ppcoin transaction fees

[AndyRossy]

Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie

Sorry, what is the question?

[1714113678]

1714113678

[1714113678]

1714113678

[1714113678]

1714113678

[1714113678]

1714113678

[1714113678]

1714113678

[smoothie]

Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie

Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.

[AndyRossy]

Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie

Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.

This is nothing to do with "ppcoin transaction fees", and is probably best made asking op directly.  

But, i'll feed you a little. I feel that Sunny King has contributed a lot of time to this project, and is valuable to the community.

I dont really care if you buy, or not into whatever estimate.  I see a project being developed, with unique traits over all the other alt chains.  Im here to invest time into things I feel are a worthy cause and competitor for the BTC clones. A friendly suggestion, maybe you should go and find something to invest your time into.

Anyway please, lets try and keep this on track and analytical. If you have other questions, why not make a thread, or if its a direct question to the dev just pm him.

[smoothie]

Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie

Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.

This is nothing to do with "ppcoin transaction fees", and is probably best made asking op directly.  

But, i'll feed you a little. I feel that Sunny King has contributed a lot of time to this project, and is valuable to the community.

I dont really care if you buy, or not into whatever estimate.  I see a project being developed, with unique traits over all the other alt chains.  Im here to invest time into things I feel are a worthy cause and competitor for the BTC clones. A friendly suggestion, maybe you should go and find something to invest your time into.

Anyway please, lets try and keep this on track and analytical. If you have other questions, why not make a thread, or if its a direct question to the dev just pm him.

Yup already did that...except the PM part. There isn't any reason to be private about this. Transparency is a good thing.

[jgarzik]

P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.

[smoothie]

P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.

Yes "usually", but not always.

Most people ignore me because they can't take the harsh realities of the truth.

Jeff I figured you had more important things to do than worry about an insignificant troll like myself on some obscure "scam coin" subforum right? Or was I wrong? lol

 

[Gavin Andresen]

Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

[smoothie]

Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

I'm glad I can  help keep the entertainment alive. 

[jgarzik]

Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

Yep.  Open competition means there is always a chance somebody will create a better-than-bitcoin alternative currency.  It is refreshing to see people trying new ideas beyond "change block #0 and call it jgarzik-coin"

[Jutarul]

When transaction volume gets to the point there is competition getting into a block, ppcoin has the same Bitcoin logic that above half megabyte region of the block only higher and higher fee paying transactions are included. This is again implicit protocol and default client behavior and not enforced.

I see. So the default behavior for clients will be that higher transaction fees increase priority. However, in contrast to bitcoin, the transaction fees do not get redistributed to the validation nodes, but get destroyed instead.

Yes I understand all your concerns. If it becomes a widespread problem down the road (although I highly doubt) then protocol will be revised to correct the problem.

Adjusting transaction fee would require a hard-fork yes. I am not as strict as Gavin on the issues of hard-fork. I believe even if you design a convoluted transaction fee model most likely hard fork would be necessary somewhere else anyway.

Honestly, I think the attempt to remove monetary incentives from the transaction schedule, if the blockchain gets crowded, is futile. I predict the following will happen: Validation nodes will "sell" their transaction volume in form of specially crafted transaction types to users. I would have to think for a while how that would be technically accomplished, but I am pretty certain people will find a way.

However, the above scenario also shows a way how the "situation" can be fixed without requiring a hard fork.

ADDENDUM: After thinking about it for a moment, I think a simple solution would be if validation nodes publish a BTC address, which they consider for transaction fee payments. Then they can advertise that they only include transactions which include an output to that particular address. This works perfectly, since NOT including transaction doesn't impose a penalty. Thus the pressure is on the user.

Spinning that scenario a little bit longer suggests an interesting constellation: Validation nodes with large mining power can advertise their transaction volume at high prices, because they can guarantee fast transaction processing, while validation nodes with small mining power have to settle for lower prices. This is a totally screwed up situation.
How does that differ from bitcoin? It doesn't, bitcoin is susceptible to the same dilemma. However, in bitcoin the bargaining power is with the user creating the transaction, while in ppcoin the bargaining power is with the validation node, for two reasons: 1) POW blocks and POS blocks always provide a reward, irrespective of the number of transactions. 2) POS blocks don't impose a cost for the validation node.

[smoothie]

Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

Yep.  Open competition means there is always a chance somebody will create a better-than-bitcoin alternative currency.  It is refreshing to see people trying new ideas beyond "change block #0 and call it jgarzik-coin"

That is the beauty of the free market. As some may be looking for "innovation" to be a requirement for a medium of exchange. I disagree. People didn't make up their own precious metal or have to be innovative in creating a precious metal in order for people to agree it is "money" or a "medium of exchange". They just used silver or gold in a different coin imprint or shape etc.

