How do we feel about free transactions for coins that have not moved in x amount of time?
Probably the time which coins were not moved would have to be multiplied by the amount of BCH sent and that number would have to have at least a certain size, otherwise there could be too many tx (yes I said it, blockchain-size-growth beyond a certain amount has some negative consequences.)
thoughts?
Posted May 31, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC
I approve this message.
Inb4 Roger becomes a NANO fan
yeah, lets just ignore the lack of privacy inherit in the design and the need to trust its version of DPOS.
I've been thinking on 51% attack defensive strategies for a while (currently working on Block Finalization), and one of the articles I came across was from Gavin providing thoughts (which I agree with) encouraging this very thing:
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html
One of the things a 51% attacker can do is prevent any transactions or new blocks from anybody besides themselves from being accepted, effectively stopping all payments and shutting down the network. That would be bad.
But it would also be obvious it was happening, and pretty easy to defend against.
Something like "ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected.
At first glance that would stop a "spawn-camping 51% attack" (only publishing empty blocks), but not 51% attack which just doublespends a few tx.
But it would allow people to throw weight behind a honest miner by relaying their tx which destroy lots of coin-days directly to the honest miner, otoh throwing weight behind the dishonest miner in the same way would be a lot harder, since you would have to have such coins, and since a successful doublespend significantly reduces the value of all coins there would be a high cost associated with it.
Edit: you would have to come up with some other stuff to really get benefits from that, otherwise the dishonest miner can just replay the tx. Actually, no, scratch that, you only would have to come up with a way to send inputs already spent on the other chain with that tx, which makes the thing a little harder, but still quite easy, considering in this scenario the dishonest miner also includes all tx in his blocks which contain the double-spend, since he wants to increase the weight that destroying coin days gives his chain, and since he is 51%-ing he necessarily will be ahead of the honest chain in terms of blockheight.)
I like it.
At first glance that would stop a "spawn-camping 51% attack" (only publishing empty blocks), but not 51% attack which just doublespends a few tx.
Right. I'm working on something else to mitigate double-spend 51% attacks. I only posted this because I'd come across it earlier and realized that using such a strategy along with my own idea (Block Finalization) would completely nullify 51% attacks.
I don't really care if it's $0.000 or $0.002.
You don't care now that BCH is far under 1000$.
I can't imagine why I would mind paying $0.002 instead of 0 regardless of the price.
Tx are only cheap now because the value of BCH is low. With every dollar BCH raises in value, transaction costs raise as well.
Let's say a normal tx with one input and two outputs costs 0.002$ at a BCH price of 500$.
When BCH=2500$, the tx will cost 0.01$ When BCH=10.000$, the tx will cost 0.04$
And so on. And this is just the price for a standard transaction at 1 sat /byte. The price increases with the amount of inputs and outputs used in a tx.
Claiming that you don't care today because its cheap now is exactly the attitude core devs used to postpone raising of the block size limit until it was too late, and to defend the ridiculous tx prices we see on BTC today.
You don't care about 0.002$, Tone Vays doesn't care about 2$.
What is cheap for you doesn't necessarily be interpreted as cheap by people less wealthy than you.
The concept of 0$ tx for coins that haven't been moved for a long time is a good incentive to motivate users to use their coins, and increases liquidity.
Why are you assuming a transaction will always cost 1 sat per byte?
It is my impression that the ecosystem is committed to keeping the fee under $0.01 for a standard transaction regardless of the price.
IIRC free transactions are already included if they meet a certain priority.
I knew they used to be in BTC a long time ago, but are they still on BCH? If so at what criteria? I tried to find it for a few minutes or so with google and some block-explorers, but I did not find a way to search/sort recent tx by fee paid.
It is with BU, I'm unsure on the other clients.
To be a free transaction it has to destroy 1 Coin Day.
Only the miners decide which transactions get included in a block and which don't. There is no way to force them to include transactions for free, and nor should there be. Fees can never be centrally planned.
Am I the only one who thinks fees should be based on the Size, Amount, and Age?
and net utxos
I would say size, age and net UTXO.
I am not sure why amont is relevant..
IIRC that value was called "coin days destroyed".
This was a perfect spam protection while allowing free transactions at the same time. It was a very elegant system.
I miss those old days where everything was simple and elegant and worked perfectly for all use cases - before Bitcoin has been sabotaged and poisoned with various rent seeking attempts.
the downside of course being that those who most benefit from free tx are not people capable to destroy a single coin-day, while sending 1$ for free for example, you would have to have not moved that 1$ for (current value of 1 BCH in $), right now 431 days.
But I do not see how we could get around that.
The most important thing about that was the spam protection. A spammer would need thousands and thousands of dormant addresses to be able to spam at any meaningful rate. But the average Joe could still enjoy his free transaction every few days. As soon as he uses the network more than this he has to pay a tiny fee, like everybody else.
Amen.