Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:32:44 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Heavy transaction fee for old account: solution of deflationary spiral  (Read 4576 times)
peak
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 02:08:08 PM
 #1

The idea is inspired by revcoin's topic http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19278.0

To prevent deflationary spiral that may come some day, I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.

For those account with huge amount of bitcoins, if the owner want to spend them in some day that each bitcoin can exchange for 10000$, he/she may only be able to trans 1% of them, and the rest 99% will be charged as transaction fee. He or She will still be a rich person, but bitcoin will not make any one a billionaire by simply hold a large amount of bitcoin for several years.

I think the idea is feasible: miners can earn more by this 'rule', and daily users of bitcoin will not worry about the bitcoin they spent will have severalfold purchasing power after one year and grudge to use them.

With this "rule", bitcoin will become a "currency" rather than "digital gold".
1481236364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481236364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481236364
Reply with quote  #2

1481236364
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481236364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481236364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481236364
Reply with quote  #2

1481236364
Report to moderator
1481236364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481236364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481236364
Reply with quote  #2

1481236364
Report to moderator
vrotaru
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 02:11:58 PM
 #2

First the proper place to discuss such topics is Economics subforum.

Second there are already 20+ such threads. I for one enjoy some deflation of deflation critics.
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 20, 2011, 02:48:41 PM
 #3

[...]I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.[...]

This measure is easily defeated.

1. Create two receiving addresses within the same wallet
2. Daily, transfer all funds from one receiving address to the other

Now I am maintaining activity and so do not need to pay these extra transaction fees.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
peak
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:05:23 PM
 #4

First the proper place to discuss such topics is Economics subforum.

Second there are already 20+ such threads. I for one enjoy some deflation of deflation critics.
Just ignore this post if the idea have been suggested before.  Smiley
[...]I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.[...]

This measure is easily defeated.

1. Create two receiving addresses within the same wallet
2. Daily, transfer all funds from one receiving address to the other

Now I am maintaining activity and so do not need to pay these extra transaction fees.

That won't work. As I have mentioned--transaction fee is a function of the age of account(address), which do not means that you wont be charged if your account is a one day fresh account. If you have 100BTC, and you transfer it from one address to another daily, you might be charged 0.1BTC every day--63.5BTC left after one year, or you let your money sleep for one year, and get a 20BTC charged for spending the rest 80, you may definitely prefer the second choice.
niooron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 190


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
 #5

If this is implemented now, cant I just move my btc between two wallets like once a week or once a month?

14dxwuQwkQiLbZjJFfciZ26xSGdRU5mKEp
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
 #6

Great idea. Go make your own block chain now.

-
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2011, 03:20:41 PM
 #7

The idea is inspired by revcoin's topic http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19278.0

To prevent deflationary spiral that may come some day, I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.

For those account with huge amount of bitcoins, if the owner want to spend them in some day that each bitcoin can exchange for 10000$, he/she may only be able to trans 1% of them, and the rest 99% will be charged as transaction fee. He or She will still be a rich person, but bitcoin will not make any one a billionaire by simply hold a large amount of bitcoin for several years.

I think the idea is feasible: miners can earn more by this 'rule', and daily users of bitcoin will not worry about the bitcoin they spent will have severalfold purchasing power after one year and grudge to use them.

With this "rule", bitcoin will become a "currency" rather than "digital gold".

What is so wrong with early adopters becoming rich. What incentive is there for people to participate during the early hard time like the Mt Gox hack, DEA crackdown on SIlk Road and theft of $500,000 worth of BTC? What is the incentive if people come along and decide that it wrong to make profit for taking risk?

Furthermore, the whole deflationary spiral thing is a myth of Keynesian economics. More info:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral

Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:21:58 PM
 #8

Great idea. Go make your own block chain now.
Why should he? He's suggesting miner's fees...

He should rather build his own pool and enforce these rules there - additionally document this so well, that other pool operators that agree with him also can easily enforce this ruleset.

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:27:53 PM
 #9

Great idea. Go make your own block chain now.
Why should he? He's suggesting miner's fees...

He should rather build his own pool and enforce these rules there - additionally document this so well, that other pool operators that agree with him also can easily enforce this ruleset.

