Jump to content
blackro9

About the fees

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BenRPG said:

Yes, yes yes. Glad some more start to see it. I was was absolutely alone with this pre Aug 1st (except for @phanpp). I would prefer BCH a lot over LTC. Specially since they (Devon and Adam) mentioned to me that they could easily snapshot everything and have everyone in control of all their keys and such. This would be the huge advantage of using BCH. They tend to LTC as they kind of would like to stay in the core team politically. And they had some segwit plans (probably also not needed on BCH because we actually like TXes). They mentioned having better dev support on the core (and LTC) team. And unfortunately I could not show the otherwise, because Peter R was a no-show for this meeting although he RSVPed. Anyway here are my notes from this meeting:

Summary from Chat with Adam and Devon from Tokenly/Counterparty

1. Adam B. Levine is a nice guy, Devon rather quiet introvert dev it seems.
2. Adam cares to much about politics by constantly stating he has to stay neutral.
3. For these reasons, they may go for Litecoin when they port the system over.
4. On BCH they could technically take everything over and get all people to stay with their keys in charge of everything. They seem to still see the political disadvantage bigger then the advantage.
5. They had some plans with SegWit which are not possible on BCH (I doubt they need SegWit, they were just hoping on it to improve scaling.
6. They need money and basically stated they go another direction unless someone would help them with funds.
7. Adam thinks bitcoin cash is like Roger in largest part. He does not seem to like Roger.
8. They would be very interested in token systems in general also on BCH
9. Basically for political reasons they dislike coming on to BCH but would maybe consider if they got serious support.

I still see BCH as the perfect fit as you could easily port everything over. Clean cut for everyone, including polo and dex. But the problem is for political reasons this is not going to happen. Still to many who "hate" on the initial idea of bitcoin in practice.

Devon left. Those left behind are firmly in Core's corner. I don't know where they are heading. Many of us including Adam are heavily invested in SOG but our assets are frozen because of this fiasco. How can we support Adam & Co? How much do they need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 4:51 PM, wachtwoord said:

First off: BTC is making tbe exact correct decisions to maximize its value. Payments systemis hardly relevant.

At the same time this means that a utility such as SOG assets is no longer cost effective with on chain transactions. Alternatives are either implementing the current system on top of lightning (feasible, but a bit complex and not adopted widely yet) or another block-chain, preferably one with niche functionality (if not niche at some point it will face similar scaling issues).

BCH has no value whatsoever for any type of application. 

Look I know we have a lot of haters, so ok. To me it shows we are competition and competition is good. Just take it from a Bitcoin user (yes user) that BTC as you mentioned is dead for global fast and secure TXes. I used to do about 100 TXes a year since 2011. So almost all use cases except for speculation are dead on BTC. Remittance: spam, Counterparty: spam, Payments: spam.... The list goes on.

So no value to you maybe. Everyone that wants TXes sees no value in BTC. Bitcoin was designed as medium of exchange and store of value. Not one or the other. Both. BCH tries to restore that and the nice thing is, we can not be stopped by talk about centralization or anything else, we just do it and will demonstrate it works also on large scale. Maybe it would all not be needed but with Lightning 18 month down the line (maybe) and other issues besides TtM I don't see it viable. I live in an aboslute core hub but even when asking my core friends some catchy questions, I only get non-answers. So for me I have to say not even feasibility is shown in that regard. And with the current fee situation it just gets worse.

So even bringing up lightning as potential solution here (specially short term) is just not suitable.

I see the same issue with LTC by the way. Once they hit the limit they will be as congested as BTC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, phanpp said:

Devon left. Those left behind are firmly in Core's corner. I don't know where they are heading. Many of us including Adam are heavily invested in SOG but our assets are frozen because of this fiasco. How can we support Adam & Co? How much do they need?

Devon seemed alive and kicking when we talked end of December.

I think they need dev support more than anything else. Problem was Peters no-show didn't help to boost confidence. And personally I probably couldn't work with him anyway but I wanted to give it a shot since he actually offered support. But he has so far not responded to my summary so a dead end for me.

To really convince Adam and Devon we would probably need to pay 1-2 ABC or XT devs for a year and have them work partly on the BCH implementation itself and partly on Counterparty portation. This is a rough estimate. So if you know people who would like to fund this I would happily talk to Adam again or get everyone in contact with the ABC lead dev.

