Topic: TAUCoin “Proof of Transaction” - features debate and bounty for 12 months - page 4. (Read 26435 times)

Addresses can be created off-chain for free.

Time limit on "fake" transaction won't work if an entity creates lots of addresses (it's free).

Mods (foundation?) can grant "start-up" status, but this is a centralized solution.

Think of a start-up where one creates an app/website that requires the use of "HIS" TAU address over and over again as payments, he then, can subdue the system by generating multiple transactions solely for DUAL purposes: 1. to earn from his app/website and 2. for block rewards system. "Transaction for profit" can happen whichever ways whether fake or start-up as this serves the coins' purpose, Proof of Transaction. OR do you mean to tell that only those who have start-ups can abuse the reward blocking mechanism?

Maybe the blockchain can check if transactions are only from the same addresses mostly and therefore rewards from them could be limited. A transaction fee of 0.00250000 TAU can produce at least 40 transactions before fully burning 1TAU as tx fee so it will really be abused in the future. How about putting a limit to a transaction to be made between 2-4 addresses.? 

"Fake" is a transaction which overfed determined limit (day, month, year).
Startup makes a request to mods. Mods accepted startup account (accounts) and all transactions from it account is "start-up".

TAU is a permission-less public chain, so it might be difficult to tell which transactions are "fake" and which are "start-up".

This is the second school of thinking, although I don't like this idea (I might be wrong). Bitcoin's white paper only points out that mining power based on hash computation can prevent sybil attack. Nakamoto didn't say anything about evolution of mining power from CPU, GPU, FPGA to ASIC. We can choose to do nothing about for-profit transactions and see what happens under POT.

This is the first school of thinking, and what I prefer. Making transactions solely for the purpose of profit should be stopped.

 i dont understand why am not given the coins despite doing my tasks? this is the spreadsheet image
https://ibb.co/fVBv1L, i asked that to telegram admin but he does not have an answer yet

50/50 or win/win. All fake transaction should be limited in any way. From the other hand transactions that make startups on tau platform or transaction that allow growing up the tau community etc., should be awarded for example in lower fees.

We are using POT so why should we not give benefit for those who made transactions themselves? besides transaction fee has doubled in time when I first joined TAU community. I believe it is everybody's right to gain benefit from their transactions. If there should be a reward clipping mechanism, remaining balance out of the cap must be distributed fairly to everyone or by lottery or mining groups

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

A suggested reward clipping model has been put into white paper v0.4. Please read. The key idea is that any address cannot own more reward than it paid.

no its okay i resign from doing further tasks here , i stay with my sign up bonus
thanks bye

I wrote above about fake transactions that will make only for future profit. To avoid unfairness and bias devs or mods should manually allow a few accounts make a transaction at standard fees in X tau. Anyone can write to mods and make a request for the planned exceeding number of allowed transactions per day due to the nature of his business on the tau platform.

Is there already a threshold for reward clipping? And what method are they using as basis? Should there be a ratio of tx fee to # of transactions?
Is it possible in the future to have a tx fee higher than the amount being transferred? if so, will it not go back to the miner as part of the block reward?

I suggest that a fix percentage of whatever value (e.g. 10% of tx fee) of the reward clipping cap should be established while the remaining balance be distributed throughout the mining cub members (90%)

That is an interesting suggestion, dynamic transaction fee based on volume. But it may bring unfairness to some users, or create bias by block generator.

My opinion should establish a dynamic dependence of the transaction value on their number for a certain period of time (day, month, year). For example, the cost of a standard transaction is X tau. If the number of transactions, for example, is more than 100 per day, then 101, 102 and further transactions will cost 10X, more than 1000 -  1001, 1002… - 100X, etc.

There certain stuff for Taucoin mobile mining to avoid problem such as Apple's censorship.

The taucoin mobile app that will be used for mining should be:

1. The app developers of the product are inside the company or organization. Must be part of the team.

2. Mobile mining via the device is still prohibited maybe if the mine activity could work out of the device, can taucoin team managed this?

