Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 126. (Read 804676 times)

I still haven't forgotten the long discussions we had on the argument that in an adopted Crypti marketplace with DApps and Merchants, etc, they will all be running delegate nodes out of necessity to interface with the network and therefore we have built in delegates who don't care about profit from being a delegate because they are profiting from their implementation of the technology. I still think it is a valid argument but it isn't a popular one at this point.

Lol!  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  Fees are a complicated decision with no "right" answer, it's a complicated tradeoff / tension between (1) Crypti users, who benefit from the lowest possible fee; (2) Crypti node operators who benefit from the highest possible fee; and (3) spam control, which requires some minimum fee.    My goal of 0.0% fees is admittedly an extreme position that is 100% favorable to the first factor and totally ignores the demands of the last two factors.  However, 0.0% is undeniably the best fee for the growth of Crypti if factor (2) can be taken care of by ultra-low cost computing capabilities instead of fees and factor (3) can be taken care of by blockchain pruning capabilities instead of fees.  That's why I'm sounding like a broken record on these topics. 

Crypti has the potential to be a breakout coin and with everybody's input (mainly of course the devs!) I believe that WILL happen.

As with anything these are my thoughts and don't reflect the entire foundation. Just answers off the top of my head to some of these issues.

Thanks!  Here's two more:

6. What's the Crypsy wallet ID? 

(Polo is 23888C; Bter is 68718C / 43271C.  They're down to under 27M total, hooray!)

7. Is there dev interest in "mandating" ultra-cheap node hardware like an ODROID-C1 ( http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php ) for use by DPoS Delegates to reap the advantages of a uniform, standardized hardware / software setup for ALL key nodes going forward?   

Let me just add a few points of my own, in regards to how I look at some of these issues. These are my own personal thoughts, which you all know I often share, but do NOT reflect the entire dev team and are in no way an announcement or decision of the Board. This is just Matthew talking.

Warning: It's going to be long-winded.

Supply

To start with, everyone needs to understand that DPOS is just the first piece of a major puzzle we have been working on for quite some time (since PoT failed miserably). This is a major milestone for the Crypti team and all of you, and it is also a stepping point to much bigger things. Getting the network, the network parameters, and the core system down and  getting it right allows us to start implementing all of the other features we have already been building (which will come down the pipeline faster than you think).

The next phase after securing the core network is to unveil our Custom Block Chain solution. This is the system we will be using to allow users to build, deploy, and manage Distributed Applications. There are several factors that go into building this portion of our ecosystem. For starters, do we allow custom currencies to be built in each custom block chain thereby requiring users to convert from XCR through the DApp to the custom token, or do we have all users utilize XCR within their DApps as well as the main token.

If we decide to allow custom tokens, changing the supply makes absolutely no sense as most of the users will convert and hold sub-tokens in these custom chains. IF however, we utilize XCR throughout the network, including in custom chains and DApps, then psychologically, having a much larger supply of XCR does hold some weight. Think of how an exchange works. When you transfer your XCR to BTER, they log the amount in a DB and assign it to your account. While you maneuver your money within the BTER ecosystem, it does not show on the Crypti blockchain, it does not award tx fees, it essentially is outside of our network for the time being. Then, when you pull it back out of BTER, it is logged and fees are charged.

Now look at the situation we ended up in with 65% of the currency being stored in BTER. That only left 35% on the market and available. DApps with custom tokens would work mostly in the same way. You would transfer your XCR into the custom chain and have it converted to the local token for that application. During the time in which your coins were caught up in this casino, video game, or business application, they would not be available to the network or flying around awarding TX fees. They would simply be sitting in the account of the DApp waiting to be withdrawn or all spent within the DApp. Now imagine several thousand DApps, each with thousands of users, and imagine how much XCR might be caught up within applications and unavailable to the network.

The counter argument to this is that even if we increase the supply by 100x or 1000x, does it really give us THAT much more to play with? If the supply stays at 100 million, and the price rises considerably, people will be transferring XCR in the decimal places into the DApps which would be much less of the supply than what you are saying because if XCR hits $1, you could put $1000 in a DApp and only take 1000 XCR out of the market. The only real reason you are adding supply is so people like my mom don't get confused by the decimal places!

In essence, there are valid arguments on both sides but the core reason to change the supply boils down to psychology. More people will buy in because they can get more for their money and the market cap might increase which makes us higher on CoinMarketCap, which brings in more interest, which makes us bring in more people, and subsequently grow more. Plus, it's not confusing to old people who don't want to look at decimal points.

On the flip side, you can declare micro units and do other things to change the impression of how much is held and being spent to keep it simple for old people and why mess with something that isn't broken for the simple sake of market manipulation to raise the valuation and perceived value of the coin?