It is much easier to get 50% miners to conform with this idea (and block other 50% of miners who do not conform) on a new block chain where you control 100% of mining than on a 10 Thps block chain where you control 0%.

Edit: made bold a part of my post for those with reading comprehension issues.

-
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
 #10

It is much easier to get 50% miners to conform with this idea (and block other 50% of miner who do not conform) on a new block chain where you control 100% of mining than on a 10 Ghps block chain where you control 0%.
Having 50% of miners following these rules would only mean that it takes 50% longer for someone putting up a transaction that does not conform with these rules until it gets coded into a block. It would hinder noone to mine them into blocks themselves, hiring miners to manually put this transaction into blocks (could be even something for your mining contractors? 0 fee, always guaranteed on your mining cluster like Luke-Jr does with his Eligius Pool + client patch) even if 99.9% of the network would follow these (artificial) rules.

To forge this into a block chain, some serious development effort would need to happen to ensure only such transactions are allowed.

The point of the OP is, that such transactions are allowed in Bitcoin, but in his/her opinion not desired, so miners should not include them.

To enforce such a rule, a LOT of miners would need to be convinced (as only 50% would just mean that it would take just twice as long until it gets into a block - so it takes 7 instead of 6 blocks to confirm...).

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
cunicula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Stack-overflow Guru


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
 #11

Quote
What is so wrong with early adopters becoming rich. What incentive is there for people to participate during the early hard time like the Mt Gox hack, DEA crackdown on SIlk Road and theft of $500,000 worth of BTC? What is the incentive if people come along and decide that it wrong to make profit for taking risk?

Furthermore, the whole deflationary spiral thing is a myth of Keynesian economics. More info:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral

Great Depression made up too?

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
        AltCoinInternalExperts                Get Your Altcoin Promoted On Social Media       
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
relative
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:44:05 PM
 #12

you are basically proposing the "Freigeld" theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld
in particular what gsell calls "cash flow safe".

whatever you think of it, the fact that there seems to no decision yet still about transaction fees shows you that bitcoin is in a very early stage.
when all is said and done, bitcoin could be Freigeld. or not.
no decision yet.
peak
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
 #13

The idea is inspired by revcoin's topic http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19278.0

To prevent deflationary spiral that may come some day, I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.

For those account with huge amount of bitcoins, if the owner want to spend them in some day that each bitcoin can exchange for 10000$, he/she may only be able to trans 1% of them, and the rest 99% will be charged as transaction fee. He or She will still be a rich person, but bitcoin will not make any one a billionaire by simply hold a large amount of bitcoin for several years.

I think the idea is feasible: miners can earn more by this 'rule', and daily users of bitcoin will not worry about the bitcoin they spent will have severalfold purchasing power after one year and grudge to use them.

With this "rule", bitcoin will become a "currency" rather than "digital gold".

What is so wrong with early adopters becoming rich. What incentive is there for people to participate during the early hard time like the Mt Gox hack, DEA crackdown on SIlk Road and theft of $500,000 worth of BTC? What is the incentive if people come along and decide that it wrong to make profit for taking risk?

Furthermore, the whole deflationary spiral thing is a myth of Keynesian economics. More info:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral
I'm not against early adopters. Satoshi Nakamoto should be as rich as Mark Zuckerberg does if bitcoin survived. but bitcoin will not make any one a billionaire by simply hold a large amount of bitcoin for several years.--I don't think early adopters will do so, they will spend their money to open business to make bitcoin success and earn more.

I write is just for those who worry about deflationary spiral--if this happen some day and it really turns out to be terrible, the bitcoin community have ways to solve it.
DamienBlack
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:58:27 PM
 #14

Deflationary spiral? I don't believe there is such a thing. Inflation? Yes. Deflation? Shady.

From Wikipedia:

"Whether deflationary spirals can actually occur is controversial, with its possibility being disputed by Austrian school libertarian economist Robert Higgs."


And it would require wages to be paid in bitcoin being a driving factor of the economy. Just not seeing it happen. Even.

