Topic: Base Fee Poll (Read 7770 times)

Jean-Luc · « **on:** November 14, 2015, 08:21:56 pm »

We will do a series of polls to allow NXT holders to vote for the base transaction fee. Votes will be weighted by account balance.

Each poll will have two options. We start with a vote for 1 NXT or lower, vs 2 NXT or higher. If 1 NXT option wins, we do a poll for 0.5 NXT vs 1 NXT; if the 2 NXT option wins, we do a poll for 2 NXT vs 3 NXT or higher, and continue until the most preferred value is found. We will not go lower than 0.5 NXT, but on the upper side there will be no limit. For the result to be representative of NXT stakeholders' opinion, it is important that as many NXT holders as possible vote, and that they vote in each of the polls, not just the first one.

The vote is about base fee, which will affect both the fee per 32 bytes, as described in the 1.7 changelog: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/current-1-7-changelog/ (tentatively set to 1 NXT there), and the fees for ordinary payment and all other transaction types, currently set to 1 NXT for most transactions.

If as a result of the vote the base fee is 1 NXT or 0.5 NXT, this value will be used as cost per 32 bytes for all size-based fees, as described in the 1.7 changelog, but fees that do not depend on size will remain unchanged (i.e., ordinary payment fee will remain at 1 NXT).

If the base fee ends up 2 NXT or higher, this value will be used as cost per 32 bytes for size-based fees, but other fees will also be scaled up proportionately, i.e. if base fee is voted to be 5 NXT, ordinary payment and other transactions currently costing 1 NXT will cost 5 NXT.

Some reasoning and discussion about why fees are being set this way, and in particular the dependency between cost per bytes fee and regular transaction fee, can be found in this thread: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/new-fees-and-size-limits-in-1-7/ .

Each poll will last one week, and I will update this post with the poll id's after I create each of them.

First poll created, poll id is 15477729241158166500 , https://nxtportal.org/polls/15477729241158166500 .

Update:

Second (and last) poll created, poll id is 5523119332615925998 , https://nxtportal.org/polls/5523119332615925998 .

As announced above:
If as a result of the vote the base fee is 1 NXT or 0.5 NXT, this value will be used as cost per 32 bytes for all size-based fees, as described in the 1.7 changelog, but fees that do not depend on size will remain unchanged (i.e., ordinary payment fee will remain at 1 NXT).

In other words, if size-based component is 1 NXT, fees will be as posted here: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/current-1-7-changelog/ ; if size-based component is 0.5 NXT, those that depend on size will be scaled 0.5x.

testdruif · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2015, 09:31:12 pm »

I can understand the reasoing behind this.

Removing the possibility of adding messages to sending nxt isn't an option.
So in order to avoid the possibility of exploiting the fee will need to be higher.

My mind says higher base fee, my heart and wallet say lower

testdruif · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2015, 11:46:35 pm »

My heart bleeds at the amount of people that answered the poll and the weight and origin of nxt of the accounts that cast their vote

The mathematics of weighted voting systems
A weighted voting system is characterized by three things — the players, the weights and the quota. The voters are the players (P1, P2, . . ., PN). N denotes the total number of players. A player's weight (w) is the number of votes he controls. The quota (q) is the minimum number of votes required to pass a motion. Any integer is a possible choice for the quota as long as it is more than 50% of the total number of votes but is no more than 100% of the total number of votes. Each weighted voting system can be described using the generic form [q : w1, w2, . . ., wN]. The weights are always listed in numerical order, starting with the highest.[2]

The notion of power
When considering motions, all reasonable voting methods will have the same outcome as majority rules. Thus, the mathematics of weighted voting systems looks at the notion of power: who has it and how much do they have?[3] A player's power is defined as that player's ability to influence decisions.[4]

Consider the voting system [6: 5, 3, 2]. Notice that a motion can only be passed with the support of P1. In this situation, P1 has veto power. A player is said to have veto power if a motion cannot pass without the support of that player. This does not mean a motion is guaranteed to pass with the support of that player.[2]

Now let us look at the weighted voting system [10: 11, 6, 3]. With 11 votes, P1 is called a dictator. A player is typically considered a dictator if his weight is equal to or greater than the quota. The difference between a dictator and a player with veto power is that a motion is guaranteed to pass if the dictator votes in favor of it.[2]