Bitcoin is awesome and yes having other ideas be experimented upon is the purpose of this subforum, but when people come here and blatantly spout lies about their new "alt-chain" it tends to leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Good example is Solidcoin. Nuff said.

[Jutarul]

Based on my arguments provided in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114664.msg1237882#msg1237882

I think the following incentive system for transaction fees would fix the dilemma. However, it's NOT a fee, it's a reward for the validation node!
transaction reward: 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed

The 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed is chosen to resemble the POS block reward.
This scheme results in ALL money to generate a 1% inflation per year, instead of only the fraction which is used for POS.

The reward scheme should divert the validation nodes from establishing an alternate monetary incentive system for transactions.

Let me know what you guys think about this.

[Sunny King]

Based on my arguments provided in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114664.msg1237882#msg1237882

I think the following incentive system for transaction fees would fix the dilemma. However, it's NOT a fee, it's a reward for the validation node!
transaction reward: 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed

The 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed is chosen to resemble the POS block reward.
This scheme results in ALL money to generate a 1% inflation per year, instead of only the fraction which is used for POS.

The reward scheme should divert the validation nodes from establishing an alternate monetary incentive system for transactions.

Let me know what you guys think about this.

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

[Jutarul]

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

What do you think about the problem of validation nodes having a huge bargaining power, as outlined in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114664.msg1237882#msg1237882

[cunicula]

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

Unlike in proof-of-work, frequent reorganization is not personally costly for the minter. Mixed proof-of-work/proof-of-stake blocks is one possible resolution.

Can you overcome this by making txn fee revenue (100/n)% of txn fees in the minters block and (100/n)% of txn fees in the previous (n-1) blocks? I think If you do this, there would now be an incentive to include txns, but stealing txns from prior blocks would no longer be advantageous.

Comments?

P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.

The color attached to the ignore link measures hostility towards libertarians. I'm trying for a red color to better express my true feelings, but it seems to max out at orange. 

[Sunny King]

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

What do you think about the problem of validation nodes having a huge bargaining power, as outlined in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114664.msg1237882#msg1237882

It may or may not happen, at least I don't think it would happen before blocks are getting crowded (multiple thousands of transactions per block). It depends on whether a significant portion of minters are content with earning 1%. If they are, then I don't think any particular group of minters would be too successful at collecting additional revenues while under quite a bit public scrutiny.

On the other hand, it's also debatable whether minter collecting inclusion fees are okay. It's not all that different from miners setting minimum transaction fee in bitcoin (hasn't happened yet), other than more bloating of block chain.

[Sunny King]

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

Can you overcome this by making txn fee revenue (100/n)% of txn fees in the minters block and (100/n)% of txn fees in the previous (n-1) blocks? I think If you do this, there would now be an incentive to include txns, but stealing txns from prior blocks would no longer be advantageous.

Yes spreading transaction fee to n-blocks would definitely lessen the negative incentive quite a bit. That would be one possible solution if this proves to be a problem in the future.

[Jutarul]

Yes spreading transaction fee to n-blocks would definitely lessen the negative incentive quite a bit. That would be one possible solution if this proves to be a problem in the future.

I agree that the problem doesn't exist yet, thus no need for rash decisions.

What do you think about the problem of validation nodes having a huge bargaining power, as outlined in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114664.msg1237882#msg1237882

It may or may not happen, at least I don't think it would happen before blocks are getting crowded (multiple thousands of transactions per block).

I think the bargaining power "already happened". Validation nodes have no incentive to include any transactions right now. If there is a little incentive that would already help a lot. Then you also get competition effects between validation nodes for free, which is important for the balance of power.

It depends on whether a significant portion of minters are content with earning 1%. If they are, then I don't think any particular group of minters would be too successful at collecting additional revenues while under quite a bit public scrutiny.

The problem is, validation nodes DO NOT get punished in any way when they don't include any transactions. Thus they can sell their transaction volume at ridiculous terms. That's what I mean with bargaining power.

On the other hand, it's also debatable whether minter collecting inclusion fees are okay. It's not all that different from miners setting minimum transaction fee in bitcoin (hasn't happened yet), other than more bloating of block chain.

In general, I like the approach of ppcoin to avoid direct monetary incentives for inclusion of transactions. However, as it is right now I see a huge quality-of-service problem coming in the future. Better to fix it sooner than later.

Why don't we start collecting ideas for a smarter incentive system so we have a solid proposal in a few months when we need it?

[Sunny King]

Sure we can keep this discussion going and see if other good ideas come up. Although I'd like to point out some important considerations:

• Destruction of transaction fee serves an important function of counterbalancing inflation.
• Cost of transaction processing may be too low to be any incentive for rational minters to exclude transactions (network consists of altruistic, rational, malicious participants).

[Etlase2]

• Cost of transaction processing may be too low to be any incentive for rational minters to exclude transactions (network consists of altruistic, rational, malicious participants).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons