Pages:
Author

Topic: ppcoin transaction fees - page 2. (Read 14556 times)

legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
October 02, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
#36
This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

What do you think about the problem of validation nodes having a huge bargaining power, as outlined in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1237882

It may or may not happen, at least I don't think it would happen before blocks are getting crowded (multiple thousands of transactions per block). It depends on whether a significant portion of minters are content with earning 1%. If they are, then I don't think any particular group of minters would be too successful at collecting additional revenues while under quite a bit public scrutiny.

On the other hand, it's also debatable whether minter collecting inclusion fees are okay. It's not all that different from miners setting minimum transaction fee in bitcoin (hasn't happened yet), other than more bloating of block chain.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
October 02, 2012, 12:00:54 PM
#35
This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

Unlike in proof-of-work, frequent reorganization is not personally costly for the minter. Mixed proof-of-work/proof-of-stake blocks is one possible resolution.

Can you overcome this by making txn fee revenue (100/n)% of txn fees in the minters block and (100/n)% of txn fees in the previous (n-1) blocks? I think If you do this, there would now be an incentive to include txns, but stealing txns from prior blocks would no longer be advantageous.

Comments?

P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.
The color attached to the ignore link measures hostility towards libertarians. I'm trying for a red color to better express my true feelings, but it seems to max out at orange.  Angry
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
October 02, 2012, 10:26:30 AM
#34
This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.

What do you think about the problem of validation nodes having a huge bargaining power, as outlined in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1237882
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
October 02, 2012, 08:42:16 AM
#33
Based on my arguments provided in
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1237882

I think the following incentive system for transaction fees would fix the dilemma. However, it's NOT a fee, it's a reward for the validation node!
transaction reward: 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed

The 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed is chosen to resemble the POS block reward.
This scheme results in ALL money to generate a 1% inflation per year, instead of only the fraction which is used for POS.

The reward scheme should divert the validation nodes from establishing an alternate monetary incentive system for transactions.

Let me know what you guys think about this.

This has the same problem of directly giving transaction fees to minters. Minters would have strong incentive to not acknowledge other minters blocks and force reorganization, just to grab all transaction fee/reward for himself.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
October 01, 2012, 09:47:16 PM
#32
Based on my arguments provided in
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1237882

I think the following incentive system for transaction fees would fix the dilemma. However, it's NOT a fee, it's a reward for the validation node!
transaction reward: 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed

The 1% * (1/365) * coindays destroyed is chosen to resemble the POS block reward.
This scheme results in ALL money to generate a 1% inflation per year, instead of only the fraction which is used for POS.

The reward scheme should divert the validation nodes from establishing an alternate monetary incentive system for transactions.

Let me know what you guys think about this.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 08:57:06 PM
#31
Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

Yep.  Open competition means there is always a chance somebody will create a better-than-bitcoin alternative currency.  It is refreshing to see people trying new ideas beyond "change block #0 and call it jgarzik-coin"



That is the beauty of the free market. As some may be looking for "innovation" to be a requirement for a medium of exchange. I disagree. People didn't make up their own precious metal or have to be innovative in creating a precious metal in order for people to agree it is "money" or a "medium of exchange". They just used silver or gold in a different coin imprint or shape etc.

Bitcoin is awesome and yes having other ideas be experimented upon is the purpose of this subforum, but when people come here and blatantly spout lies about their new "alt-chain" it tends to leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Good example is Solidcoin. Nuff said.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
October 01, 2012, 08:22:40 PM
#30
When transaction volume gets to the point there is competition getting into a block, ppcoin has the same Bitcoin logic that above half megabyte region of the block only higher and higher fee paying transactions are included. This is again implicit protocol and default client behavior and not enforced.
I see. So the default behavior for clients will be that higher transaction fees increase priority. However, in contrast to bitcoin, the transaction fees do not get redistributed to the validation nodes, but get destroyed instead.

Yes I understand all your concerns. If it becomes a widespread problem down the road (although I highly doubt) then protocol will be revised to correct the problem.

Adjusting transaction fee would require a hard-fork yes. I am not as strict as Gavin on the issues of hard-fork. I believe even if you design a convoluted transaction fee model most likely hard fork would be necessary somewhere else anyway.
Honestly, I think the attempt to remove monetary incentives from the transaction schedule, if the blockchain gets crowded, is futile. I predict the following will happen: Validation nodes will "sell" their transaction volume in form of specially crafted transaction types to users. I would have to think for a while how that would be technically accomplished, but I am pretty certain people will find a way.

However, the above scenario also shows a way how the "situation" can be fixed without requiring a hard fork.

ADDENDUM: After thinking about it for a moment, I think a simple solution would be if validation nodes publish a BTC address, which they consider for transaction fee payments. Then they can advertise that they only include transactions which include an output to that particular address. This works perfectly, since NOT including transaction doesn't impose a penalty. Thus the pressure is on the user.

Spinning that scenario a little bit longer suggests an interesting constellation: Validation nodes with large mining power can advertise their transaction volume at high prices, because they can guarantee fast transaction processing, while validation nodes with small mining power have to settle for lower prices. This is a totally screwed up situation.
How does that differ from bitcoin? It doesn't, bitcoin is susceptible to the same dilemma. However, in bitcoin the bargaining power is with the user creating the transaction, while in ppcoin the bargaining power is with the validation node, for two reasons: 1) POW blocks and POS blocks always provide a reward, irrespective of the number of transactions. 2) POS blocks don't impose a cost for the validation node.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
October 01, 2012, 08:00:59 PM
#29
Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

Yep.  Open competition means there is always a chance somebody will create a better-than-bitcoin alternative currency.  It is refreshing to see people trying new ideas beyond "change block #0 and call it jgarzik-coin"

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 07:58:08 PM
#28
Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.