3. Apps can help users make pay, trade, or receive cryptocurrency on an approved exchange, but the apps must be from the exchanges themselves.

4. The apps that will be interact by the mobile app should be legit for trading, or buying and selling. Must be govern by the Law.

5. The app shouldn't be used to offer users to earn virtual coin for completing task such as downloading some file or other app.


If all those mentioned provisions, can be made by Taucoin team, then we can  avoid such censorship upon launching a mobile mining app for taucoin. But you need to make a product first that consistent on their guidance and also sync on the objective of Taucoin project. If only android can be used for mobile mining then the chance to increase users for taucoin mining isnt that effective.

Im thinking as well how the system can transfer node and blocks from a mobile  which not rapidly drain battery when conducting mining. Still you will use power even you don't use proof of Pow.

TAU is very unique therefore in choosing an accounting system, the team should consider some unique properties of it as well so that copying another's transaction system will not benefit or introduce its uniqueness. I am suggesting a NEW model that could help the system. but first, here are a few points that we should take note carefully.

1. Will it promote a higher and better degree of privacy than bitcoin/etheruem?
2. Will it be able to handle massive transactions in the future?
3. Will it promote foundational platforms/programs/apps?
4. Will it promote fungibility?
5. Will it take too much space for storage and consumption?
6. Will it be user friendly? Simple yet complete?

While the invention/foundation/development of TaU is based on POT as consensus mechanism, its accounting model should be solely based on it as well. And here's what I suggest. (Anyway I'm not a developer or something related so I might sound superficial with my suggestion)

a. TAU needs a totally different blockchain explorer.

b. It needs to have an "expiration" on TAU hodlers. A cheque model to be exact wherein a cheque is only valid for up to six months. After that,
    the cheque is invalid. (Since a cheque is only a representation of the real value in a bank account, the unspent cheque will not affect the
    total amount and value of money in the owners bank account). In such a case, a transaction will also have an expiration once it was verified
    and the given timeframe arrives therefore acknowledging that the previous transaction is already verified by the system.

c. Since this is a POT mechanism, hoarding and hodling should not be encouraged while promoting/advocating transaction consumption. This
    could be done by another mechanism called "automatic transfer" into an owners account. Every after an "expiration", the system will
    automatically transfer the balance to another account that should be linked to the first one. Two or more accounts  for each owner is
    inevitable for this scenario as this system will promote a higher security and privacy as well and promote transactions even for inactive
    users without the fear of losing each one's coins

d. Tau's window size should be modified for this system. A faster "expiration" leads to a faster "automatic transfer" and it leads to a higher
    security as stated above. Anything that has to do with a one-year period of time in TAU's white-paper should be modified as well for this
    purposes.

e. Any complete transaction and expired non-transaction will eventually must be deleted from the system and the blockchain (or nodes) must
    have a consensus to ensure that a transaction is complete or a non-transaction is expired. This will promote data-saving properties as it will
    not consume large amounts of data to hold information.

f. With this system in TAUs blockchain, it will be easier to  produce or generate an app/program/alternative coin in so that it's simplicity over
    other existing cryptocurrency will be highly valued.

g. Applications/program and other products and services to be used on top of TAUs blockchain should consider its uniquenees in order to fully
    utilized its function. In case of a gaming app, suggestions above should be considered (e.g. having an internal and external wallet for
   automatic transfer, in case of stagnant activity) so that panic will not be in any occasion.

h. During a complete transaction where the sender sends all or a part of his balance onto the receivers wallet, both wallets will serve as a
    fresh base for the countdown of an "expiration".

I still have more to know about this NEW suggestion that I just gave but in case my statements above made no sense at all, the team should AT LEAST try to accommodate a combination of the two commonly used models for accounting and have in mind the BEST scenario for that purpose. Ranking TAUs priorities should be evaluated in order to choose in which accounting model to use. If, for example security and privacy is of higher priority that its simplicity and mass usage, go for UTXO as base models but not completely ignoring ETH accounts strenghts.