How to give btc users no transaction fees.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Incentives dont always have to be in the form of extra rewards.

They don't if all of the transactions in the mempool can fit into a block. If they can't, then it's a matter of incentive and with 1MB blocks and 400,000 transactions per day, they can't fit. So, if you don't somehow reward the miner, since there is no other way to incentivize him in this system, he won't include an extra, useless for him, transaction.

You could punish miners who did not put enough free transactions into a block for example by reducing their coinbase reward.

And how will you:

1. Confirm that they indeed chose to not include a free transaction from their mempool since every mempool is unique?
2. Prevent them from including their own transactions to bypass this annoying requirement and cheat the system.

If you can't reply to both of those questions then this discussion has no point.

[larry_vw_1955]

... he won't include an extra, useless for him, transaction.

Then guess whose problem that is? It's the person who wants to freeload and not pay any fee. Do you really feel sorry for them?

And how will you:

1. Confirm that they indeed chose to not include a free transaction from their mempool since every mempool is unique?

It doesn't take a phD to understand how to go through a transaction and check if a fee was paid or not.

2. Prevent them from including their own transactions to bypass this annoying requirement and cheat the system.

You haven't even explained how miners would cheat the system and yet you are acting like its a foregone conclusion. 
This seems more like an interrogation than a discussion lol.

[larry_vw_1955]

Here is some output from a simple metric I tested. If utxo input/outut ratio is smaller than 1.4 OR the transaction's average age in blocks (btc weighted) is bigger than 1 month then decline it as a free transaction. It's a bit unrealistic because I don't think you coud allow 8 inputs thats probably too many. In reality, free transactions probably only need 3 or 4 inputs AT MOST and only need 2 outputs no more.

Code:

transaction inputs
utxo #0
size in btc: 0.5305910052255669
age in blocks: 43430
utxo #1
size in btc: 0.6277492538322264
age in blocks: 51426
utxo #2
size in btc: 0.03292092424977866
age in blocks: 23834
utxo #3
size in btc: 0.2721370957957041
age in blocks: 19943
utxo #4
size in btc: 0.7818320782631636
age in blocks: 28050
utxo #5
size in btc: 0.8452880194977738
age in blocks: 20873
utxo #6
size in btc: 0.2964992314423315
age in blocks: 52355
utxo #7
size in btc: 0.8428448040612679
age in blocks: 21731
utxo #8
size in btc: 0.8181116104020796
age in blocks: 9144

transaction outputs
utxo #0
size in btc: 4.824852643726152
sum2=4.824852643726152
utxo #1
size in btc: 0.1493581884735465
sum2=4.974210832199699
utxo #2
size in btc: 0.017812122850125043
sum2=4.992022955049824
utxo #3
size in btc: 0.052368161935472994
sum2=5.044391116985296
utxo #4
size in btc: 0.0020762735714105296
sum2=5.046467390556707
utxo #5
size in btc: 0.001475761181884893
sum2=5.0479431517385915
utxo #6
size in btc: 1.2914002376347624e-05
sum2=5.0479560657409674
utxo #7
size in btc: 1.795702892515294e-05
sum2=5.047974022769893

Determinations
transaction_size_btc = 5.047974022769893
transaction_ave_age=28215.68497442169
transaction_spread=1.125
Success: transaction age is acceptable
Failure: transaction spread is unacceptable

[BlackHatCoiner]

Then guess whose problem that is? It's the person who wants to freeload and not pay any fee. Do you really feel sorry for them?

I'm completely confused. Don't you want a system where the Bitcoin user can get away with their transaction's confirmation without paying a fee?

It doesn't take a phD to understand how to go through a transaction and check if a fee was paid or not.

Please read my question properly. You say that there'll be a sort of a punishment for the miners who'll choose to not include a free transaction into their candidate block, correct?

Now, I'm asking:  How will you confirm that they indeed chose to not include it since you know only your own mempool and not theirs.

You haven't even explained how miners would cheat the system and yet you are acting like its a foregone conclusion.

