If you believe Banks are operating properly, then go back to the banking system and leave us alone. Do you have some ulterior agenda for participating in these discussions?[/quote]
If you want PPC to take over the role of your bank, you’d better hope that you wouldn’t have to lose 0.01 PPC every time you buy something, because I think it’s pretty clear most people are not going to be happy with that and the opinion of the majority is what counts if you want a monetary revolution. You can either face reality, which is that people are noticing the transaction fee and being skeptical, or you can go pretend like the system is perfect and be surprised when other people don’t agree. Right now if every vendor suddenly started taking PPC, I would still use my bank because I can go to the ATM and withdraw my money for free instead of having to pay a fee.
Anyways I think directly incentivizing miners by paying them the transaction fee is good, that would set up a market for transaction processing quality that is efficient. However the concern might be that while the coin is in a growth stage in terms of adoption, this could lead to very high transaction fees in a speculative bubble. A centrally set way of distributing and/or destroying fees might work better, and in the long run if it’s designed to incentivize about the correct amount of computing power devoted to the network, it should work well.
I’m not familiar with the mechanics of transaction processing with Peercoin, but a possibility would be a minimum transaction fee which reflects on the “base” cost to the network and is specific to each transaction, calculated in the appropriate way, and then a market-based faster processing speed optional fee of which half is destroyed and half is awarded to miners. It doesn’t need to be perfectly efficient, as long as it approximates the cost then the transaction fee should be low enough that people won’t mind (in econ class they would say the demand curve is very inelastic here or something like that since the price is such a low fraction of purchasing power).
@concavecircle
You don’t understand basics but still repeating same word - lower.
There is no way for algorithm now to estimate cost, maybe in the future there will be coin 2.0 which connects reality with currency, coin where AI(limited - we don’t want financial Terminator;) ) is collecting and processing external data, making conclusions and one ~worker is rewarded by network if his deduction has fewest weak points.
Till then this whole experiment contains a quite small set of mechanisms that try to fit the needs of the people. We have mediums of exchange and value stores. Most of mediums of exchange, with leading BTC, are hiding fees(at least at early phase) within inflation which is great from marketing and expansion point of view but also leads to unpredictable/questionable sustainability. Peercoin took different approach.(it’s conditional dot, OS projects don’t have dots I think ) It doesn’t need so much expansion force when Bitcoin clears the paths.
I do like my simple voting but I’m not convinced to it, we still don’t have enough data to predict consequences.
Nobody is forcing you to put your money here, there are plenty of other coins or you can fund fork development. I’ve taken my part of the stake just because I see the need for such coin and to not cry tomorrow that rich get richer etc.
I am not saying it has to be lower right now. I’m saying it has to eventually be lower if everyone here’s wishes come true and PPC becomes a major currency/value store/exchange medium, simply because the money supply is pretty much decided. Thus the fee needs to be more sophisticated, that’s all. I think that’s fair for me to say isn’t it?
As for a cost estimate, well miners are paid some amount, there’s a number of things you can do, some of which have been mentioned in the thread.
I know no one is forcing me to put my money here, but look around at the discussion surrounding Peercoin. What inevitably comes up is the transaction fee. It’s obviously not very high right now, but people want to know that if they put their mostly reliable US Dollars into this that it won’t be a problem in the future.
We really should do something about this. We can’t wait for this problem to arise and then just start thinking for a solution. Perhaps we won’t even get to the market cap where this becomes a problem because of the fact that this limitation in PPC exists and is recognized by the market. I hope Sunny doesn’t just shrug this off and keep his vision of a “backbone” currency.[/quote]
Be careful in your assumptions. There is in my view no reason why there should be an equilibrium between the tx fees and the PoS generation. Yes if the transaction rate is lower there will be coin inflation, and if it is higher there will be deflation (disregarding PoW coins). But I can’t see any force driving coin inflation to zero and exactly zero. The market may perfectly accept some persisting inflation or deflation. Therefore, I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed.
This is a very interesting discussion. The two most important points (imho):
[ol][li]Setting a fixed tx fee takes away a degree of freedom for regulating the network. As MoD explains, the fixed fee may be either too high or too low to function properly over time. Therefore, a fixed fee cannot be expected to suffice in the long run. The comments from Sunny (Fees are fixed, but may change) only add confusion as to what we can expect to happen in the future. Clarity over the height of the tx fees is very important for end-user confidence.[/li]
[li]If the fee is meant to prevent bloating of the blockchain there should be a target blockchain growth number and the fee should be adjusted accordingly. If the chain grows too fast raise the fees, and if there’s space left lower it. Lower fees should help stimulating adoption, but there should be a good balance with long term useability. Quantifying what we want to achieve through the fees is extremely important, and will help people understanding/explaining the height of the transaction fee.[/li][/ol]
Currently, the fees aren’t prohibitively high at all, so I see this as more of a fundamental discussion about the philosophy and design of Peercoin. Very important to get it right, so happy to see many informed opinions here!
Just my two cents, YMMV.
[quote=“josojo, post:56, topic:1068”]I am trying to form my own opinion on that topic.
While thinking about the problem of the block chain size, I wondered why there is a need to store the hole block chain. Why isn’t it sufficient to keep track of the transaction of , let’s say, the last 3 month and the amount of each peercoin address?
thx in advance…[/quote]
I have the same doubt as Josojo’s:
Why should we keep all the blocks?
Why can’t we just drop those old blocks ?
So far as I know, we keep all the transactions, and have to go through all the transactions before a new transaction confirmed.
But why can’t we just keep the snapshots of the accounts of each address?
For instance,
I buy a ice-cream from some shop with 1 ppc
the transaction could be:
my address – 1ppc ----> address of shop
after this transaction, we can generate 2 snapshots of my account and the account of the shop
so, after the transaction and the ppcs in these accounts confirmed, the record of the transaction is able to dropped
so that we can keep the whole block chain with a very small size.
Please help me check out if there is anything wrong.
The reason the whole block chain needs to be available, is that it acts like a “paper-trail” that people can re-confirm and double check every coin since it was created, and where it went for accountability reasons.
If you delete old blocks before a certain date, you never know how these balances got there in the first place.
It would require redesigning the entire software. It would bring new security problems into play, and new attacks, double spending, etc.
This type of discussion would belong under it’s own topic, something like “How do blockchains work and why do they have to be so long?”
It would be a very long debate and a lot of research and education into Bitcoin’s reason for inventing a blockchain in the first place.
Your somewhat simple question, has a long, very long, difficult answer with many reasons and can’t be easily done here. I don’t even think I’d have the strength to go through that type of debate either.
) It doesn’t need so much expansion force when Bitcoin clears the paths.
