How would the ecosystem change if the fees came back to the user after 1 year?

[Silberman]

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.

This will not work in bitcoin, with the halving that happens every 4 years it means the rewards the miners are getting in terms of bitcoin are lower, Satoshi envisioned that in the future the miners will benefit primarily and then absolutely from the fees, and if something like that was done then all incentive for the miners to keep investing heavily in their equipment will disappear and the network will become insecure due to this lack of investment, so I do not think this is a good model to follow.

[1714647965]

1714647965

[1714647965]

1714647965

[1714647965]

1714647965

[1714647965]

1714647965

[1714647965]

1714647965

[nakamura12]

The question is where will you get the coin to return it to the user?. You know that fees are going use to pay miners including the block reward. If ever the user will get the fees back then what about the miner who got the fees?. This will need more coins for that to happen. Nothing will happen much anyway of this happens in my opinion.

[SquallLeonhart]

Then how will miners be incentivized to secure the network? Let’s not forget that most if not all miners conduct mining operations simply because they can earn a living off it.

Yeah, that's probably the strongest argument against OP's idea.  But let's say he wasn't talking about bitcoin, but some new altcoin.  If fees were frozen for a year, and assuming this was a coin with a large transaction volume there would have to be a lot of coins in existence, since all those fees would be locked up for what amounts to a very long period of time (unless the standard fee was very low).  That was my first thought, but I might be modeling it wrong in my head.

In any case, what OP suggested would never be implemented for bitcoin, because nobody would go for it.  I'm also pretty sure the idea has been thought of before and that there's a reason why altcoins haven't adopted a system like that.

Miners will not keep on making this much money in the long run anyway. Let's remember that it will go down more and more with each halving, next halving it will be even less, and the halving after that will be quarter of this, it just keeps going down more and more and that is why we can't always consider miners when we are making discussions like this because they won't be around forever. However even assuming that, we are talking about fees and we are not talking about the rewards.

So, assuming that fee's do come back, even in that case the bitcoins that are mined would still be going to miners, the miners would lose money because they would not be gaining those fees anymore but they would still be making an income from the rewards they mine.

[fullhdpixel]

If those coins are going to give you back, it could be some dusty input, which could cost you more than it's worth...And a few more. While using bitcoin, for privacy, you should not reuse addresses. however it is realistic to think that people only mine to secure the network knowing the amount of electricity and Bitcoin mining hardware required. but I really like such fees going into some kind of decentralized liquidity fund to control the money supply with a predefined rule that maintains the scarcity or anti-inflation feature of the currency. And it becomes more valuable than we think because whatever is scarce it becomes worthless.

I would say that "burning" is the educated guess for that. I would assume if ever single fee that was paid went to some burned address so that it would be gone forever, that would really hurt bitcoin in the long run but also make it very very valuable at the same time.

How would we survive if all that many bitcoins got burned every single day, there would be a lot less left in the market. One would say this would make it more valuable because there are less available in the market, but others may say that it would also make it a lot less desirable because it is getting less and less available for many people. I do not know which one would happen but I do not wish to test it and see, the outcome could be horrible as well and the risk doesn't really worth it.

[verita1]

Burned fees seem to be the solution. Maybe at some point we will see it more often. The only coin that I know does that to reduce fees is AVAX. A documentation can be taken a look here.

https://docs.avax.network/learn/platform-overview/transaction-fees

But if we talk about bitcoin, the lightning network has its very economical fees that is the best solution that I can observe for now for bitcoin users.

[jaysabi]

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.

The fees are an incentive to the miners to propagate and secure the network in a decentralized manner.  If you remove the profit incentive from miners by returning fees to the transactors, there essentially is no reason for anyone to spend resources on propagating the network.  The result is a less robust and less secure network, and if the network can't be trusted to be secure, the price of the crypto suffers because no one is going to spend a significant amount of money on an asset that might prove open to manipulation.

[kryptqnick]

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.

It sounds like an appealing idea, but I feel that miners will be not rewarded enough this way, so they'll have a smaller incentive of confirming transactions. Also, would people really care about this kind of cashback? There were only a few times when I spend too much money on the fees, and most of the time I'm okay with the fees, so I would not care if my fees were returned to me now. I mean, it would be a nice little bonus, but not a game changer. So it's just not worth it to figure out how to implement it and not get miners angry over something that doesn't matter that much.

[Silberman]

If those coins are going to give you back, it could be some dusty input, which could cost you more than it's worth...And a few more. While using bitcoin, for privacy, you should not reuse addresses. however it is realistic to think that people only mine to secure the network knowing the amount of electricity and Bitcoin mining hardware required. but I really like such fees going into some kind of decentralized liquidity fund to control the money supply with a predefined rule that maintains the scarcity or anti-inflation feature of the currency. And it becomes more valuable than we think because whatever is scarce it becomes worthless.

I would say that "burning" is the educated guess for that. I would assume if ever single fee that was paid went to some burned address so that it would be gone forever, that would really hurt bitcoin in the long run but also make it very very valuable at the same time.

How would we survive if all that many bitcoins got burned every single day, there would be a lot less left in the market. One would say this would make it more valuable because there are less available in the market, but others may say that it would also make it a lot less desirable because it is getting less and less available for many people. I do not know which one would happen but I do not wish to test it and see, the outcome could be horrible as well and the risk doesn't really worth it.

The whole idea of burning their own supply as we see in some coins it is nothing but a gimmick to me, bitcoin did not needed anything like that to become the best currency around the world, the hard limit imposed by satoshi is more than enough, after all before the creation of bitcoin no other currency had that characteristic, not even gold as we do not really know how much gold the earth really has, so how much gold we could have in the future is also a mystery while fiat can be printed at will, so burning the supply seems to me as an attempt at manipulating people to think a cryptocurrency is more valuable than it actually is.

[pjwaffle]

If those coins are going to give you back, it could be some dusty input, which could cost you more than it's worth...And a few more. While using bitcoin, for privacy, you should not reuse addresses. however it is realistic to think that people only mine to secure the network knowing the amount of electricity and Bitcoin mining hardware required. but I really like such fees going into some kind of decentralized liquidity fund to control the money supply with a predefined rule that maintains the scarcity or anti-inflation feature of the currency. And it becomes more valuable than we think because whatever is scarce it becomes worthless.

[stomachgrowls]

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.

Thats not how blockchain works because there would be no miners on the first place since they do know that they couldnt make out money because we do know on how fee works.

We cant just expect that those fees that we've been used would go back to the user after 1 year?  Turns out that you arent
willing on paying up fee on something you had transacted?

Keep in mind that you are paying for a service and those arent just for free.

[inashed]

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.

The fees are an incentive to the miners to propagate and secure the network in a decentralized manner.  If you remove the profit incentive from miners by returning fees to the transactors, there essentially is no reason for anyone to spend resources on propagating the network.  The result is a less robust and less secure network, and if the network can't be trusted to be secure, the price of the crypto suffers because no one is going to spend a significant amount of money on an asset that might prove open to manipulation.

As I explained before, you could also allow users to send coins to some place that will be given back miners as fee, but this would require replacing proof of work with that (or using it together with proof of work).