And in any case, there should probably be a minimum amount sent in order for it to be accepted for processing, say 100 NAV depending on where the price is at the time.
I don't think processing transactions below $1 value makes sense.
Another question: How much (if any) extra burden does the anonymous system add to the actual blockchain?
Since the blockchain is already increasing fast, would it make sense to double the amount of time for a block?
Do we really need such fast blocks or do we need a more manageable chain instead?
I do not dispute the absolute value of the fee, but your question is well placed.
You might also want consider what is the value of a service in its own way unique,
but they are themes and economic theories, from which I remain happily out.
Regarding the cost and use of the server, and how the cost of the servers just
to handle anonymity, here I am in the dark, we have been told that there are 12
servers, but I have no idea how they are intended or functions are divided
and whether they can be aggregated.
But of one thing I am quite sure, even without anonymity, there are live
costs to sustain.
Maybe we can think as academic discussion about the impact of anonymous
transactions on blockchain, at least from what has been explained in the course
of the beta test.
Obviously there are only conjectures and maybe wrong, happy to be corrected by Dev.
Instead of a transaction "clear" and directed, a transaction anonymous undergoes
multiple steps, as well as a fragmentation, which depends not so much on the
absolute value, but the composition of the figure that you want to move.
For example, if in the best of cases, to send for example 100 or 1000 occupies
a space of 1, and send 1050 it occupies 2, to send 975 or 9999 it can occupy 10.
So without making too many calculations, an anonymous transaction, may impact
differently on blockchain, but may come to occupy as a dozen normal transactions.
Moreover, the fragmentation of which I said before, also involves another effect,
which will take place later, when the recipient will spend the money received.
Its new transaction will consist of many small piles, which occupy a little more
space than normal, making the size in bytes of the transaction a little heavier.
Nothing catastrophic, but it is a burden that will be imposed on the entire
block chain.
The idea of slowing the blockchain, I do not really like, in general I prefer a
fast coin instead of having to wait several minutes for confirmation.
In the case of many transactions at same time, may be cases of gridlock,
in which transactions are put in a long queue, dilating much the time needed
to final confirmation, a bit as happen with btc.
Instead a fast block time, would reduce these queues, and make time to
confirm acceptable.
There might be a compromise solution, a block time slow when there are no
transactions, but it can accelerate immediately, when there are new transactions
to be incorporated or to be confirmed.
It seems to me that some coins have attempted this, but I do not remember the
name, or if they have been successful, but I think it's a fairly difficult
to implement it here and now, especially so with a coin already in operation.
Bye Bye
