Topic: How would the ecosystem change if the fees came back to the user after 1 year? - page 2. (Read 232 times)

Bitcoin mining is an economic activity and there must be a good return to continue, thus ensuring the decentralization of the network.
When the miners do not receive any money, they will not continue to do mining and therefore the network will be weak.
It is possible to think of solutions that make the fees zero, but they are either centralized or require trust, and therefore we cannot say that they are decentralized.

The best thing we can do is to reduce the fees to the least possible, with the possibility of adding more transactions within the block, and thus the miners get more money.

Let's look at something objectively:
A good mining machine would cost around 5500$

Now one has to understand that the cost of electricity differs in every single county, therefore, it does not matter where you live, it might be really high or really low, no one knows.

But you might spend like 500$ per month on mining, depending where you live.

A miner is more like a business man who have invested his money here and how would be get the money back? The transaction fee is something that pays him for his service and if we do look at it, it's not really much, it perfectly fits their life and hopefully they are able to balance it all out.

But at the end of the day, balancing it all out might not work and therefore many individual mining farms gets shut down, therefore it's not like they are swimming in gold. Taking the fee away would be disastrous.

Hope you understand that.

Interesting. Don't you think this would be exploited by spammers who could spam as much as they want probably with borrowed  fees knowing that they will eventually recover their money back when their frozen/locked fees are released.
One or more crypto networks probably burn their fees, I wonder what you think about that. I actually prefer such fees to go into some sort of decentralized liquidity pool for controlling currency supply with predetermined rule that helps maintain the scarcity or anti-inflationary feature of the currency.

I still don't see the problem that you're trying to solve. If there is no problem at all, then it's basically a useless feature. On what basis the user is allowed to earn the fees if they don't provide any support to the network? The network would be very weak and prone to attack if you design it that way. On top of that, no one would support the chain. User should not expect to earn mining fees or something similar if they aren't doing anything.

It's one thing for it to be frozen and a different thing to have the fee returned, it would simply clog the whole chain for a year if the returning fees would have their own space in a block.


Actually no, it will not prevent them from doing so and it will only make sure he can repeat this thing every year at zero costs.


This makes zero sense.
PoB is an alternative to PoS, and furthermore an algorithm that has never been successfully tested with any coin, and it's far easier to attack than PoS, let's compare the number of people who will stake coins for a reward and to protect the network and the ones willing to burn their money for it.
Oh, and in the end, nothing is being solved.

Yes, I forgot about that obvious part. It would require changing the system.

Some examples of those changes would be:
A=
1-Has frozen transaction fee going back to you after 1 year.
2-You can also send coin to some place.
3-Money sent to this place back as reward after X months.
4-Amount of money sent to this place is your stake used to decide the mining.

B=
1-Has frozen transaction fee going back to you after 1 year.
2-You can also send coin to some place.
3-Money sent to this place back as reward after X months.
4-Amount of money at this place is your stake used to decide the mining.

C=
1-Has frozen transaction fee going back to you after 1 year.
2-You can also send coin to some place.
3-Money sent to this place back as reward after X months.
4-Amount of money sent send as reward from this place is your stake used to decide the mining.

D=
1-Like A but instead of X months, the money go back as miner reward at next block.

E, F, G, H =
1-Like previous 4, but instead of sending coins to some place that will go back as reward after X months (or next block at the case of D), while making a transaction you can choose between making a normal transaction fee that will go back to you after 1 year, or sending it to some place where the fee will stay there and will go back to as reward to miners and also be used to do the staking related things.

There is some one change that wouldn't have the freezing method.
I=
1-All transactions fees go to the reward pot, there is no freezing.
2-What is used to decide the miner is the amount of coins send as transactions fees.
At idea I you will lose your transaction fees like happens right now, but they will have an extra use.

Fees are used to pay miners to include our transaction into the blockchain. If the system only freezes the fees, there must be some other reward to the miner, if not, why would they process your transactions? Then the discussion will go toward incentive. Yes, the devs could create other incentive mechanism, but the question is, is it better than fee system? At a glance, the ecosystem will radically change, but I don't think it's in the better direction.

Then how will miners be incentivized to secure the network? Let’s not forget that most if not all miners conduct mining operations simply because they can earn a living off it. It’s quite unrealistic to think that people would mine solely to secure the network knowing how much electricity and hardware Bitcoin mining demands.

While not exactly what you described though, Proof of Stake is the closest. Which in itself has a lot of issues when talking about an asset for money/SoV.

The transaction fees are the part that should ensure Bitcoin run forever. The block rewards are decreasing, rather sharply. When those will become really small, the miner have to be paid somehow for their work. That's what the transaction are fees for, not only to avoid network spam.
This being said, if your idea would be implemented, in some (many?) years from now, there's a (good) chance the miners will leave.

So while your idea is interesting for your own pocket (and all users'), it's not that good for the ecosystem...


And something more. If those coins will return to you, it may be some dust input, which may cost more to be spent than how much it worth...
And something more. While using bitcoin, for privacy, it's recommended to not reuse addresses. Still, in years, all the old addresses will be filled with dust. All in all, it looks more a waste than not spending some cents.

I think there was a coin that did this already but I'm not sure.

I don't think there's much change though. I could see it being a thing but paying a few cents for a transaction isn't really a problem and fees might be preferable for miners to want to accept as it means they pay less for transactions (than the freezing system) and they get paid from the mining which provides a functional system for the chain to sustain itself after the last block halving.

We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.

Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.

How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.