CJP [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-15 📝 Original message: Nick ODell schreef op di ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-15
📝 Original message:
Nick ODell schreef op di 14-07-2015 om 18:29 [-0600]:
> >I like to think of fees in the same way as we pay for Internet access.
> >Every physical hop in the Internet has related costs, e.g. in placing
> >the cables and upgrading the cables when new technology becomes
> >available and when demand grows.
>
> What sort of fee would this be? A percentage fee? A per-transaction fee? Both?
>
> I can see a compelling case for any of the three.
Rusty has argued for a fee that scales with Satoshi-seconds, so the
to-be-transferred amount times the amount of time it takes to finish the
transaction. The reason for that would be because then the fee scales
with the actual scarce good you're consuming (the ability to lock a
certain amount of funds for a certain amount of time on a channel is the
thing that's scarce).
Personally, I'd like to keep participants as free as possible in
choosing the right fee structure; the technology platform shouldn't
stand in the way. Virtually any fee structure is possible anyway, as
long as some trust exists between two sides of a link, but in order to
make fees trust-free, some fee structures require special features from
the underlying technology. Per-transaction fees that can be determined
in advance are easy to do, but e.g. the Satoshi-seconds structure is
something that requires an extension of the micro-transaction channel
design.
CJP
📝 Original message:
Nick ODell schreef op di 14-07-2015 om 18:29 [-0600]:
> >I like to think of fees in the same way as we pay for Internet access.
> >Every physical hop in the Internet has related costs, e.g. in placing
> >the cables and upgrading the cables when new technology becomes
> >available and when demand grows.
>
> What sort of fee would this be? A percentage fee? A per-transaction fee? Both?
>
> I can see a compelling case for any of the three.
Rusty has argued for a fee that scales with Satoshi-seconds, so the
to-be-transferred amount times the amount of time it takes to finish the
transaction. The reason for that would be because then the fee scales
with the actual scarce good you're consuming (the ability to lock a
certain amount of funds for a certain amount of time on a channel is the
thing that's scarce).
Personally, I'd like to keep participants as free as possible in
choosing the right fee structure; the technology platform shouldn't
stand in the way. Virtually any fee structure is possible anyway, as
long as some trust exists between two sides of a link, but in order to
make fees trust-free, some fee structures require special features from
the underlying technology. Per-transaction fees that can be determined
in advance are easy to do, but e.g. the Satoshi-seconds structure is
something that requires an extension of the micro-transaction channel
design.
CJP