HODL_FEE BITCOIN HODLERS NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT TOO

[LoyceV]

if you want your bitcoin maintained for you by the blockchain

Nothing is being "maintained" when you hold an old private key without moving any funds. If miners claim it's not worth mining anymore, they can quit. Others will gladly take their place. It's not as if there's shortage of miners.

[boyptc]

Very ugly idea.

While the POS coins are going to reward its holders for staking their coins. The bank will share a bit of percentage of interest they earn from their depositors.

And bitcoin holders are going to be charged for a fee? If holders aren't working, the scarcity that holders provide is there which makes Bitcoin more valuable.

We've got fees for confirmation and they get it from mining, they're asking for more. 

[larry_vw_1955]

Nothing is being "maintained" when you hold an old private key without moving any funds. If miners claim it's not worth mining anymore, they can quit. Others will gladly take their place. It's not as if there's shortage of miners.

that type of mentality is probably not what bitcoin miners want to see. bitcoin miners would like to see people paying a periodic maintenance fee for storing their utxos. for example, every 5 years, you would need to pay a renewal fee for the utxo. or you could just spend the utxo. if someone is storing data on your behalf then they are doing some work for you whether you believe it or not.

it's a way to make bitcoin more sustainable. and more efficient. but of course, alot of people are the type who are always looking to time their transactions to pay the minimal possible fee. what do you think the chances are of someone like that being ok with having to pay anything extra ever? 

[LoyceV]

for example, every 5 years, you would need to pay a renewal fee for the utxo. or you could just spend the utxo.

You do realize an UTXO with 546 sat takes up just as much mempool space as one with 100,000 Bitcoin, right?

if someone is storing data on your behalf then they are doing some work for you whether you believe it or not.

Now tell me: what data are miners storing on my behalf? I can tell you: nothing! Miners don't store anything. All they get, is the next block from their pool. Maybe you should argue nodes should be paid, so I can spin up a million virtual nodes and get rich. No wait, I won't, because thousands of others will do the same.

it's a way to make bitcoin more sustainable. and more efficient. but of course, alot of people are the type who are always looking to time their transactions to pay the minimal possible fee. what do you think the chances are of someone like that being ok with having to pay anything extra ever? 

Feel free to send all your Bitcoin to a new address on a regular basis, if that's what you think helps those poor miners (who earn $30 million per day).

[larry_vw_1955]

You do realize an UTXO with 546 sat takes up just as much mempool space as one with 100,000 Bitcoin, right?

if that's the case then bitcoin miners are missing out on a nice profit center. because someone sending a large amount of money really should be paying a larger transaction fee than someone sending a smaller amount. you could make the transaction fee a percentage of the amount being sent. one of those things that bitcoin got wrong...

Now tell me: what data are miners storing on my behalf? I can tell you: nothing! Miners don't store anything. All they get, is the next block from their pool. Maybe you should argue nodes should be paid, so I can spin up a million virtual nodes and get rich. No wait, I won't, because thousands of others will do the same.

i thought bitcoin miners were people who run nodes but also mine blocks. but if you're just running a node and not performing mining blocks then you're wasting your time and resources in my opinion. no one is paying you so why should you do it?

[LoyceV]

because someone sending a large amount of money really should be paying a larger transaction fee than someone sending a smaller amount. you could make the transaction fee a percentage of the amount being sent. one of those things that bitcoin got wrong...

You're trolling again.

i thought bitcoin miners were people who run nodes but also mine blocks.

So you have no idea how a mining pool works.

[larry_vw_1955]

because someone sending a large amount of money really should be paying a larger transaction fee than someone sending a smaller amount. you could make the transaction fee a percentage of the amount being sent. one of those things that bitcoin got wrong...

You're trolling again.

nope not at all. look around you in the real world. money transfer services some of them do charge a percentage or they have a tiered structure where fees go up once you hit certain amounts. it makes sense that someone sending $1,000,000 can afford to pay more in a fee than someone only sending $100. that's what bitcoin miners are missing out on is that aspect of things. yes it should cost more to send more. simple as that.