 

I currently dont want to fund this but would happily invest some time to coordinate a few things...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad more people are talking about switching off BTC due to the ridiculous fees. I know BCH might be an option but I have another one to propose. What I am really urging the community to take a closer look at is switching to PIVX. That blockchain is super fast and the fees will always be low; it is built into their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@phanpp Amaury would be up for it. I will chat with him more on the weekend and fill him in on the background. I will also ask him about how much funds he thinks this needs... So do you have ideas as to how we would fund this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 5:26 AM, BenRPG said:

Look I know we have a lot of haters, so ok. To me it shows we are competition and competition is good. Just take it from a Bitcoin user (yes user) that BTC as you mentioned is dead for global fast and secure TXes. I used to do about 100 TXes a year since 2011. So almost all use cases except for speculation are dead on BTC. Remittance: spam, Counterparty: spam, Payments: spam.... The list goes on.

So no value to you maybe. Everyone that wants TXes sees no value in BTC. Bitcoin was designed as medium of exchange and store of value. Not one or the other. Both. BCH tries to restore that and the nice thing is, we can not be stopped by talk about centralization or anything else, we just do it and will demonstrate it works also on large scale. Maybe it would all not be needed but with Lightning 18 month down the line (maybe) and other issues besides TtM I don't see it viable. I live in an aboslute core hub but even when asking my core friends some catchy questions, I only get non-answers. So for me I have to say not even feasibility is shown in that regard. And with the current fee situation it just gets worse.

So even bringing up lightning as potential solution here (specially short term) is just not suitable.

I see the same issue with LTC by the way. Once they hit the limit they will be as congested as BTC.

Right you are Ben. I have between .1 and .15 stuck in 3 wallets. They are unmoveable. In 1 wallet (old) I can't vary fees. @.0002 transaction will be stuck forever. One transaction from this wallet is still stuck after 2 months. One on Blockchain.info I lose 45% to move it. So I am waiting till no one uses BTC and transactions go down and by then hopefully BTC will still be worth something. .1 is not a small amount. It is $1500. 

By my thinking BTC can only lose users. Those who buy less than  .1 BTC from exchanges will soon find out the reality that they will not be able to move it.  At this moment I think exchanges and mining pools take up the most of the blockspace leaving very little for the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BenRPG said:

@phanpp Amaury would be up for it. I will chat with him more on the weekend and fill him in on the background. I will also ask him about how much funds he thinks this needs... So do you have ideas as to how we would fund this?

Someone is already working on BCH. We should find out who. What I find curious is that Shaban don't seem to have much interest in all this going ons. If anybody is anxious to rescue this it should be him leading the charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 9:24 PM, phanpp said:

Someone is already working on BCH. We should find out who. What I find curious is that Shaban don't seem to have much interest in all this going ons. If anybody is anxious to rescue this it should be him leading the charge.

Pinging at @Shaban.

Yes I am a bit disappointed with that too. I think I even asked them if they also want to get on the call with Adam and Devon I think I got no response. Counterparty is drawing dead if nothing happens within the next few month...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 5:14 AM, BenRPG said:

Pinging at @Shaban.

Yes I am a bit disappointed with that too. I think I even asked them if they also want to get on the call with Adam and Devon I think I got no response. Counterparty is drawing dead if nothing happens within the next few month...

Will the existing XCP token be the same? Just confused about that. Can't remember now but do we also need a little BTC to move bitcrystals? Glad that this is moving forward. Blockfreight was a big project. What was their token?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phanpp said:

Will the existing XCP token be the same? Just confused about that. Can't remember now but do we also need a little BTC to move bitcrystals? Glad that this is moving forward. Blockfreight was a big project. What was their token?

I think that one will be kind of a new genesis. So an new implementation starting fresh, as far as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, phanpp said:

Awesome!

Another really great aspect of implementing Counterparty Cash, apart from fees, would be that card trades could be near instant. Instead of waiting around days for a purses to confirm as it is now. Spells of genesis could, with Counterparty Cash, accept zero confirmation as a valid transaction. There is no need to wait around for first confirmation because the probability of the transaction confirming is nearly guaranteed and the Replaced by Fee concept is removed in Cash. So as soon as you hit the buy button in Book of Orb, boooom you can play the card in SoG... just think about that experience for the user!!!   

