the oxidation fee..

[mixoftix]

Nope , really bad analogy!

My money is already safe in the bank (blockchain), and satoshi's coins are as safe as everyone else, why would I who knows my coins are safe pay 10% and the guy who has just moved coins 6 months ago not pay since we both are offered the same security?
50 satoshi or 100000 Bitcoins we;re both offered the same, the blockchain doesn't care about the amounts!

The real analogy for what you're doing is the Cyprus bank crisis, when everything above 100 000 was no longer your money!

I do appreciate your explanation, Stompix.. but can't agree with.

you know, I am from banking sector and could say your money is not safe at banks which invest with your money (commercial banks) and this is why you always see "Bank Run" happen anywhere. if you do not let your bank to do business with your deposit money, then you should pay them to keep your money safe, because they also pay their armed guards for protecting the whole vault system 24/7 and this is a cost for bank.

in blockchain system with PoW consensus, miners have similar duty as armed-guards do in banking system. the one who pays the fees for regular transaction (6 month ago) are in business with blockchain but those who just left their coins to a blockchian system also need to pay the miners to watch their value with oxidation fee. your point of view is coming from rewarding system that does not wexist any more, and if you do not fix it, miners (armed guards) will turn off their miners and leave everything (including the safety of that guy with a transaction at 6 month ago) unprotected to 51% attackers.

You're creating artificial demand for block space with this, it will make things worse when we look from the fees standpoint, so it will hurt everyone , imagine you need to transact and suddenly 10 blocks are full because some huge custodian is moving away his funds not to be taxed, jus as an example some hold their coins in under 10BTC blocks, like Bitgo in thousands of adreses.

true. once we agree on the concept, then there could be lots of solution out there for these sort of valid problems that your have mentioned above. for example there might be an extra space in new generation of blocks dedicated for older transactions and give the priority for formal transaction. an upgrade in protocol layer could solve it. but also think about all those lost BTCs in blockchain that could revive and get into circulation as rewards to miners. think about all aspects of this oxidation fee.

[1715624227]

1715624227

[1715624227]

1715624227

[1715624227]

1715624227

[1715624227]

1715624227

[1715624227]

1715624227

[1715624227]

1715624227

[mixoftix]

thank you graphite,

I agree that miner rewards is a potential problem in the future. If transaction fees don't go up the blockchain will be vulnerable. I like the Idea for compressing the blockchain by getting old UTXO's to be used but I still don't think this would be the right way to go.

higher transaction fee will benefit classic banking systems and approves the benefits of their cross-border CBDCs. so this is not a good idea.

I think a better idea would be instead of halving the block subsidy every 4 years it should flatline at 1.5625BTC. This would insure miners will keep getting rewards and keep securing the network regardless if transaction fees increase. This level of inflation should be negligible. only 82,125BTC will be mined each year which is only a 0.39% yearly inflation rate.

putting such inflation on btc is against its whitepaper, but adding new fee structure could pass by a BIP, I think.

[ABCbits]

I think you refer to pruned node, which download whole blockchain but only store some latest blocks and UTXO set (which necessary for verification purpose). People already can run pruned node since some years ago using Bitcoin Core software.

You know ABC, basically just think we need this brainstorming to meet more and more "Core Wallets" out there among BTC hodlers, instead of hardware and SPV wallets. [1]

We don't live in ideal world though. Not everyone bother put resource or handle complexity running wallet backed by their own full node.

so prune nodes are very close to the concept if they save ALL unspent transactions (non-oxidized transactions) - which amazingly this could also provide potential compatibility with GDPR principles in future [2].

Prune node actually save all UTXO[1], not all TX. Otherwise, size of chainstate folder (created by Bitcoin Core) would be much bigger.

I also do follow ideas like assumeUTXO which shows us there are still some sort of improvements needed to get considered[3]:

"Rather than the status quo — setting a number of blocks and compressing historical blocks prior to that milestone — O’Beirne’s assumeUTXO is an experimental way for new Bitcoin full nodes to delay their need to verify historical transactions until the user receives recent transactions."

now look at this oxidation fee how forces the entire network and hodlers to achieve better performance of prune-nodes in bitcoin blockchian and facilitate ideas like assumeUTXO.

Assume UTXO also already exist on Bitcoin Core[2], but works differently than many of us expect. I also don't understand how oxidation fee improve prune node, since based on my understanding it doesn't reduce total UTXO.

[1] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction/utxo/
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md

[Synchronice]

p.s.: while miners are responsible for providing equivalent level of security for coin hodlers in a blockchain, why hodlers should not pay their cost? that is why I call it FEE.

Because miners earn a very fatty reward for it.

in blockchain system with PoW consensus, miners have similar duty as armed-guards do in banking system. the one who pays the fees for regular transaction (6 month ago) are in business with blockchain but those who just left their coins to a blockchian system also need to pay the miners to watch their value with oxidation fee. your point of view is coming from rewarding system that does not wexist any more, and if you do not fix it, miners (armed guards) will turn off their miners and leave everything (including the safety of that guy with a transaction at 6 month ago) unprotected to 51% attackers.

Miners earn for this, don't you see that? They earn money for mining new blocks and in fact, they force me to pay to move my coins, literally telling me to not move my coins if I want to keep it safe without saying a single cent, oops, satoshi.