So you have no idea how a mining pool works.

maybe not. but i know how money transfer services work and how fees are levied. you are not going to send $10,000 with western union and pay the same fee as someone only sending $100. there's a good reason for that. the person sending $10,000 should and can be able to afford to pay more. it's common sense.

[LoyceV]

look around you in the real world.

Bitcoin was created to break with the old financial world, not to reproduce it.

but i know how money transfer services work and how fees are levied. you are not going to send $10,000 with western union and pay the same fee as someone only sending $100.

That's because there's a physical transaction involved. Securely shipping $10,000 to a remote location costs more than shipping $100. If you prefer to pay more for larger transactions, by all means, use Western Union.

[larry_vw_1955]

Bitcoin was created to break with the old financial world, not to reproduce it.

yes but there are some financial principals that are best left intact. one of them being that the transaction fee needs to be based the value being transferred. Anything that ignores that is in trouble from the beginning. And it's just a matter of time...before problems pop up. That's my opinion anyhow.

That's because there's a physical transaction involved. Securely shipping $10,000 to a remote location costs more than shipping $100. If you prefer to pay more for larger transactions, by all means, use Western Union.

it can be all electronic. but even in that case a larger transaction amount should pay more fees than a smaller one, in general. that is a solid design principal and any service that does not go by that rule is pretty much doomed to fail in one way or another. uniless it has some severe restrictions on usage.


imagine being a bitcoin miner and watching people send 10 bitcoins worth $600,000 and they only paid you a $5 fee. you're going to be thinking there is something that needs to be fixed so that you get paid more for processing these more important transactions. especially as your block reward keeps going down. either miners are the most noble people on the planet in that case or they are just dumb. or they have an opinion like mine.

[LoyceV]

yes but there are some financial principals that are best left intact. one of them being that the transaction fee needs to be based the value being transferred. Anything that ignores that is in trouble from the beginning. And it's just a matter of time...before problems pop up. That's my opinion anyhow.

I'll end this futile discussion by saying I trust Satoshi's vision a lot more than yours.

imagine being a bitcoin miner and watching people send 10 bitcoins worth $600,000 and they only paid you a $5 fee.

Imagine a Bitcoin miner mining empty blocks, and luckily someone wants to pay him $5. He'll take it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't be a Bitcoin miner. Just like you're not a Bitcoin miner.

[LoyceV]

Bitcoin ain’t going PoS.

This (crazy) idea is the opposite of PoS.

[Churchillvv]

Who proposed this idea (anti-bitcoiners)  maybe he or she most have had a heavy hit on the head. Just as OP said lots of things are perceived wrongly and would be altered.

LoyceV also has a good thought there, if it would be possible to tax hodlers but that is still going to affect the bitcoin protocol.

imagine being a bitcoin miner and watching people send 10 bitcoins worth $600,000 and they only paid you a $5 fee.

Imagine a Bitcoin miner mining empty blocks, and luckily someone wants to pay him $5. He'll take it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't be a Bitcoin miner. Just like you're not a Bitcoin miner.

Now it's balance  

I guess half bread is better than none?

[mindrust]

Hodlers are already getting paid handsomely for their efforts. Many of them doubled, tripled, quadrupled or even more-rupled their money in bitcoin. They don’t need to get anything else. Also, that proposal would break Bitcoin because bitcoin has limited supply and a PoS coin cannot have limited supply fundamentally.

Either the author of the article doesn’t know what he is talking about or he has bad intents. Either way it is a shit article. It has been discussed many times before and it always ends the same way. Bitcoin ain’t going PoS.

Bitcoin ain’t going PoS.

This (crazy) idea is the opposite of PoS.

Wtf am i getting this right? I thought they were proposing a reward for the holders?

Is it the opposite?

Do the author want to tax the holders? Is he mad?

Anyway, we have survived Craig Wright, this retard is nothing compared to him.

[LoyceV]

Do the author want to tax the holders? Is he mad?

It sounds just like someone wanting their 15 minutes of fame. And it's working.