I've given an example of how a miner could cheat the system:

How will you prevent them from including their own transactions to bypass this annoying requirement and cheat the system.

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm completely confused. Don't you want a system where the Bitcoin user can get away with their transaction's confirmation without paying a fee?

Originally I thought it would be nice if people could get free transactions whenever they wanted them but that seemed a bit undoable so I modified the idea that maybe they can only get them every so often. Every so often means they won't be doing them whenever they want to, only when they have utxos that would qualify.

Please read my question properly. You say that there'll be a sort of a punishment for the miners who'll choose to not include a free transaction into their candidate block, correct?

Now, I'm asking:  How will you confirm that they indeed chose to not include it since you know only your own mempool and not theirs.

nodes would perform verification on the block that was submitted to the network and see if it included free transaction in it or not.

I've given an example of how a miner could cheat the system:

How will you prevent them from including their own transactions to bypass this annoying requirement and cheat the system.

Well then I guess we have a philosophical disagreement because I don't see a problem with bitcoin miners including their own transactions in a block. They probably already do that now. Do you consider that cheating?

I think you might be under the impression that I'm advocating for free transactions all the time anytime 24/7/365 which is not the case.

[garlonicon]

Do you consider that cheating?

Now it's not cheating, because it's not something they have to do. In your system they have to include free transactions, so they can simply reject free transactions from people and create their own free transactions, just to include something. There is no way to set fees by using consensus rules. You can have no fees and then they will be paid in transaction outputs (or even in Lightning Network transactions, maybe even in dollars if that will be convenient for miners). You can have too high fees and then users will switch to another coin or miners will return some fees back to the users to bring them back and bypass stupid rules.

To sum up: you can set fees only on mempool level. You can create some solo miner or some mining pool with different rules, but that's all, there is no way to force everyone to switch into your system, the only possible thing is creating some nodes that will accept lower fees or no fees. For now, if you pay 10 satoshis per byte or more, ViaBTC will include up to 100 transactions in their blocks every hour. In your node, you can offer pushing up to N transactions with no fees (or up to N bytes of such transactions), you can offer some kind of gambling (you can win a free transaction or pay two times more than usual), I can imagine something like that.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Every so often means they won't be doing them whenever they want to, only when they have utxos that would qualify.

But, that's not “every so often”. For some people whose transactions will qualify, it'll be “always” and for those whose transactions won't qualify, it'll be “never”. Would you mind writing what are the qualifications for a free transaction, though?

nodes would perform verification on the block that was submitted to the network and see if it included free transaction in it or not.

Alright, let's take it from the beginning.

The nodes have to somehow punish the miners who choose to not include free transactions in their block, if there are some, correct? But, for the rest of the nodes, what the miners receive in their mempool is non of their business. They can't know what they've received, because each mempool is considered unique for each node; it's just a place where the unconfirmed transactions are gathered.

Each node chooses their own minimum relay fee policy. One may accept any transaction, but others only those that pay a higher amount than 1000 sats as a fee. Thus, they end up with a different mempools.

[larry_vw_1955]

But, that's not “every so often”. For some people whose transactions will qualify, it'll be “always” and for those whose transactions won't qualify, it'll be “never”. Would you mind writing what are the qualifications for a free transaction, though?

Oh that's a very good question indeed! But look at posting #92. That was a very simple metric. I'm going to experiment with other ones. I'll post here when I get something that I like.  Because I know everyone is really excited about how they can get a free transaction oneday  as long as miners dont cheat too much of course. Because nothing would be worse than a miner that didn't want to play by the rules and let peoples free transactions into a block, I mean how do you even force them to??

Alright, let's take it from the beginning.

The nodes have to somehow punish the miners who choose to not include free transactions in their block, if there are some, correct? But, for the rest of the nodes, what the miners receive in their mempool is non of their business. They can't know what they've received, because each mempool is considered unique for each node; it's just a place where the unconfirmed transactions are gathered.

