Who should pay the miner ?

[hugolp]

I stopped reading at second law of thermodynamics.

You reject listening to scientific arguments and repeat dogmas.

Im an engineer. I know how to recognize between science and charlatanery.

This was a rather weak argument. Try again.

Please start the competition. I really do want competition to Bitcoin.

I wish for a living standard not for a religious community.

  I as an atheist wish for the same. I really dont understand what all this have to do with monetary policy.

We are not talking about monetary policy, but allocation of costs of a system of common interest.
Your unconditional but weakly argumented support for savings at no cost sounds like a dogma.

No, Im actually done. When I saw that thing about the second law of thermodinamics I realize where you are comming from and the fallacies you believe in. That theory about energy and money is false and its easily demostrable. Its not science, not even close. But I decided some time ago to not loose time with people that dont want to reason. Anyway, good luck.

[1713526428]

1713526428

[1713526428]

1713526428

[1713526428]

1713526428

[1713526428]

1713526428

[grau]

That theory about energy and money is false and its easily demostrable. Its not science, not even close. But I decided some time ago to not loose time with people that dont want to reason. Anyway, good luck.

I am not aware of a theory you seem to refer to linking energy with money, and If I were, I was unlikely supportive of that.

I do however believe that energy is needed to keep Bitcoins alive and secure. This universe will not make an exception for Bitcoins.

The discussion is about who picks up the bill for that energy.

[hugolp]

That theory about energy and money is false and its easily demostrable. Its not science, not even close. But I decided some time ago to not loose time with people that dont want to reason. Anyway, good luck.

I am not aware of a theory you seem to refer to linking energy with money, and If I were, I was unlikely supportive of that.

I do however believe that energy is needed to keep Bitcoins alive and secure. This universe will not make an exception for Bitcoins.

The discussion is about who picks up the bill for that energy.

Ok. Then its my mistake and I apologize for jumping to conclussions. I read second law of thermodinamycs and I though you were a monetary wacko. I re-read it and see now what you meant.

But I think its a bit meaningless, someone could argue that the miners are there to keep the transactions valid, so only people doing transactions should pay. At the end of the day you can argue all you want, but the best path of action is to leave it to the miners to decide how they want to fund themselves. And if someone is not happy about it, he/she can jump in and compete with them (or start a new currency with more like-minded miners).

[grau]

But I think its a bit meaningless, someone could argue that the miners are there to keep the transactions valid, so only people doing transactions should pay.

Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions. Their security is proportional to the processing power that was committed to the chain since they were transacted. That processing power had real cost to those operating the network. This is the storage cost I refer to.

My proposal is to charge cost of storage by applying a minimum transaction cost proportional to the age of the source and amount for a new transaction.

I  need no philosophy or monetary policy behind  the proposal it stands on economic logic.

At the end of the day you can argue all you want, but the best path of action is to leave it to the miners to decide how they want to fund themselves. And if someone is not happy about it, he/she can jump in and compete with them (or start a new currency with more like-minded miners).

I am initiating thinking, I belive is rational, this is how things change or fork.

[hugolp]

Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions.

Yes, that were already payed.

Their security is proportional to the processing power that was committed to the chain since they were transacted. That processing power had real cost to those operating the network.

This is the storage cost I refer to.

But it is not up to you to decide what type of cost should happen. Let the miners (and up to some point users) decide what is the best course of action. Why do you want to impose your criteria over the rest? Whats wrong with letting miners (and up to some point users) decide the best way to handle the costs (and benefits) of the network? When you let people decide on their own you get amazing creative solutions.

My proposal is to charge cost of storage by applying a minimum transaction cost proportional to the age of the source and amount for a new transaction.

I  need no philosophy or monetary policy behind  the proposal it stands on economic logic.

At the end of the day you can argue all you want, but the best path of action is to leave it to the miners to decide how they want to fund themselves. And if someone is not happy about it, he/she can jump in and compete with them (or start a new currency with more like-minded miners).

I am initiating thinking, I belive is rational, this is how things change or fork.

[grau]

Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions.

Yes, that were already payed.

No, one can not pay for storage in advance since the use time is only measurable in retrospective.

But it is not up to you to decide what type of cost should happen. Let the miners (and up to some point users) decide what is the best course of action. Why do you want to impose your criteria over the rest? Whats wrong with letting miners (and up to some point users) decide the best way to handle the costs (and benefits) of the network? When you let people decide on their own you get amazing creative solutions.

I am a miner and personally think the solution I suggest is rational, and some might find it even amazing and support.

Thanks for your time, your questions helped me to develop and present the proposal.

I admit it is not addressing a pressing problem until miner using home equipment feel adequately rewarded with freshly minted money. But better have a plan for the time thereafter.

[hugolp]

Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions.

Yes, that were already payed.

No, one can not pay for storage in advance since the use time is only measurable in retrospective.

But it is not up to you to decide what type of cost should happen. Let the miners (and up to some point users) decide what is the best course of action. Why do you want to impose your criteria over the rest? Whats wrong with letting miners (and up to some point users) decide the best way to handle the costs (and benefits) of the network? When you let people decide on their own you get amazing creative solutions.

I am a miner and personally think the solution I suggest is rational, and some might find it even amazing and support.

Thanks for your time, your questions helped me to develop and present the proposal.

I admit it is not addressing a pressing problem until miner using home equipment feel adequately rewarded with freshly minted money. But better have a plan for the time thereafter.

Im a miner as well, and I think you (and everybody) should keep in mind that Bitcoin is a voluntary currency. Anyone can drop its use at any time, so its very important to offer a good product (the product being money) and to keep confidence. You might be used to fiat currency, but people dont use it because they like it, they use it because its a monopolly. If you start abusing with the Bitcoin users, a lot of them might drop the currency, specially if there is competition (other voluntary currencies, maybe similar to Bitcoin). Its of no use to have more of something that has little value.