Topic: Transaction cost possible fix (Read 286 times)

To buwaytress, when someone unlocks the real private key with the private key stored in their new wallet(aka transfer coins to traditional bitcoin wallets) that coin effectively becomes a wallet and would be removed from the new wallet, thus preventing people from trading coins(wallets) they actually have the private keys to. The system would make things simple so that people wouldn't even see the keys to the keys of their coins. It would only tell them how much they have because simplicity is what the world needs to adopt something as abstract as bitcoin. There would be an option to transfer coins to wallets but is irreversible unless they sent the bitcoin back into a coin which would be a process people can also do on their own.

Yes it would require transactions into the coins firsthand but I see multiple benefits to this solution. I would argue that a bitcoin that could be securely traded off of the blockchain nearly instantly for free would be worth much more than a traditional bitcoin that costs money and requires the internet and time to transfer. Almost to the point where it would be worth the price to make these coins. This would also leave the blockchain as its own entity which lets the exchanges, miners, and holders continue to do what they do which I see as a huge benefit to the ecosystem.

And yes wallet addresses prove identity but nothing is stopping anyone from making as many wallets as they want so can that be considered a valid measure of identity? whereas a new type of wallet added on top of the old wallet could use multiple wallets to add value to the entire system.

What is the number? Something like 30-40% of bitcoins are effectively lost? When that number grows it could spread to everyone losing their bitcoin, and then what? Those bitcoins are just sitting there. I'd propose you create the system as I've written, spread the news on major news sites that you have to put your regular wallet ID on the bitcoin website. After some 2-5 years take all non marked bitcoin wallets and throw it in the fund to create the liquid system to give people an option to traditionally barter with bitcoin. All the lost bitcoin would effectively return to the miners and flood back into the system. This is needed because at most there can only be 21 million bitcoin. 210 trillion satoshi. That amount pales in comparison to the worlds actual money in circulation. If bitcoin was serious about being a real currency something must be done to hold onto as much as possible because regular systems can just print more, bitcoin can't without changing the whole system. And while it can be seen as a positive aspect of the currency, it could ultimately lead to bitcoin's downfall.

And who would own the new coins that are created to start the system? Well, nobody. The coins made(less than what would have to be given to the miners to make the coins) could be used to create a Change system. Let's say someone has .23BTC in the form of .2BTC and .03BTC. The transaction will cost them .18BTC. They can't make the exact transaction. But if their current keys could be changed so they hold .18 and .05, they could make the transaction. This would require atleast 1 party to be connected to the internet but it is possible as the change system could exchange wallets for wallets of the same value as the keys would just change but the user would have no knowledge of this as they don't care what's really going on. As long as it's accurate and secure. To make this process easier coins would have to be divided into actual segments and not just crazy .1263957294. And you could argue that that would ruin buying things with an exact whatever currency to bitcoin price but the system should be designed for purchases in bitcoin, not in what came before it. this plan would take years to make, and then years to implement but I think it could be worth it

Thanks for the feedback!! There is a lot of little details that I haven't explained. It will probably take awhile to get it all out here. more thoughts!!

It's not a possible fix to the question of how to securely send payment from peer to peer over a trustless network. What you're effectively suggesting is that people share access - and you must know that security of your Bitcoin begins first with ensuring that the owner is the only one with control i.e., the only one in possession of the private key.

How do you also exchange wallets of specific amounts? Keep a set of wallets in small denominations? You'd still have to create transactions to split your coins up like that. And, once more than one person has the private key, outside of multi-sig, there's no way to prevent any of the owners from spending those Bitcoins. Sweeping also requires transacting.

Can't be avoided, OP.

Your wallet address is (probably) your identity to prove that it's you (in case it's needed to sign a message - take an example of staking addresses here). Would you be willing to sell your identity? It'll completely change the way the protocol is implemented to work the way out. Trading (as in here, giving) your address' private key to someone will surely save the fees, but is prone to vulnerable issues like getting your wallet(s) hacked in future in case you ever had any of those addresses in a "wallet".

 Transaction cost is part of bitcoin when bitcoin rising you earn some profie and must pay high fee.

today price down and also fee down it is justify and possible

Thanks guys, this is the direction I was looking for

Not a change to the way bitcoin works. Everything stays the same, segwit, LN and all.
But a change in the way normal transactions for everyday purchases can be handled.

Let's call bitcoin wallets coins. You can store fractions of bitcoin in these coins, you can send any amount of these coins in a letter system just as anti-cen explained. All backed by encryption and whatnot. All decentralized as a system could allow multiple wallets to be created to handle the new "coins"

I have been coding for a few years but have not stepped in cryptos yet. If you want to know more about my idea pm me and we can talk. Otherwise continue the expansion of thought, I'm loving it!

Shit that sounds so crazy it just might work

My current line of thinking is that yes we need a type of "Money network" that will work like a type of recorded post system
but it does not know anything about whats inside the letter, only that something was sent digitally and received in case of disputes
and also deals with routeing.

That's the easy part and is KISS and you seem like an educated person and will have to work with me if you would like to know more
but it does include, as much as i would like not too, trusted 3rd parties that are anomalous entitles that get voted out the system if
they cannot behave themselves, much like what happens already today on networks.