Each node chooses their own minimum relay fee policy. One may accept any transaction, but others only those that pay a higher amount than 1000 sats as a fee. Thus, they end up with a different mempools.

Nodes validate blocks according to the consensus rules. They don't punish or reward anyone as far as I'm concerned. Anyhow, it's ok if different nodes have different mempools. Not sure why you have such a big sticking point about that matter.

[larry_vw_1955]

Do you consider that cheating?

Now it's not cheating, because it's not something they have to do. In your system they have to include free transactions, so they can simply reject free transactions from people and create their own free transactions, just to include something.

That does seem to be problematic. I didn't really think of it that way. But you're right. Unless it is easier for them to let other peoples' free transactions be used than their own. That's the only way I could envision it still being possible.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'll post here when I get something that I like.

Ensure your proposal's straightforwardness. Whatever you have to propose, if you ever come into a valid solution, make sure it is understandable from your readers. Let it be simple and don't mess with advanced terms which may make us understand it falsely.

Nodes validate blocks according to the consensus rules. They don't punish or reward anyone as far as I'm concerned.

They don't, but you referred to a punishment from the side of the miners if they choose to not confirm free transactions and I asked you to tell me how will you confirm that they, indeed, do that on purpose and how will you prevent them from filling the block with their free transactions to bypass that requirement.

[larry_vw_1955]

Ensure your proposal's straightforwardness. Whatever you have to propose, if you ever come into a valid solution, make sure it is understandable from your readers. Let it be simple and don't mess with advanced terms which may make us understand it falsely.

Will do boss. thanks for your inputs.

[larry_vw_1955]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative. I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

Problem is the admins like to lock threads so no free speach and the people here exist to shoot ideas down which is fine I wouldnt have that any other way but the admins shouldnt be locking threads. They should let a free discussion but they dont.

[garlonicon]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative.

Bitcoin also had free transactions, but there was simply no incentive to continue that. If you want to change that, you can pay transaction fees for other people (if you are not a miner) or mine free transactions (if you are a miner). There are no protocol limitations, just default node settings prevent free transactions to avoid spamming the network for free.

Also notice that in the Lightning Network you can create a channel with your friend and have zero fees at all, as long as both nodes agree. You can also create your own public node with no fees.

I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

I think the situation is completely different. Every coin that reached some serious level of adoption, encountered high fees and something we can call "fee market". So, the lack of fees is some sign of being "in the dinosaur age", like "this coin is brand new, so we don't need fees (yet)". But fees are needed in every coin with limited supply. If the basic block reward in a coin will ever reach zero, then miners need any fees to build new blocks. On the other hand, if some coin has unlimited supply, then there could be no fees at all, but then inflation will act as a hidden fee.

Also, transaction batching is possible now (and transaction joining on mempool level may be possible in the future). So, if there are hundreds of transactions and they are all batched, then the whole transaction can be broadcasted for one satoshi per byte, everyone could pay one satoshi for transaction and if there are more users than bytes, then some people could get that batched for free.

[Wind_FURY]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative. I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

Problem is the admins like to lock threads so no free speach and the people here exist to shoot ideas down which is fine I wouldnt have that any other way but the admins shouldnt be locking threads. They should let a free discussion but they dont.

ZERO? Then what kind of protection mechanism does it have to prevent bad actors from spamming the network? Is that shitcoin Proof of Work or Proof of Stake? What kind of incentive stucture does it have to prevent from Sybil Attacks by bad actors?

The problem with people is they don’t read the SIMPLE basics of how a true decentralized cryptocurrency network works. They simply notice some faster shitcoin, and assume it’s better.

[ABCbits]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative. I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

Have you researched the trade-off?
1. To create/broadcast 1 transaction, you need to perform PoW.
2. IOTA has single point of failure, read https://globalcryptosociety.com/2021/08/iota-cryptocurrency-shuts-down-entire-network-after-wallet-hack/
3. IOTA don't care about cost of running node.

