make it only for the fees.
This way we wouldn't have to do a hard fork and would get a new feature.

We could leave  the code with the maximum freedom/options for the users. No need for a hard fork. No?

[aleksej996]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

Oh no, it was clear. I am just saying that it would make more sense to add the whole OP code as a soft fork then to do a hard fork to make it only for the fees.
This way we wouldn't have to do a hard fork and would get a new feature.

We could leave  the code with the maximum freedom/options for the users. No need for a hard fork. No?

Yes, this would require a soft fork tho. Soft forks are different then hard forks as they allow people to use the old software that is compatible with the new, but is just lacking a certain feature. This would be one of those features.

[Spendulus]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

Oh no, it was clear. I am just saying that it would make more sense to add the whole OP code as a soft fork then to do a hard fork to make it only for the fees.
This way we wouldn't have to do a hard fork and would get a new feature.

We could leave  the code with the maximum freedom/options for the users. No need for a hard fork. No?

Yes, this would require a soft fork tho. Soft forks are different then hard forks as they allow people to use the old software that is compatible with the new, but is just lacking a certain feature. This would be one of those features.

Although a hard capitalist some vicious side of my nature calls for a negative fee for some of these miners....

[Borilla]

It seems to me like you are proposing something like a reverse locktime.

only on the fees!

so the value of the fees decreases with time (it wasn't clear in my post?)

Oh no, it was clear. I am just saying that it would make more sense to add the whole OP code as a soft fork then to do a hard fork to make it only for the fees.
This way we wouldn't have to do a hard fork and would get a new feature.

We could leave  the code with the maximum freedom/options for the users. No need for a hard fork. No?

Yes, this would require a soft fork tho. Soft forks are different then hard forks as they allow people to use the old software that is compatible with the new, but is just lacking a certain feature. This would be one of those features.

Although a hard capitalist some vicious side of my nature calls for a negative fee for some of these miners....

you mean negative fees for exploited users paid by oppressor miners fees