[larry_vw_1955]

Imagine a Bitcoin miner mining empty blocks, and luckily someone wants to pay him $5. He'll take it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't be a Bitcoin miner. Just like you're not a Bitcoin miner.

that's not going to last though. in 25 years, the block reward goes down to 0.0476875 BTC. if bitcoin was $100,000 that would be $4768. not very much. so are you saying that if someone isn't ok with such a small amount then they shouldn't be a bitcoin miner? in order to have the same reward as they do today, bitcoin would have to shoot up in price to $3,200,000.

[Hispo]

Actually, I thought it was some kind of Aprils fool article come to life out of season or bumped for some reason.

The most controversial thing I see about this so-called "proposal" is how it goes against some of the most basic definitions of what a coin or asset is. Regardless of the coin and asset, each individual is supposed to have the option to "save" in such asset.
Nobody is getting asked fees for keeping gold coins in their home or for having some money in their bank accounts. To me, it would seems this article was written by someone who genuinely feels Bitcoin is supposed to be moving in a different direction, like going to some kind of PoS, like Ethereum did, even though it has been already proven it would not be a popular change within the community. instead of trying to fix what is not broken, he should move onto a chain which satisfies his expectations on fees and "taxing".

[larry_vw_1955]

Nobody is getting asked fees for keeping gold coins in their home

there IS no analogy to that in bitcoin. not a perfect one. because people are having to store records about all your utxos and all their transaction histories too.  gold doesn't place any obligation on anyone else to store records if you "keep it at home".

or for having some money in their bank accounts.

bad analogy too. bank accounts go dormant after a certain period of time in which case they may begin charging fees and eventually deleting the entire bank account.

[shield132]

I have always stated that I prefer the money to be in circulation because if we hold money, nothing will be created. So I'm advocating for active Bitcoin usage instead of HODLing but I can't agree with the HODL fee proposal, that's simply stupid.

This proposal is so wrong: it messes with protocol in so many wrong ways:

• Economic incentives
• Privacy Incentives
• Operational Risks
• Changing the protocol hinders the "store of value" proposal, which would be hindered by a change in the monetary properties of bitcoin.

Bitcoin protocols work just fine. Meeting with such a stupid proposal can wreck things in many unforeseen ways.
The sole idea of drying out the "dormant "address sounds like a communist quantitative easing on Bitcoin. We already have an ECB

Clearly, an April's fools on a wrong date.

First of all, the HODL fee is against freedom and self-ownership. Even banks pay you % if you hold money, you get a reward by stacking ETH and why on earth should I pay a fee to hold Bitcoins? I think that by holding Bitcoins and not moving them constantly, I'm creating more space for those who are in a hurry to make a Bitcoin transaction and keep fees low. I think things have recently got too much miner-oriented and less user-oriented.

Also, if such a dramatic change is made, it means that Bitcoin is censored. It's curious that instead of increasing the block size, people think about charging people for holding Bitcoins.

[STT]

Cant be too surprised at the suggestion because its quite close to the current ideas in the mainstream economy.  Obviously saving is greatly discouraged by current policies of the majority of central banks to target inflation at 2%.  If they had been able to stay at 2% it might be slightly more credible but its also true many countries had 10% inflation recently, its clear the policy is to constantly depreciate those holding or being paid in cash.

I dont think its a joke, they are probably serious in thinking the idea would raise monetary velocity in BTC and so the total net worth is likely to increase.   The problem is we already have instability in currency worldwide, bringing BTC in line with that is not going to be a positive.   I also hope for more active usage of BTC but I see that coming from natural growth in the population while also increasing the ease at which it can be used.  I think the idea also goes against how Satoshi setup BTC originally.

[Webetcoins]

Bitcoin being in circulation instead of being held is fine, but we should also realize that it is not just "money" anymore, a lot of people think of it as asset as well. So the currency aspect of it makes it a lot more important to use it as a money that you need to earn by working (or doing a business) and spend it, whereas the asset aspect of it makes it valuable to keep on holding.

ach side has some good and bad parts, like for example if you spend it then circulation means adoption will increase a lot more, but it would also mean a lot of people will regret not holding whereas if you keep it then adoption will be very low but many people who hold it will get richer. There isn't really a right or wrong with this question.