Will peg the post and check for reply tomorrow    

this is basically a money transfer system known as "hawala" where funds are transferred among parties without actual movement of money. there's nothing wrong with this premise. in fact, it's the underlying idea behind opendime:


this is a tricky problem. generating a new key and sweeping the funds to it incurs miner fees. opendime has created an interesting solution. the USB wallet device is disposable and must be physically broken in order to spend any funds kept on it.

as long as the device is intact, you can check the balance and use it for trading.

Yeah very transaction have an equivalent   charge cost, the charge cost its depends how much the amount transfering.

I don't even think that people transferring to their other addresses is the problem. It's the exchanges. They contribute to most of the traffic. I'm sure it would make a world of a difference if they all opt into Segwit. Your solution won't work with exchanges either since they don't let people see the private keys.
[/quote]

Yes sometimes transfering of fund into another exchange causing a problem or traffic but i think it is due to multiful transactinon from different country.

The block-chain is the problem and that's without mining (Revving engine with car out of gear)

" (or any other crypto for that matter) "

Would you agree that VISA uses digital money that uses encryption for security and would you also agree that
VISA can process 25,000 transactions a second and they do all this with hundreds of time less processing power
than the BTC network has at its disposal ?

VISA is also decentralized to some degree or else I am sure ISIS or a power cut would had taken it down by now
and yes I am aware that CryproKittie nearly took the ETH network down but again, what would you expect when
its using block-chain even if it is version two.

Maybe i have helped you to answer your own question here.


 

The facts and numbers to you must be more like "Hate Speech" surly and now all you have left is insults
and hot air but miners have lots of that due to over clocking the GPU's and then having to cool them down
so I won't take it personal anyway

Nice signature i see but should it not read "Anything that is not BTC is a Ponzi scam, trust me I am here to defend the faith 

Troll on home girl. You obviously understand next to nothing.

Here's a related idea. How about a hardware wallet with a menu option to create a new key? Lets say you wanted to buy something big, like a house. You load up equivilent of 60000 onto it, (you and the seller would have to agree on a price in BTC beforehand)  you sign all your contracts with the seller then you hand it to them, and they push the button to create new keys, and they now have the whole wallet, and the buyer could only get the keys if they had the hardware wallet, which they no longer do.

I agree with this. This is the way we should follow.

If anyone here thinks that bitcoin (or any other crypto for that matter) will be able to grow forever to meet network processing requirements of on-chain transactions - you are dead wrong.
More users ->higher adoption ->more transactions -> congestion of the network = there is no feasible solution for this except making block bigger - and this is not something we can do.

Little boy racer i was aware of BTC when it was trading at a mere $0.15 and if you go back to the white paper then you would see the
term "Virtually free" when it came to transactions costs and $40+ is anything but that.

Your in a race to compete for a prize with all this hardware you have that is offering next to nothing of any use to me

Lets do the sums between us

Max transactions per second = 7
Average packet size (inputs, outputs) = 250 bytes
250 * 7 * 8 =14Kbs

"Bitcoin is not and will never be a free service"

You will want it priced in bits next instead of bytes so pop outside, rev the boy racer without driving anywhere
and wait for a big guys from "Green Peace" has a few words with you.

"IF the fees can be spread among enough users the fee will come down"

So are you saying that at the beginning of the year when fees were near zero that we had less users than
we have today ? Tell me, what you smoking because i want some and the chances are that i was cutting
code before you even started school

This is my thought on your "possible idea" in reducing or taking the transaction fee aside. So, you're saying that we should pass our own private key to people that you don't know, or trust? Really? Do you think that it is a good idea for people? No, what if that person steal your funds? This is a cryptocurrency world bro, stop imagining something that is impossible.

You mean the miners decided to skim the cream from off our cake as prices started to go up
and then attempted to lock us in.

Looks like spending more and more money just so machines could keep competing against
each other in a pointless race didn't quite workout for them

Avoid block-chains if you can when looking for alt-coins because evolution will
push them all out in the long term and if a small amount of semi decentralized
servers are needed then forget about something cooked up in academia and run
with it because in the real world that's how things work.  

Transaction fees is going crazy with growing popularity and price of BITCOIN. And lighting network is the only solution to it otherwise bitcoin will flop in upcoming years. Investors will start shifting to altcoins or Bitcoin forks to save fees and time.

When are you going to send me the keys to your house. I need a place to live.

Home girl, I was mining years before you ever heard about bitcoin. It costs a hell of a lot of money to buy equipment and today it’s incredibly difficult to ROI. Finding a cryptographic hash with an ever increasing difficulty is crazy stressful on equipment. Miners have a big investment in equipment that will not last long.

Mining was never intended to be a free service. Originally, the block reward was the payment for mining and was expected to eventually be replaced by mining fees. IF bitcoin use grows large enough and IF the fees can be spread among enough users the fee will come down but it will never be free. Bitcoin is not and will never be a free service.

You seem to be in danger of thinking for yourself !

Are you talking about real P2P wallets that uses some type of autonomous currency unit
that I can send direct to your wallet so you can validate the coin is real using cryptography

Will need a type of DNS service so that i can find your public address but the DNS Type servers
would have no control what so ever about the data that is exchanged and Tor already does
something a bit like this to resolve onion addresses on the network to hidden sites.

Forget mining new coins like we do now because General Electric designed the plan
with the help of GPU video card manufactures so that they could get rich

Bitcoin Transaction fees are too high due to recent price hike it is the main reason for other fork coins to get momentum