This is why we are sitting at a tie breaker. I can tell you that in the beginning I was on the fence for a very long time and eventually felt like I didn't see enough of a downside to NOT do it, if that was the popular choice. With much debate internally, I feel like I don't want to mess with the supply at this point. I don't see any real benefit outside of psychological reasons that could look to some like market manipulation and gaming, which is not what we are about.

The Fee

So this issue boils back down to the same mechanics I previously discussed. Everyone is assuming that every transaction on the network or every purchase made will charge a 0.5% fee, but that isn't necessarily the case. With custom chains, if they utilize custom tokens, then the rules internally could be set differently and charge more or less fees on a case by case basis. In this sense, the XCR fee only applies to the transaction in and out of that custom token when it is converging with our network. In this case, I don't know that 0.5% is too high but that is something we can only determine once we see the network activity post Custom Chains. Right now it would all be predictive modeling with no baseline example of what the activity might look like as no system such as what we intend to deploy exists.

Even if we use XCR throughout the entire ecosystem, the fees still might not be taken into account within a DApp in the same way it doesn't charge you network fees every time you buy or sell on BTER. It all depends on how the developer / author of the application has built their product.

Bottom Line

Suffice it to say, a lot more goes into these decisions than face value based on some of our long term plans. We are reading everything posted here and considering all possibilities at this point. If I had to guess right now, I would say the supply most likely will stay the same and the fee will probably be lowered, that's just my feeling right now. It may not go as low as you want it to (0% for Mal), but it may very well end up lower than 0.1%. Make sure you read my disclaimer because these are just my thoughts and not an actual decision.

Not that I want high fees or am discounting your arguments, but have you seen how much it costs to do stock or option orders? Some accounts charge $16 per transaction...it's crazy!

The people who have not been following Crypti and are hearing about it for the first time won't really care.   The people who HAVE been following Crypti realize that the only thing Crypti PoT 1.0 shares with Crypti DPoS 2.0 is the Crypti name and an unstoppable dev team determined to create a revolutionary cryptocoin.  This dev team has earned the right to mod the coin parameters as they see fit in this shot at resurrection.

I think changing the coin supply will make Crypti seem unreliable, and will add a lot of confusion for all people involved, especially the people that periodically check prices/coin status.
That this confusion and fooling of people causes the marketcap to go up momentairly for short-term monetery gain is a plus for some people, but not what crypti really is about.
As an added effect, some people will think Crypti has fallen so much that they disregard it completely. All-around an idea that does nothing to Improve crypti in a concrete way.

As for the fee's, a balance will need to be found between three things:

• rewarding the delegate's keeping the network up (delegates will have costs associated with hgh-bandwith connections & reliable hosting)
• stopping blockchain spam by very small transactions(the minimum fee needed for this is probably around 0.001% , making 1000 transactions will cost you 1% of the original amount)
• not punising normal use of the crypti network(the fee needs to be low enough to not make a noticable difference in holding after being tranfserred a single time)

Mal, we value your input and your questions are valid.  I will make sure they are discussed at the meeting today.  We should be done with it in about 9 hrs from now.

At 100X present coins, the XCR price would be 10 or 12 satoshi.  Which means that the exchanges would move us to the LTC trading market or the DOGE market.  

It would be better for XCR if the price was in the 5 digits and XCR was listed as a major currency, with its own market where you traded your altcoins directly for XCR.  


As for the question on wallets being enough to vote for 101 delegates.  Please read the post by GreXX on delegates.  Each node can pay 1XCR and then vote for 33 delegates, with a max of 101 votes total (for 4 XCR paid).  Votes can be changed at any time, by removing them from a delegate.  

With the present fee of .5%, the Return on Investment (ROI) for a delegate is when 202 million XCR is traded thru the system, and they have been up 100% of the time.  ALSO..... the 10K registration fee for a delegate is paid to the forging delegates, so the early delegates can make back most of their registration fee with subsequent 111  delegate registrations.  

BTW, all the fees are going to be returned to the community thru projects such as the faucet and the Node Reward Program, which I guess will be renamed the Delegate Reward Program.  

HEY!! We resemble that remark!!

Specific questions I would like discussed at today's dev meeting and hopefully answered here on the forum:

1. What is the proposed dev target level in US dollars of monthly minimum compensation a Founder will hopefully receive from user fees?  

2. What is the proposed dev target level in US dollars of monthly maximum compensation a Founder can receive that would trigger a dev reduction in user fees?

(Anybody risking 10K Crypti in an "election" to claim the reward between these min and max target values - and who must pay for a node out of his own pocket month after month if the target range isn't hit due to low Crypti value / traffic - deserves to know these numbers.)

3. What is the minimum user fee value that the devs believe would hold blockchain spam to an acceptable level?

4. Can the DPoS system theoretically allow Delegates to avoid adding a zero block to the blockchain if there is no transaction activity for a given time, this reducing blockchain bloat?  Will this feature be in 0.2.0?  If not, can it be added as soon as possible to 0.2.X?  