Edited by bjoorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like there could be problems over at Counterparty.cash. Legal action threats. I still think that project will proceed as planed 1st March. Think it will be a BCH burn because it is easier. No air drops to XCP holders as someone has to burn BCH to get XCPC before airdrop and the issuance. Easier to start clean and those who want to be on XCPC can sell their XCP and purchase XCPC. Notice that price of XCP have dropped but price of Bitcrystals have continued up. Most likely Bitcrystals will port over to the new chain 1:1 so that it is useable again. That is my thinking. Probably why EDS has no comment. ( Insider trading etc )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin transaction itself has improved, but it could be back to difficult situation again at anytime.
Counterparty plan and work are good: CIP 10 Multi-Peer Multi-Asset Sends (MPMA) & CIP 15 Segwit Support, later CIP 13 – Multiparty Counterparty Aggregate Transactions (MCAT) (see the end of their latest newsletter https://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-newsletter-02-01-2018/)
 
These Bitcoin & Counterparty aspects are encouraging, but perhaps not enough to rely completely on it. The need of a 2nd blockchain support is further present and correspond to our multi-chains approach. Even if we did not have now the perfectly suited blockchain for our digital assets true ownership requirements, we started working on an alternative with Ethereum:
- a version of Book of Orbs compatible with Ethereum ERC-20 token
- a new game working with Etehreum and using a future new browser feature in Book of Orbs allowing to visit external sites, adding a blockchain collection wallet experience ; see :

We further follow the Counterparty progress with the priority for our SoG blockchain cards to be easily tradable. Expanding our multi-chains experience prepare us to better react if the situation is worse and reinforce the power of our ecosystem around Book of Orbs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little confused here Nick. I always thought we needed a little BTC ( Now a lot because BTC increased in value plus the block size limit ) to move our tokens including Bitcrystals.  Are you and Shaban are saying that the Satoshicard that was recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain will now also be recorded on the Ethereum blockchian and possibly others. Will this not create multiple copies of the same card on different blockchains? Or can the Satoshicard become blockchain agnostic?

Back to Ethereum. It has the same problems as Bitcoin. Fees increase as the usage increases.There will soon be other CryptoKitty. Cryptodoggy etc and they will bung up Ethereum especially if someone uses it as an attack vector.

So how can the Satoshicard become Blockchain agnostic? This would be the most interesting development if we are going down this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 8:13 PM, Overtime said:

I imagine moving a satoshi card to etherium would entail burning a satoshi card

It doesn't seem to me that the fees are tied to the value of the card, just the byte size of the token.  Can we get a dev's comment in this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fees are an issue a lot of it was from slow coaches not activating segwit quickly, wallets/exchanges forcing obscene fees (sending AND receiving) which were not needed and just an overloaded blockchain.

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/#delay

The same would apply to BCH, LTC if the chain was full just like ETH has problems with cryptokitties etc clogging up the network. ETH might have a solution to it's problem soon with DOGE - DOGE-ERC20 bridge, moving a satoshi card or anything to ETH would then be very easy. Speaking of DOGE that's the one for cheap fees 24/7, it's blockchain is active (in fact more than BCH) and fast transactions.

Steemit blockchain is the only one remotely ready for mainstream adoption with it handling 10k tx/s at max, I wouldn't be surprised if soon it's doing more transactions than all the other blockchains in total without breaking a sweat. Bitshares can handle similar tx volumes.

http://www.blocktivity.info/

 

Not sure if changing the blockchain used is wise unless you go with steem or bitshares that can handle very large transaction volumes quickly. Others will suffer from scaling problems, be clogged and have nasty fees when full. BTC is the live guinea pig for this problem.

Setup a lightning network, add other coins for payments, look into incorporating atomic swaps, number of coins that can be atomic swapped is growing extremely fast.

 

What is the byte size when buying/selling a card? Would be useful to know so the min fee can be sent on the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2018 at 11:26 PM, TeknoRapture said:

It doesn't seem to me that the fees are tied to the value of the card, just the byte size of the token.  Can we get a dev's comment in this?

Fees are tied to TX size (in bytes) mostly. Earlier on they were also tied to coindays, TX amount etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 11:19 PM, Blaah said:

The same would apply to BCH

Nope, we have plenty of space on BCH and are going to 32mb in May, eventually removing any cap. This "blockchains don't scale" myth needs to be debunked. They work better and are more powerful at scale, if we let them.

 

Sorry LN for card trade is not feasible. Well I think LN is not even really feasible for monetary TXes. LN is basically a network which costs for every single edge to open and close. It's a catch 22. High connectivity costs a shitload, low connectivity reduces resilience.

 

In bitcoin there are big movements that want to fix things, which are not broken at all, improvements which are making things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×