Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2024, 05:00:58 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Protocol-Based Fees  (Read 706 times)
mirelo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 12, 2014, 11:05:45 AM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 12:31:32 PM by mirelo
 #1

I gave much thought to the problem of transaction fees in the last few days and concluded that, confirming a post by Vitalik Buterin[1], it has no market-based solution. The ultimate reason is that a market requires buyers and sellers while mining cannot become decentralized and still have sellers. Total decentralization turns mining into a public service, and sellers must be private: with only buyers left, transaction fees tend to zero.

Fortunately, I also found a protocol-based solution to the problem, which goes a step further from Peercoin:

1. The reward for chaining proof-of-stake blocks comes from newly minted currency, like in Peercoin—which mints 1% new coins a year.

2. Based on information from the block chain, an algorithm constantly adjusts destructive fees just to offset the newly minted coins.

This way we have both a stable money supply and self-adjusted fees. The newly minted coins transfer value to block miners—from those who skip minting—partially via inflation while destructive fees constantly offset that inflation, leaving a value transfer equivalent to formal payments.

Yet such a value transfer is impossible with formal payments: instead of going directly to miners, its destructive fees go to the whole network as deflation, and only then to miners according to their contribution to the same inflation offset by those deflationary fees.

[1] http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-market-based-solutions/
1713502858
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713502858

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713502858
Reply with quote  #2

1713502858
Report to moderator
1713502858
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713502858

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713502858
Reply with quote  #2

1713502858
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1713502858
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713502858

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713502858
Reply with quote  #2

1713502858
Report to moderator
ABISprotocol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 278
Merit: 251

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2014, 02:16:18 AM
 #2

Actually Vitalik is not correct in this case, but I think the community is a bit closer to actual solutions. 

Please see:

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-market-based-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-150

ABISprotocol (Github/Gist)
http://abis.io
mirelo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2014, 08:44:07 PM
 #3

Actually Vitalik is not correct in this case, but I think the community is a bit closer to actual solutions.  

Please see:

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-market-based-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-150

This is the post that got me started. Please read this thread:

http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2460.0
ABISprotocol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 278
Merit: 251

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
March 11, 2014, 06:35:46 PM
 #4

Read it. Vitalik is wrong.  Also, in re. the environmental concerns I have been hearing (a lot), there are lots of ways to address it, but people don't like doing calculations, so it becomes a fruitless discussion.

ABISprotocol (Github/Gist)
http://abis.io
mirelo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 15, 2014, 09:44:07 AM
 #5

Read it. Vitalik is wrong.  Also, in re. the environmental concerns I have been hearing (a lot), there are lots of ways to address it, but people don't like doing calculations, so it becomes a fruitless discussion.

Some people also don't like to present their arguments. Go figure.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!