Exploring Royalty Rights on Bitcoin:Fair Compensation or Against Core Principle?

[cymo880]

We all know the story of Laszlo and the 10k BTC pizza. What if Bitcoin had a system where original senders(miners) and the other senders like a scheme earned a perpetual royalty on future transactions? Imagine a system where every Bitcoin transaction automatically allocates percentages to both the miner who first minted the coin and the holders, like a perpetual royalty. For example, when someone spends a Satoshi, % could flow back to the miner who mined the block containing that coin, and to the address that last held it for over a year. This would retroactively reward early adopters like the infamous pizza guy and incentivize long-term holding.
I fully understand Bitcoin’s ethos of finality and permissionless transactions. This post is not a proposal but a discussion about trade-offs.

[franky1]

people dont earn from sending transactions.. sending transactions is not mining
people pay fee's to send a tx
transactions are batched together into a block and a miner then secures the block and gets a reward plus the fees of the total transactions in the block

..
the original solo miner of the block that confirmed a tx from 2010 already got paid for confirming it.. its called the tx fee (0.99btc)
the original solo miner of that block in 2010 is no longer mining current transactions today, so doesnt deserve residual income

the residual income a solo miner from 2010 gets.. is from holding onto the TXfee(0.99btc)/blockreward(50btc) from 2010
earning 50btc blockreward+ fee's in 2010 (50.99btc  block 57043) for mining was worth $0.15297($0.003 x 50.99) in 2010.. but now worth $5.6m

so by the solo miner that mined the block containing the bitcoin pizza transaction can earn more by just holding the reward.
so no need for royalty.. (which would just end up with lots of dust outputs and bloating the chain per tx paying all tx senders of all previous spends of tx)

[betswift]

Interesting idea, but as it was said - it wouldn't need to include those that were already mined in the past, because clearly, they would be having the biggest "royalties" yet. And it wouldn't be fair to not to give them such a feature due to that, but to others that do it now (the mining, I mean).

So it's better to not to do that idea

[odolvlobo]

A result of your scheme would be blocks full of transactions with people sending bitcoins to themselves just to get that perpetual royalty.

[ABCbits]

There are so many issues with your idea, for example
1. User would be confused since the intended receiver receive less Bitcoin than they wish.
2. It would cause very massive UTXO growth.
3. Less transaction would fit into a block.

[un_rank]

I cannot think of a reason for implementing this, miners already earn coin-base rewards for confirming the block.

...For example, when someone spends a Satoshi, % could flow back to the miner who mined the block containing that coin, and to the address that last held it for over a year.

Where is this percentage supposed to come from, the bitcoin being sent or the remaining bitcoins yet to be mined? None of these will work for obvious reasons, it will also be terrible for privacy, imagine getting a percentage of a transaction which was used for illegal trades.

This sounds like some faux-complex approach shitcoins use to try and get people to buy their product.

- Jay -

[Ucy]

It's not a good idea earning royalty from something produced by a system owned by a community. It may be ok if the bitcoins are created by the senders or miners, but they are not. They are rewards for works done and the assets of the owners/buyers.

Ofcourse, it will violate the principle of decentralization, since there are assumed centralized owners of the coins on Bitcoin Network even when they have been bought by other people. It also violate an important principle that is rarely spoken or written about, which is right to property

[NotFuzzyWarm]

i really think this is a good idea for a shitcoin, it would attract retail traders

So post about it in the altcoin area.
For the reasons already given it is a horrible idea for BTC.

[Darker45]

Perpetual? I can't imagine the implication of this. First off, a 21 million total supply might not be sufficient for this kind of setup. As a matter of fact, if we stick to Bitcoin having a fixed supply with this scheme, at some point in the distant future, there might be too few left in circulation. Bitcoin's deflation will be significantly accelerated. Old miners, forgotten wallets, abandoned addresses absorb precious Sats every time a transaction involving old coins happens.