I don't think the fee should be destroyed. It would be a much better idea to pay it to Bitcoin miners or XCP holders. No? Maybe I don't understand it well enough.
But yeah 5 xcp seems a bit much.
But yeah 5 xcp seems a bit much.
Destroying the fee is paying it to XCP holders.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto - June 21, 2010
"Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone."
PS: I'd say 1 XCP for new assets. I like round & prime numbers. I'm afraid to see a wave a spam issuances like COKE/CRACK/METH/DILDO/FRENCHGIRL coming from the same guy if you lower it too much...
I am of the same view as well. We need to reduce the fees to encourage businesses, however at the same time not lower it too much that there will be spam issuances and asset squatting. Which will stand in the way of legitimate businesses and users.
1 XCP seems about right (Nxt has an issuance fee of 1000 Nxt).
People go through the day speaking an average of maybe 2000 english words - at 1 XCP per asset it is far too little, even 5 is too little.
It should be the like of 50 or 100 IMO. And the line about being in the way of legitimate businesses is pure bogus - there is no legitimate business that cannot afford 100 xcp.
Bitcoin Tangible Trust, if you want to issue an asset for a fully-redeemable silver coin that costs you, say, $20 to buy and put into custody? How does a 5 XCP asset issuance fee effect the end price that you need to charge a customer to buy this silver coin?
EDIT: OK, I just did the math. 5 XCP = $32 @ 0.01 BTC/XCP and $640 BTC/USD. So, basically at 5 XCP issuance fee you would need to charge $52 for a silver coin that otherwise could be purchased from a coin dealer for $20. So, yes, from my basic analysis, this seems like a blockage, at least for BTT's business model anyways.
EDIT: Porqupine, maybe you see / understand something that I am missing? Can you please elaborate? Interested to better understand your perspective, as you always have such good postings on this list.
