Topic: Vitalik Buterin suggests a new fixed fee model for ethereum transactions (Read 293 times)

This is the problem nowadays with 99% of the people talking about cryptos.

All you care about are "investors", forget about the coin, forget what it was supposed to do, forget transactions, and fees and utility. All that is needed are "investors" who should buy the coin to make the price go up.


The problem is the not so much content of the current proposal...the problem is that if this is the first proposal from many that will come  ETH has said goodbye to decentralization, Vitalik says, ETH does. If he will impose fixed txs or he will only allow them to scale up and down by a formula he thinks is right, he will surely not stop here.

Once you open the box, things will turn ugly pretty fast

I don't think he believes in decentralization, etheruem is centralized coin if you don't like, you can invest in ETC. This model is very basic for now, it can't be implemented.

Is he going to make changes on BLOCKCHAIN unilaterally (without strong debates and reviews)? This is one of my many problems with Vitalik.   Seems he doesn't believe in Cryptocurrency ideals so much. Being smart is not the same as wisdom.
Sometimes I think he deserves the bashing he gets on social media lol. Smh
The Bitcoin way of doing things maybe the best afterall? Lots of maturity to be honest.

Until Vitalik called himself as Vitalik instead Vitaliy I can not think about his speeches seriously. He tells many things: some of them are then realized in practice, some not.

You mean to say the only decentralised model which we created so that we can have lower fees and faster transactions will now have the restrictions of choosing the fees and speed of the transactions?

Isn't that is the worst case scenario that this teen ager has put up because I am sensing the bad publicity of ETH is on the way. The fees is what people are tired about and being here it looks like they will make it centralised, as you have no freedom choose the fees ? And additionally wait for the block which will have the lower fees ? Lolz!!

To my knowledge, the financial system focuses mainly on demographics which are the most lucrative. They mainly cater to 1 percenters as that is where the bulk of profits are to be found. Ethereum's tokenization model caters to lower end demographics which the financial system typically ignores. It was never a credible threat to established players, some of which have literally trillions of dollars tied up in their derivatives schemes.

Tokenization mainly focused upon small business and small loans. A demographic ignored by the financial system. That empowerment of those who lacked options and were being neglected is what made tokens and ICOs so great. I think its safe to say, they weren't taking business from financial institutions, they were merely taking the business financial institutions did not want due to poor credit history/ratings, low capital, etc.

There are press releases where Vitalik Buterin repeats almost word for word the statements offered by large financial institutions. ETH is engineered within a centralized format which large corporate enterprise and governments would favor over the distributed and decentralized nature of bitcoin. This latest move towards fixed and centrally determined transaction fees is only the latest in a long string of such policies.

Anyways I'm sorry if I'm not repeating the pro crypto perspective word for word, here.

It might be safe to say financial institutions favor centralized control to make it easier to push agendas and accomplish their goals. Monopolies and complete control over industries, sectors and societies are their end game.

People who wish to maintain the freedom and rights they enjoy instead favor decentralized paradigms of control as they make it more difficult for special interests or one percenters to gain unified control over aspects of everyday life.

There could be political factors in play here and people could be choosing sides.

This Windows comparison is interesting.

However I didn't get your idea about vitalik and the bankers.
 vitalik Buterin really acts in a weird way sometimes, but in my opinion tokenization model is revolutionary and it was a great blow to the financial system.

Now companies does not need to be funded through the stock market, they can be easily funded without any burocratic issue through ethereum ICOs.

I do not know either it is good or it is bad for investors. I know he is a founder and a prominent person but we must understand that everybody can make mistakes so I consider that we should be more careful on investing in ETH in the near future. ETH has become a dangerous asset. I want to get to know how minners pertain to the new Vitalik's intention. I will observe ETH and it is interestin for me how investors and traders will react on his intention.

I wonder what would happen if Gavin Andresen didn't exchange information with the CIA. It was at that exact point where Satoshi was pretty much forced to leave and never come back.

I don't trust that Gavin for a second, and all his actions and support for a con artist called Craig Wright just confirm how much of an asshole he really is. Craig Satoshi? Really? I'm glad Gavin forked off towards BCash, which is where con artists gather.

Funny thing is that now even within the BCash con camp there is some serious drama going on. I sincerely hope that a split will happen which weakens the crap out of that rubbish. It was clear already that these people even forked off wouldn't be satisfied until they own 100% of the total share and development.

Fork prediction. BCash splits -> Bitcoin Ver, Bitcoin Wright, Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Wu, Bitcoin Official, Bitcoin Dildo.

