Topic: ppcoin transaction fees - page 2. (Read 14521 times)

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.

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?

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

I'm glad I can  help keep the entertainment alive. 

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.

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

 

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.

Yup already did that...except the PM part. There isn't any reason to be private about this. Transparency is a good thing.

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.

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.

Sorry, what is the question?

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

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.

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.

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.