I'm glad I can  help keep the entertainment alive.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2301
Chief Scientist
October 01, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
#27
Jeff probably skims this sub forum for the same reasons I do-- entertainment, to keep my mind open to new ideas, and the chance that there will actually be some good ideas.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 07:42:04 PM
#26
P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.



Yes "usually", but not always.

Most people ignore me because they can't take the harsh realities of the truth.

Jeff I figured you had more important things to do than worry about an insignificant troll like myself on some obscure "scam coin" subforum right? Or was I wrong? lol

 Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
October 01, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
#25
P.S.  Note the color attached to smoothie's "ignore" link.  This indicates that a profile is a frequently-ignored profile, usually for trolling reasons.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 06:55:49 PM
#24
Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie Cheesy



Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.



This is nothing to do with "ppcoin transaction fees", and is probably best made asking op directly.  

But, i'll feed you a little. I feel that Sunny King has contributed a lot of time to this project, and is valuable to the community.

I dont really care if you buy, or not into whatever estimate.  I see a project being developed, with unique traits over all the other alt chains.  Im here to invest time into things I feel are a worthy cause and competitor for the BTC clones. A friendly suggestion, maybe you should go and find something to invest your time into.

Anyway please, lets try and keep this on track and analytical. If you have other questions, why not make a thread, or if its a direct question to the dev just pm him.


Yup already did that...except the PM part. There isn't any reason to be private about this. Transparency is a good thing.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
October 01, 2012, 06:18:42 PM
#23
Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie Cheesy

Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.



This is nothing to do with "ppcoin transaction fees", and is probably best made asking op directly.  

But, i'll feed you a little. I feel that Sunny King has contributed a lot of time to this project, and is valuable to the community.

I dont really care if you buy, or not into whatever estimate.  I see a project being developed, with unique traits over all the other alt chains.  Im here to invest time into things I feel are a worthy cause and competitor for the BTC clones. A friendly suggestion, maybe you should go and find something to invest your time into.

Anyway please, lets try and keep this on track and analytical. If you have other questions, why not make a thread, or if its a direct question to the dev just pm him.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
#22
Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie Cheesy

Sorry, what is the question?

The question is: How much time has really been put into PPC and actual honest evaluation of total cost based on his time developing PPC?

I don't buy his $100k-$200k estimate. It's bullshit. That is what I call "pump" in the scheme called "pump and dump".

"hey look at how much time I put into PPC. It must be worth lots so buy it"......is how I translate that.

sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
October 01, 2012, 05:50:56 PM
#21
Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie Cheesy

Sorry, what is the question?
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 01, 2012, 05:47:56 PM
#20
Etlase2 and smoothie, why dont you guys go and try and trash another thread, or go give LTC threads some trash.

Hey if I ask a question and there isn't an answer to it besides bullshit propaganda I will keep asking the question.

Obviously your "leader" sunny KING doesn't know the average salary of a software engineer in making his $100k-$200k  appraisal of his L33T programming skills.

Seriously even Coinshiiter talked so highly about how much he was paid as a software enginner/programmer.

AndyRossy, if you don't like it keep crying okay?

Thanks

Your best friend,

Smoothie Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
October 01, 2012, 05:27:14 PM
#19
Yes I understand all your concerns. If it becomes a widespread problem down the road (although I highly doubt) then protocol will be revised to correct the problem.

Adjusting transaction fee would require a hard-fork yes. I am not as strict as Gavin on the issues of hard-fork. I believe even if you design a convoluted transaction fee model most likely hard fork would be necessary somewhere else anyway.
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
October 01, 2012, 05:19:47 PM
#18

This is inaccurate, you can still raise your paytxfee to get a better chance of getting into a block. The prioritization of transactions have not been changed from Bitcoin. 1c is the minimum required fee. If the argument is about miners have no incentive to include transactions, I think this concern is false as including transactions does not consume much resources and miners have no incentive to change the default client behavior to exclude transactions.

If transaction fees were paid to minters it would become a serious problem down the road as we described in our design paper.

I recommend to take the discussion about the value of the design work to PMs.

on the topic:
Please help me understanding the prioritization schedule for transactions and how that can be enforced on a protocol level (as you indicated in the design paper). As far as I understand it, right now validation nodes have neither an incentive nor a disincentive to include transactions. If the number of transactions hit the transaction limit, how can a user enforce a higher priority? In bitcoin this is achieved by providing a monetary incentive to the validation nodes.
Can you think of any other means of implementing an priority system for transactions, which does not require monetary incentives for validation nodes?

These are two separate issues. Including transactions is default client behavior and an implicit protocol but not enforced.

When transaction volume gets to the point there is competition getting into a block, ppcoin has the same Bitcoin logic that above half megabyte region of the block only higher and higher fee paying transactions are included. This is again implicit protocol and default client behavior and not enforced.

What I mean implicit protocol is that any benign alternative client software should follow the same behavior.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
October 01, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
#17
Here are the minimal gains:

1) 0 joules > X joules (as markm said) - probably not a very big one as I think CPUs will outdo network growth in this area, but ECDSA verification is a very slow operation
2) faster block prop > slower block prop
3) less incentive to actually participate in the network via bandwidth costs which I think will always be a problem (this especially applies to PoS which very likely won't be pooled)

I think it's a bit more forward-thinking to address these concerns rather than dismissing them as minimal. It is hard to predict the future.

Plus you didn't answer if the 1c tx cost was hard-coded or can be changed by the protocol. If it's hard-coded, that's an awfully blunt-force way to set the tx fee. What if 1c is $1 in the future? A hard fork would be required to be competitive with other currencies.
Pages:
Jump to: