hey everyone..
with halving happening and rewards dropping, it feels like we need to rethink the whole fee structure to keep miners happy while encouraging more nodes. what do you think about the idea of charging an oxidation fee on old transactions? like, if a transaction is frozen for years and then gets moved, it pays a fee. maybe start at 10% after ten years of being idle.
just throwing this out there, but wouldn’t this make everyone spend their unspent outputs at least once a year to dodge the fee? this could lead to a ton of transactions flooding the mempool, totally packed blocks, and maybe even a fee war. miners would love it, but the rest of the network? not so much.
hold up, that’s a terrible idea! why should someone pay a 10% fee just for keeping their funds? banks actually give interest on savings, which is way better than this. miners will make enough profit as is; if they can’t, then those who stick around will get the rewards.
this proposal seems like it would add rules that weren't in the protocol. it would hit users hard, especially small ones who might be stuck with inputs having to pay extra fees just to access their funds. would this even work for Bitcoin? maybe for an altcoin, but not here.
what you’re suggesting sounds like demurrage, which is like a tax on holding money. instead of diluting value by printing more money, you’re taxing it. but what’s the actual problem you’re trying to solve?
appreciate the response, mocacinno..
there’s definitely a trade-off between getting holders to help reduce blockchain size while still keeping it functional. if we implement this oxidation fee, we could actually increase block size too. we could adjust these variables once we see how it works.
not a bad take, Findingnemo:) but just to clarify, that 10% was just a concept. I’d propose a logarithmic fee that would curve over time. And remember, a blockchain isn’t a bank. Crypto exchanges are more like banks in this ecosystem, and they already have their fees and earning programs.
thanks for the input, bitbollo.
it’s gonna be a complex decision. running simulations could expose potential side effects. if we can manage block size and shorten the blockchain length, we might actually align more with Bitcoin’s original payment system vision.
I remember chatting about demurrage before, odolvlobo.
the oxidation fee could stem from Bitcoin's aim to be digital gold. once you lose your private keys, your funds are gone forever, unlike gold that you can find again.
but honestly, I don’t see how this would motivate people to run full nodes. Only miners get the oxidation fee, while full nodes still need to verify the entire blockchain. We could upgrade node communication instead.
hey ABC, just checking, but isn't there a difference between full and partial nodes? Partial nodes rely on full nodes. I was thinking of creating a new node type that drops old blocks that have no unspent transactions. this might help reduce storage needs.
but that sounds like a tax! you’re just protecting miners by taxing holders, and what if nobody wants to move their coins? people will always find ways to avoid taxes, so wouldn’t that happen here too?
thanks for your thoughts, Stompix.
taxes can be useful if used properly. if we can invest tax revenues into the system, it could create value. think of the oxidation fee as a hidden cost, like if you have cash but need to find an ATM; there’s an opportunity cost there.
I believe you meant pruned nodes, which keep just the latest blocks and UTXO set for verification. People have been able to run pruned nodes for a while with Bitcoin Core software.
you’re not really helping with blockchain size. All you’re doing is forcing transactions to avoid your fee. This could actually lead to more clutter instead of resolving the issue.
nope, that analogy doesn’t work! my funds are secure in the blockchain, why should I pay 10% when someone else who moved their coins six months ago doesn’t? it’s not fair.
I get the concern about miner rewards being an issue in the future. If fees don’t rise, the blockchain could be in trouble. But instead of fees, why not keep the block subsidy steady? That would ensure miners stay profitable.
the safety of the blockchain relies on the power miners use. if one day they only get $50k per block, that’s all it would take to disrupt the network. 2.6 billion might sound like a lot, but for a global currency, it’s nothing.
I think we need to brainstorm ways to get more Core Wallets out there instead of SPV wallets. Pruned nodes could save unspent transactions, and that could align with future GDPR standards. We need to keep improving.
yeah, BlackHat, the size of pruned nodes for addresses with one unspent transaction won’t change much. but addresses with multiple unspent transactions can consolidate into one. looking for ways to compress the blockchain size is key.