[vjudeu]

To create/broadcast 1 transaction, you need to perform PoW

That's terrible, because if the same would be done in Bitcoin, then let's assume that block 00000000000000000008e18585a83e67e6fae1029e761cc07a7f20511dbfae1a created 636709588 satoshis. If everyone would need to perform equivalent amount of work in sha256d, then that would mean sending one satoshi would cost producing hash below 000000000001510a12cb3ba29a2d36581f50e80d3e2028757af44a9a0580f188. Doing that with CPU would be extremely difficult and would halt the whole network, because only miners could send any transactions at all.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative. I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

I guess you haven't understood what's the scaling problem.

In a decentralized system, where we store transactions into blocks, they have to have a certain size limit. If we had 1 GB of blocks, then we'd also pay zero fees, but only a few mining rigs with technologically upgraded optical fibers could hold out the entire network. I couldn't run my a own node which provides me tons of benefits except if I had few thousands dollars to purchase the required storage. Thus, decentralization becomes a myth as I will need to trust someone else for delivering me the correct chain.

To create/broadcast 1 transaction, you need to perform PoW

That's terrible

I think he meant “To confirm a transaction”.

[n0nce]

Iota has free transactions and very innovative. I guess bitcoin is still in the dinosaur age.

Problem is the admins like to lock threads so no free speach and the people here exist to shoot ideas down which is fine I wouldnt have that any other way but the admins shouldnt be locking threads. They should let a free discussion but they dont.

I think you should be more thankful of knowledgeable people that have been in the space for years and tell you why a shitcoin is bad. They're protecting you from losing all of your funds in a way.

As alluded to by others, many chains were 'cheap and fast' when adoption was near 0. Bitcoin was like that. Ethereum was like that a few years later. ETH maxis laughed about the idea of LN since 'their coin scaled on-chain cheaply'. Fast-forward to 2021: much larger blockchain size, AND higher fees. Blockchains are always fast and cheap when nobody uses them.

Only real scaling solution is off-chain. Think about it: how many more people have yet to get into Bitcoin in the world? How much would the blockchain (and block size) need to grow if they'd all use on-chain transactions all the time? It will need Gigabyte sized blocks, thus centralizing all nodes and defeating the whole purpose of Bitcoin.
Heck - even on-chain transactions these days partly use 'off-chain technology' when using SegWit to keep nodes easy to run.

However, L2 solutions like Lightning do scale, because everyone can create a channel with anyone else, with a single transaction, then send unlimited amount of transactions over that channel - faster than with any pure blockchain-based solution since there is no 'block time' at all, no confirmations to be awaited. And through routing it gets even better since it limits the amount of channels to usually a hand full to be able to reach most nodes in the network.

[Wind_FURY]

To create/broadcast 1 transaction, you need to perform PoW

That's terrible

I think he meant “To confirm a transaction”.

To be precise, you need to confirm 2 transaction. But IOTA community often refer it as PoW since it took few seconds to minutes (depending on decice you use). The goal of PoW on Bitcoin and IOTA quite different, where PoW on IOTA is designed to prevent/reduce transaction spam.

Then instead of a “blockchain”, it’s a “transaction-chain” with individual transactions using Proof of Work as a spam prevention mechanism. That’s not free, and what are the incetives, plus what determines which transaction goes first? How to prevent reorganization of transactions?

[ABCbits]

To be precise, you need to confirm 2 transaction. But IOTA community often refer it as PoW since it took few seconds to minutes (depending on decice you use). The goal of PoW on Bitcoin and IOTA quite different, where PoW on IOTA is designed to prevent/reduce transaction spam.

Then instead of a “blockchain”, it’s a “transaction-chain” with individual transactions using Proof of Work as a spam prevention mechanism.

True, IOTA doesn't use blockchain, but DAG (Directed Aligned Graph).

That’s not free

Their definition of free is not spending coin.

and what are the incetives, plus what determines which transaction goes first? How to prevent reorganization of transactions?

I don't perform detailed research, so i don't know. But honestly i don't care since IOTA has single point of failure (see link i mentioned above).