Just look at it, when you harvest wheat, you have to pay money to buy a land and then pay tax property, then you have to pay money for wheat seed from a guy that is taxed to sell wheat seed (2 taxes already), then you have to buy combine that is sold by company that pays taxes to create a combine, then you have to buy a fuel that is taxed by the government, then you harvest wheat and you have to pay additional taxes because you sold them and you have to tax your profit. Then you go in a shop with your money and buy something from a supermarket where food is already taxed and your income is already taxed, your car's fuel is taxed too. I mean, taxes taxes taxes, look at how much taxes we pay, we pay ten times or hundred times more than what we are supposed to pay. If I buy taxed food, why should I pay taxes for money that I make?
We don't need more taxes on Bitcoin, that's all! The network is secure, miners are motived to mine and keep it secure because they earn a fatty reward for it, that's how it works, doesn't need additional headache.

[stompix]

The blockchain is only as safe as how much power miners use on the network. If miners end up only getting 50k per a block some day then it would only require 50k worth of power to create a false block. Thats 2.6 Billion USD worth of power to basically shut down the network for a year.

This is a lot of money but if bitcoin is to become a global reserve currency 2.6 Billion is a small price to pay to disrupt it.

Pretty simple solution, make is so that more people can use the chain and by doing so the fees will compensate the block reward.
Instead of 400 000 tx paying the equivalent of 40 000 000 so 100$ per tx, have 40 000 000 tx paying 1$.
And you will not tax someone who doesn't use it.

in blockchain system with PoW consensus, miners have similar duty as armed-guards do in banking system. the one who pays the fees for regular transaction (6 month ago) are in business with blockchain but those who just left their coins to a blockchian system also need to pay the miners to watch their value with oxidation fee. your point of view is coming from rewarding system that does not wexist any more, and if you do not fix it, miners (armed guards) will turn off their miners and leave everything (including the safety of that guy with a transaction at 6 month ago) unprotected to 51% attackers.

No, I don't agree with this!

Fees are just like the bank transactions fees, you pay for extra usage of the block space, you make 1000 transactions in a bank you pay for each of those (well, in some banks, I have free national transactions), but someone who only has a deposit will pay only the account maintenance fees, and it doesn't matter how long that deposit has sat there.
I have 1 million euros and I just deposited I pay 3 euros a month, I had 100 euros for 10 years I pay 3 euros a month.
Everyone no matter the age or the amount pays the same for the same security.

You're trying to set an arbitrary fee on the ones that benefit the least from the blockchain security.
Why should my cold wallet get taxed when I have only 1 btc there and I use no blockspace while Binance is moving around 10 000 btc a week and using each day half a block just for the consolidations and deposits/payments.

and if you do not fix it, miners (armed guards) will turn off their miners and leave everything (including the safety of that guy with a transaction at 6 month ago) unprotected to 51% attackers.

If there is no reward and there are no fees large enough to keep the security up, well, this means that BTC has failed as a p2p currency, right?
So, it's not a global payment system, more like an investment-only mechanism so we can safely switch to PoS, have BlackRock and BoA in charge of half of the validators and call it a day.

[graphite]

putting such inflation on btc is against its whitepaper, but adding new fee structure could pass by a BIP, I think.

I don't think we should limit ourselves to strictly following the whitepaper. Satoshi is a smart guy but he couldn't foresee every outcome. I still think a flat block subsidy of 1.5625 will be a better form of "tax". Everyone will basically pay for the miners with the devaluation of their BTC. The devaluation would only be 21.5% over a 50 year period which is basically unnoticeable.

I don't total disagree with this idea but I think there should be a longer grace period before slashing someones wallet. I have thought before that if a wallet hasn't moved in 30-50 years then it should be assumed it is lost funds and should be redistributed to the miners some how.

A concern I have is that bitcoin is effectively deflationary. due to lost funds, dust wallets, and population growth. So some how redistributing the lost funds and dust wallets would be a good idea. If we know for certain they are unusable funds.

I think there is something already in bitcoin code called provably unspendable pubkey script. Which auto gives the BTC to the miners if the pubkey script is provable unspendable. If somehow the private key to a UTXO is provable lost from not being used for over 50 years then it could be redistributed to miners.

Pretty simple solution, make is so that more people can use the chain and by doing so the fees will compensate the block reward.
Instead of 400 000 tx paying the equivalent of 40 000 000 so 100$ per tx, have 40 000 000 tx paying 1$.
And you will not tax someone who doesn't use it.

Bitcoin cash did this and their miners are only getting $1500 per a block.

If block size increases the fees will drop. Not sure if these effect would be linear or not but in theory if double the transactions are placed in blocks then fee rate should half. resulting in the same amount of fees for the miners. resulting in no increase blockchain security

[Mr.right85]

In other words, would forcing everybody to spend all their unspent outputs at least once a year result in higher fees for everybody? I'm sure miners would be happy, but the rest of the network not so much.

In essence the proposed idea of oxidation, would be a direct anti-holding initiative which would in turn require holders and Bitcoin users to transact even when they don’t want to as a counter oxidation strategy?

It would really mean one solution creating two problems.