I trade bitcoin options at https://bitoption.org/ ... Join me.
I play poker at https://betco.in/ ... Join me.
Support the bitcoin economy, what do you do?
Tips: 1NfXhiTFEdKQTdLy49s6DYAP1K7MeFWyao
peak
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 03:59:53 PM
 #15

It is much easier to get 50% miners to conform with this idea (and block other 50% of miner who do not conform) on a new block chain where you control 100% of mining than on a 10 Ghps block chain where you control 0%.
Having 50% of miners following these rules would only mean that it takes 50% longer for someone putting up a transaction that does not conform with these rules until it gets coded into a block. It would hinder noone to mine them into blocks themselves, hiring miners to manually put this transaction into blocks (could be even something for your mining contractors? 0 fee, always guaranteed on your mining cluster like Luke-Jr does with his Eligius Pool + client patch) even if 99.9% of the network would follow these (artificial) rules.

To forge this into a block chain, some serious development effort would need to happen to ensure only such transactions are allowed.

The point of the OP is, that such transactions are allowed in Bitcoin, but in his/her opinion not desired, so miners should not include them.

To enforce such a rule, a LOT of miners would need to be convinced (as only 50% would just mean that it would take just twice as long until it gets into a block - so it takes 7 instead of 6 blocks to confirm...).

Exactly. Miners can earn more because the new rule will force users to spend there money and there will be more transaction fee generated. I don't think convincing miners will be a issue.
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 04:01:56 PM
 #16

I'll quote myself

Quote
(and block other 50% of miners who do not conform)

-
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 20, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
 #17

First the proper place to discuss such topics is Economics subforum.

Second there are already 20+ such threads. I for one enjoy some deflation of deflation critics.
Just ignore this post if the idea have been suggested before.  Smiley
[...]I have a very simple suggestion: all the miners and mining pools make an agreement that transaction fee should be a function of activity(or "age") of payer's address/account, which can easily checked by tracing back it's information in old blocks. Old account will spend more transaction fee to make the transaction confirmed, unless the payer build a powerful mining rig and successfully create a block to include that transaction.[...]

This measure is easily defeated.

1. Create two receiving addresses within the same wallet
2. Daily, transfer all funds from one receiving address to the other

Now I am maintaining activity and so do not need to pay these extra transaction fees.

That won't work. As I have mentioned--transaction fee is a function of the age of account(address), which do not means that you wont be charged if your account is a one day fresh account. If you have 100BTC, and you transfer it from one address to another daily, you might be charged 0.1BTC every day--63.5BTC left after one year, or you let your money sleep for one year, and get a 20BTC charged for spending the rest 80, you may definitely prefer the second choice.

OK, so I'll generate a new receiving address every day. You don't know the age of my wallet, all you can know is the age of the receiving addresses. You don't even have any idea what receiving addresses belong to my wallet. And even if you did know the age of my wallet and all of the receiving addresses inside of it, I can always just generate a brand new wallet whenever I wanted.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 04:09:53 PM
 #18

Feel free to do so then, not just outlining some ideas here: convince the pool operators of deepbit, BTCguild and slush as a starter - just head over to the Mining --> Pool section and off you go! Smiley

I highly doubt though that they would do this, partially because at least Tycho and slush are early adopters as well... Wink

@Vladimir:
To override someone's blocks, you need to find 2 blocks faster than they find 2 blocks.
This would also mean that the total hash rate of the network is no longer Miners_with_fee + Miners_without_fee but only the portion that is larger. Should this average around the 50% mark, this would be even more disastrous, as blocks would regularly become invalidated by the other fraction. All in all the total hash rate would be cut in half - something that not even miners who want more TX-fees (the current ones are a JOKE, seriously!) would risk. Also it would cut the income of these miners in half, block generations are worth far too much currently (and as it seems also for the upcoming decades!) to make this risk desirable of forcing your ideas by using 51% attacks.

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
relative
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 04:11:57 PM
 #19


OK, so I'll generate a new receiving address every day. You don't know the age of my wallet, all you can know is the age of the receiving addresses. You don't even have any idea what receiving addresses belong to my wallet. And even if you did know the age of my wallet and all of the receiving addresses inside of it, I can always just generate a brand new wallet whenever I wanted.

doesnt matter. when transaction fee is a steady function of time transferring your coins to a new address every day will cost you as much or more than just keeping it where it is.
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 04:14:26 PM
 #20

@Sukrim And how this contradicts anything I said? Or are you picking on 50% I mentioned and not 51%?

-
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!