A dummy is any player, regardless of his weight, who has no say in the outcome of the election. A player without any say in the outcome is a player without power. Consider the weighted voting system [8: 4, 4, 2, 1]. In this voting system, the voter with weight 2 seems like he has more power than the voter with weight 1, however the reality is that both voters have no power whatsoever (neither can affect the passing of a motion). Dummies always appear in weighted voting systems that have a dictator but also occur in other weighted voting systems (the example above).[2]

hash · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2015, 12:43:51 am »

Quote from: testdruif on November 14, 2015, 09:31:12 pm

My mind says higher base fee, my heart and wallet say lower

My mind agrees with your heart and wallet.

While appreciating all the efforts to prune the chain, I'm not sure it must be done by punishing the users with higher fees. 2 or 5 NXT is not much in terms of "real" money, but it is perceived as quite a lot. And it IS a lot for a message or for a transfer of 1 NXT. Remember Bitcoin fees that were minuscule or none even when it cost a few cents.

The priority is to bring new users and new uses to NXT. To discourage exploiters does not seem to be that very important right now. Actually, I'd like to see more exploiters, especially successful ones that deliver some action into the NXT world.

NXT was conceived and is used as a platform for various automated and semi-automated applications that often require micropaiments to function, and the current 1 NXT fee had already been a stopper (or at least an inconvenience) for several projects. Something like Swarm like messaging protocol may solve it in a future, but this future is not near. Further increasing the basic fees might force some application developers to look elsewhere.

Jean-Luc et al, please consider solving the blockchain bloat by technical, not economical means: purging old transactions, sidechains, whatever that does not involve overcharging the users.

Voters: please give my reflections a thought.

Thanks.

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2015, 06:16:37 am »

Quote from: hash on November 15, 2015, 12:43:51 am

While appreciating all the efforts to prune the chain, I'm not sure it must be done by punishing the users with higher fees.

What other way to motivate the users do you suggest? History shows that users don't care about the health of the platform, relying on their good will doesn't work. It is a tragedy of the commons situation.

Quote

Remember Bitcoin fees that were minuscule or none even when it cost a few cents.

How much arbitrary data can you include in a Bitcoin transaction?

Quote

Jean-Luc et al, please consider solving the blockchain bloat by technical, not economical means: purging old transactions, sidechains, whatever that does not involve overcharging the users.

Pruning is exactly the technical means that has been created for solving blockchain bloat. Adapting the fees is the economic motivation for users to switch to it.

Purging old transactions is not possible. Purging parts of them is, and this is exactly what prunable messages do.

Prunable sidechains will take years to implement. Nxt must continue to still be usable in the meanwhile, and for that the blockchain must be kept free of bloat, with the technology we have now, prunable data.

LocoMB · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2015, 07:38:40 am »

As there is much mention of the term 'utility value' I'll cross post here. So I think TX cost should be linked to a *measurable* utility cost!

When volatility occurs, it changes the whole fee structure, and that can seriously impede services that rely on a certain calculations,
and become prohibitive for large groups of users.

How about this:
Pegging a base fee like a message or sendMoney TX to an average basket of some real world utility, for example 50th of a surface mail letter.
Such a physical utility fee is under physical cost constraints, because the letter has to be physically handled and expedited, and that is always related to resource and time usage.
PoW is linked to electricity costs- this scheme would create a somehwat similar link too.
As in this discussion the term 'utility value' keeps popping up, why not take it to the logical step and tie the base TX cost to a physical utility?

There is a nice example for an immutable indicator like this: The Baltic Dry Index (BDI)

This is the only index that cannot be manipulated, and there exist no futures and other leveraged instruments for this, hence the BDI is the best gauge for world trade.
Surface mail letter costs are similar immutable costs of transporting information stored on a physical medium, but it could also be any similar utility used as gauge.

hash · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2015, 09:08:02 am »

Thank you for the answers.

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 15, 2015, 06:16:37 am

What other way to motivate the users do you suggest?

I suggest we motivate the users to use NXT network. From this viewpoint, higher fees are less motivating than lower fees.

Quote

Nxt must continue to still be usable in the meanwhile, and for that the blockchain must be kept free of bloat, with the technology we have now, prunable data.

