the oxidation fee.. - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

mixoftix

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 178

..

Quote from: Findingnemo on April 26, 2024, 03:14:40 AM

That's terrible idea, why someone has to pay 10% fee for holding their money? The banking system is better than what you are proposing because banks give interest when you hold money in bank accounts not the other way around.

Miners are making more money that makes them to be profitable even after all the expenses, if miners can't able to make profits and stop their operations the one who remains will enjoy the rewards.

this is not that terrible, Findingnemo

)

thanks for reply, but please be advised that that 10% was just an example to explain the concept, but I would offer a logarithmic approach to the oxidation fee that just gets curvy shapes in last years.. and please consider that, a blockchain system is not a bank. the closest entities in decentralized echo-systems to the banks are crypto exchanges, which already have several EARN programs for customers too and charge their own level of fees.

but miners should work and benefit to make everything safe for end users.

p.s.: blockchains could get consider as digital version of Safe Deposit Boxes that everybody could RENT and put banknotes in it. I really do not know a bank in the world that pay interest to values in safe boxes.

mixoftix

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 178

..

Quote from: mocacinno on April 26, 2024, 02:54:39 AM

i'm just brainstorming here, but i imagine such a proposal would result in everybody spending all their unspent outputs at least once a year to avoid the tax... This would result in more broadcasted transactions, fuller mempools, blocks that are consistently completely filled and a fee war???

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.

Thanks for reply, mocacinno..

there might be a trade-off among enforcing holders to participate in decreasing the block-chain length and block-size. in other words, when we compress the block-chain by oxidation-fee, then we could increase the block-size on the other hand. so once the idea show its merit, then we could set all these variables to fit in.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4298

Merit: 3209

What you are proposing is called "demurrage". It is an alternative form of inflation. Rather than devaluing money by printing more, you devalue it by canceling it or taxing it.

Anyway, it's not clear what the problem is that you want to solve.

bitbollo

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 3485

Nec Recisa Recedit

I think that this approach would create new rules that were never included in the protocol and would penalize users who have already used it (like the classic hodler).
A lot of people find themselves with inputs blocked, among other things this would just penalize small inputs! because they would have to pay many more fees to be able to release these funds ... in such way people getting payment for trivial amount would decide immediately to spend it since in the long terms it can become impossible to spend Sad

Probably this approach could work for a fork or an altcoin, I don't think it can fit in btc current protocol.

Findingnemo

hero member

Activity: 2310

Merit: 757

Bitcoin = Financial freedom

That's terrible idea, why someone has to pay 10% fee for holding their money? The banking system is better than what you are proposing because banks give interest when you hold money in bank accounts not the other way around.

Miners are making more money that makes them to be profitable even after all the expenses, if miners can't able to make profits and stop their operations the one who remains will enjoy the rewards.

mocacinno

legendary

Activity: 3402

Merit: 5004

https://merel.mobi => buy facemasks with BTC/LTC

i'm just brainstorming here, but i imagine such a proposal would result in everybody spending all their unspent outputs at least once a year to avoid the tax... This would result in more broadcasted transactions, fuller mempools, blocks that are consistently completely filled and a fee war???

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.

mixoftix

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 178

..

hi there..

while rewards are decreasing by series of halving events and higher prices for a crypto or transaction fees are somehow not rational / possible, may we get back on paper and try to design a new fee structure to both satisfy miners and incentivize people to install more nodes all around?

my two cents here is about getting back to an old idea which was about the frozen old transactions in old blocks, that once they decide to move then should pay extra fee (oxidation fee) to the miners. for example if oxidation fee increases 10% by each year, after 10 years of being frozen, the total asset in that specific transaction may vanish by 100% oxidation fee for the owners and convert into reward to miners.. at the end of the day, once the oxidation fee structure get online, then we could see significant compression for old block data and new series of nodes (we may call them non-oxidized nodes) appear with only non-oxidized transactions.

in fact this is about the price that each participant should pay for preserving the supportive blockchain system of a coin (the bit-gold-layer).

any feedback welcome.

Topic: the oxidation fee.. - page 2. (Read 246 times)