Of course, its a terrible idea. Many of ethereum's core philosophies and engineering are hideous. Vitalik Buterin is in a political position where he must appease microsoft and other corporate sponsors of ETH and bow before their demands and so it shouldn't be surprising if ETH resembles Windows 10 in many respects. ETH is the microsoft windows of crypto currencies. It doesn't much resemble the linux equivalent to crypto nor the open source movement which gave birth to the classification of crypto currencies. (I think someone above covered this in an indirect way by saying that Satoshi Nakamoto had to be anonymous)

Vitalik Buterin always maintains a united front with the opinions of bankers as if he were reading from a script they had written especially for him.

My opinion anyway. Until I partner with microsoft and then I may be the one reading from a script.   

It seems to be acclaiming it more than bitcoin now. ETH is up to $ 20k as a fiction. Currently it's just over $ 200 a little. It is hard to get as high as you say. Will it be 10 years or maybe it will replace bitcoin?

I do not have any problem with the transaction fee in ethereum platform, the only issue I am not comfortable with is taking the transaction fee when the transaction is not successful. He should fix that problem.

Yeah, it's becoming too centralized on him

Ethereum is  Vitalik's blockchain.

This is why Satoshi is a genius. He knew he had to stay anonymous, to keep bitcoin decentralized.
If Satoshi identity was known everything he says, every tweet he shared would be attached to bitcoin.

And he is only a human. We are imperfect. Bitcoin is better without Satoshi deciding things in a centralized way.
Bitcoin is bigger than Satoshi.


And what will happen to ethereum if vitalik becomes sick? Or if he get married and have a child and stay more time with his kid? Or if google hires him?

This happens so damn often in human society
We have somebody who designs something good,(I won't use the term great as I don't consider ETH something great) and then encouraged by this he starts having ideas on how to further improve this for the sake of everyone involved.

And as history tells us, in most cases it ends up badly, with people knowing he is wrong but clapping at the sound of the idea because of the reputation of the one proposing it.

If you leave one man in charge of everything sooner or later he will bring down everything he has built..


It will start with the fees, then we will have a restriction on how many transactions you can make, then on the value of the transactions.....

Seriously, Ethereum is better off without Vitalik dominating development. It's a one man show, which is against anything that makes people like crypto.

People should at all times have the freedom to use ANY fee they feel comfortable with, and that under ANY circumstances. If you start messing with people's freedom in that way, what's the point of using Ethereum? I'm at a position where I actually start to dislike his personality and the way he thinks Ethereum should be operating. It's not about him, it's about what does the ecosystem want, but he doesn't care it seems. Should we label Ethereum VitalikCoin?

I absolutely love the way Bitcoin's fee structure works. I at all times want to be able to signal that my transaction has more priority by giving miners more economical incentive to include my transaction in their block. Regardless of how stacked mempools are, it works every time and that's what matters. It's called freedom.

So since it will be like a fixed fee there is something I am not sure to get it. What about if Ethereum value goes above $20k let's say. People will have to pay a fee not negligible compared to now, despite the network is not so busy?

So, the system was designed for cases when blocks reach 100% capacity and users start adding huge fees for their urgent transactions, but how would this system behave in those cases? It seems like you'd have to spend a lot of time trying to submit transaction while the fees are growing with each block, and ultimately it will be decided by luck, because all recent transactions will have the same value. This can negatively affect user experience in scenarios that require fast confirmations, like during some hot ICO's or in certain dapps.



This would require cooperation between majority of miners, if a small miner would try to do this, they would risk losing their own fees if other miners mine those blocks. But depending on how full the blocks are, the threshold for this attack might be quite low.

I think that you will not be able to choose fees freely as you do now. You can pay the fee for the block, or wait for another block with lower fees...

Let's see how it goes, still a proposal. I didn't like it very much either.

it seems like a bad fee model in my opinion. fee should be set based on  the transactions waiting to be confirmed (meaing transactions in the mempool) not transactions that are already confirmed (the previous block).

this can make the fees shoot up without having any cost for the miners. imagine you are a miner, you easily fill the blocks with your own transactions and pay high fees on them. you'll spend nothing because you get the fees from transactions that never entered the mempool then next block increases the fee by 10%. find a couple of blocks and fill them like this and you'll get yourself a very high resulting fee. and a huge profit because you are earning a lot more now.

So, if for ten 100% full blocks the fee will go up by 10% each time, and it won't matter that the next block is only 10% full, your fee is still too low and your tx won't be included?