5. Can the DPoS system theoretically allow Delegates to temporarily halt forging when the blockchain hits a certain length and forge a new Genesis block that is cryptographically signed as valid by a large majority of Delegates, with the previous "bloated" blockchain frozen and archived on a public website for audit purposes?  Would this system adequately deal with "blockchain bloat / spam" and eliminate the need for a minimum spam reduction user fee?  Will this feature be in 0.2.0?  If not, can it be added as soon as possible to 0.2.X?  

Or, set up a cap for the transaction fees, for instance 25XCR. So if a person make a large transaction he will not be charged a too large fee.

Bitcoin is not doing fine. Initial sync can take two days, a single confirmation one hour, and it uses gigabytes of space. It'll be completely useless 10 years from now, and this is one of the reasons why it's at $250 instead of $1100 by now. It will be replaced by a lean system that loads within 20 seconds, syncs within a minute, and confirms a TX within 30 seconds.

My views on the Fees

Fees

The current hardcoded fee of 0.5% is a bit to high, in my honest opinion. While I understand that PayPal and credit cards charge in excess of 2.9%, our main competitors in the crypto-space charge nowhere near as much as Crypti does percentage wise to make a transaction. Again I understand that the actual difference may be a small, trivial amount, however Crypti's fees are still higher than most other crypto-currencies, and it will likely be one of the first points of criticism from other people in the crypto-community.

The solution :

I propose the Crypti removes the hardcoded fee of 0.5%, to a variable based fee (based on user-input). For example when a user wants to send a transaction, all the user will have to do is enter their own fee percentage, much like in Bitcoin, although in Bitcoin the higher the fees, the faster the confirmation times (I'm not sure if this is applicable in Crypti). What this would bring about is that if there are people out there using the network they can also choose to add extra fees to support the 101 Delegates. Also if users arem't happy with their current fees, they can input their own amount.

As for blockchain spam, a very small minimum amount could be enforced eg. 0.001%, however if a minimum fee amount is to be enforced, do not go the NXT route where 1 NXT (in this case 1 XCR) is used as minimum fee to pay for everything. The reason being if Crypti does become successful and it's price soars (which I'm sure we're all hoping will happen), then that 1 XCR could be worth something. If Crypti's market cap reaches $100 Million (which is a possibility), then 1 XCR is equivalent to 1 USD. That's actually a pretty big amount if 1 XCR is going to be used to perform many actions on the App Store/Custom Blockchains/Virtual Machine.

For example on NXT's Asset Exchange, it costs 1 NXT to place a buy/sell order, if XCR hypothetically had an asset exchange and it enforced the same fee structure, then users could potentially be paying 1 USD to make a simple buy/sell order placement.

Maybe want to lower the fee a bit. Somewhere in the middle, to make everyone happy

I get what you're saying. Once a fee is established even if very low, if you ever raise it people will cry.
So better to start on the high side cause you can always lower it
Problem is I don't see how .5 or even .1% can ever be the fee for any crypto currency.

The Bter fee lowering was a great job. Even though I withdrew the majority at 1% and the rest at .5%.
But that has nothing to do with a hard coded .5% charged for all transactions involving spending Cryptis through the network.

Maybe with custom blockchains developers will build some really great stuff on Crypti and have a network effect advantage?
Therefore, just like we all have no choice but to go through bitcoin first, everyone will have to go through Crypti to access it?
So then a .5% fee would be accepted because there are things people need to access that are exclusive to Crypti.

If something like that were the reason for the .5% then at least I could understand the thought process.
Whether the community agrees would be another story.

I'm putting my thoughts whenever I have one out there so that like Grexx said, the team sees it all while making decisions.
I feel pretty confident whatever you guys end up deciding because you heard all the different sides.

I'm pretty much done on this subject. All I ask is for you guys to put yourself in the shoes of the typical
crypto user/speculator, the average Joe who loves his fiat, as well as delegates who will make the network rock solid dependable.

Totally agree, I'd go for x100 though. As to .5%, this song is old as life. As I understand heavily loaded accounts will vote for their own delegate(s), thus scooping up transaction fees from entire network => getting richer. What if fees are lowered to 0.01%, do you guys seriously think there will be not enough wallets to fill 101 place? I would sign my AWS for even 0.001%

We can ALWAYS lower the fees, and have a happy community, BUT we can never raise the fees without a very unhappy community.

You guys have forgotten that we got Bter to lower their 1% fee to .5% and now .05%.  That alone has saved a lot of XCR for you all, including a major investor that had 5 million XCR on Bter.  That would have cost 50,000XCR just in the Bter fee to withdraw, but now it is only 2,500..... a savings of 47,500XCR.