I'm all for the prunable data, I'd make it obligatory for anything above 32K.
My post strictly relates to the topic of the base transaction fee, attempting to influence the voters to pick the cheaper-for-the-users option.

Thanks.

qq2536007339 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2015, 07:16:46 am »

I personal prefer a single vote with multitudinous choice and longer valid vote block,plus allow multitudinous choice.

In that way,we can find out the shareholders really want at single vote.

I already create a new unofficial poll,cover I believe most of the range which each shareholders want.

farl4bit · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2015, 09:47:59 am »

Quote from: farl4bit on November 16, 2015, 09:08:08 am

For psychologically reasons doubling the fees to 2 NXT is a big step. Mostly because in the Nxt client the fees are very visible:

vs

My suggestion is to make the column "Fee" not visible in the client on the splash screen. People would still see the fee when they do transactions and when they dive deeper in the transactions (My Transactions), but make it invisible on the splash screen. The impact would be less and Nxt will be more about transferring NXT, assets, etc.. and less about the height of the fees.

Idea?

Wanted to share it here too. What are your thought? Is Nxt about fees or about financial transactions on the frontend?

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2015, 09:09:39 am »

I have created the second poll and updated the original post.

farl4bit · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2015, 09:49:28 am »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 23, 2015, 09:09:39 am

I have created the second poll and updated the original post.

Thank you. My vote will be for 1 NXT. We need to keep Nxt spam-free. Number 1 priority!

TwinWinNerD · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2015, 11:24:38 am »

0.5NXT fee FTW! We want to have many market making bots on the AE.

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2015, 11:29:05 am »

The vote determines the SIZE BASED FEES ONLY! Fees for AE orders will remain at 1 NXT regardless of the vote outcome.

NXT ENTERPRISE · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2015, 11:59:07 am »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 23, 2015, 11:29:05 am

The vote determines the SIZE BASED FEES ONLY! Fees for AE orders will remain at 1 NXT regardless of the vote outcome.

I really do not even see a need for this.

personally i think Jean-Luc could be in the best position to know what to do.

If this was at a large scale a few years down the track with 1 million members i can get it.

But i vote lets put the pressure and faith on Jean-Luc to take NXT to a new level in features and ease of use.

I get a feeling his progress is already being held back.

Lets let him free..

A benevolent tech ruler is fine for now, he can move as fast as he can move.

I say run forest run....

Etherium is out.

Lets roll while we have the quality and ease of a very nice ecology system...

If Jean-Luc is let loose with the tech, then we can stabilize and set up an education system for new members.

saladin89 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2015, 12:19:11 pm »

I agree with you, it is stupid this whole democracy thing. 95% of nxt users down't have the required knowledge to be eligible to vote on a matter like this. It would be better that jl steers the ship in the right direction. JL is doing a good job, if he doesn't we can just choose another leader, it is that simple. I might add that i include myself in this having not enough technical knowledge to vote on this.

Edit: i might add that whales having more weight is a good thing and mitigates to a degree the effect of people with little knowledge voting, but I still think that JL is the man who should decide this.

abctc · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2015, 02:33:47 pm »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 23, 2015, 11:29:05 am

The vote determines the SIZE BASED FEES ONLY! Fees for AE orders will remain at 1 NXT regardless of the vote outcome.

- it contradict the OP, doesn't it ?

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 14, 2015, 08:21:56 pm

The vote is about base fee, which will affect both the fee per 32 bytes, ..., and the fees for ordinary payment and all other transaction types, currently set to 1 NXT for most transactions.

Switch to ArdorForum

News:

Author Topic: Base Fee Poll (Read 7770 times)

Jean-Luc

Base Fee Poll

testdruif

Re: Base Fee Poll

testdruif

Re: Base Fee Poll

hash

Re: Base Fee Poll

Jean-Luc

Re: Base Fee Poll

LocoMB

Re: Base Fee Poll

hash

Re: Base Fee Poll

qq2536007339

Re: Base Fee Poll

farl4bit

Re: Base Fee Poll

Jean-Luc

Re: Base Fee Poll

farl4bit

Re: Base Fee Poll

TwinWinNerD

Re: Base Fee Poll

Jean-Luc

Re: Base Fee Poll

NXT ENTERPRISE

Re: Base Fee Poll

saladin89

Re: Base Fee Poll

abctc

Re: Base Fee Poll