I still don’t understand the point of native in such case. Why would anyone offer node capacity if he can only earn node capacity? I understand this works for some small players offering excess capacity of their home PC, but that is unlikely to be sufficient for network operation, especially in current environment, where there is close to 0 organic activity. We need nodes to earn real crypto so they can convert to cash and pay their bills.
So if there is not a way how to convert native back to crypto and cash, than it is just a transferable credit. Which compared to receipt is worse, since receipt at least pays the nodes upfront in erc20 ANT. And still gives us option to pay nodes in credit, in case they want to be paid in it.
It’s actually more like the original concept, where people paid for their uploads, by providing download services to the network. It was discovered that doing this using a token was actually simpler than trying to manage credit lines, but conceptually it was thought to be similar.
Moreover, there was always a drive for decentralisation. If you are hosting nodes to serve the network, in order to be able to upload data to it, it means lots of dispersed nodes.
It would make sense for big data producers to also be big node runners. The reverse would be less likely though.
Ofc, a big uploader could always buy ANT and convert them to native too. I can’t see ANT going away and using it for uploads where all the fees go to node runners would increase the demand for it.
Perhaps there would be some OTC trades on the side too and maybe one day - long after the network has become established and ANT have dwindled - trading native would gain demand (and acceptance).
EDIT: To add, we currently have millions of nodes earning next to nothing, yet node runners keep running. I wonder just how many we really need to align incentives with results.
For me, the funny part is that this dns could also be imagined as a currency with even denominations if you use the currency ticker, and got for instance:
€1 €10 €100 €200 eur eur eur eur
I would even give you €311 if you had the dns with eur eur eur eur
The ‘political’ argument that stablecoins need to be backed 1:1 with fiat has been nonsensical since 1971…
in GOD we usd now that would be worth $200 we dont usd politicians
Would be fun if dns are actually transferable
Super mediocre to what David did with Four-Word-Networking, butt here is how a ‘meme’ “stablecoin” it’s
I have an interesting idea. Data payments on the network are dependent on size – more data, more cost.
What do you think would the outcomes be if fees for Native Token transactions were not dependent on data size (constant), but on transaction value?
First thing that comes to my mind, the network would be more suitable for (micro)payments, than for store of value. It would attract users of micropayment systems, and discourage money laundering, big scams, de-fi… could it be beneficial for the network?
To discourage criminality the rates would have to be exorbitant, which would lead the network to only be useful for micropayments, as it would be too expensive for other legitimate transactions.
It would be difficult to keep such a ‘boundary’ at the appropriate level as token value changes.
I think exorbitant is too much said. Perhaps having 0,0001% fee would be enough for someone wanting to do a million-dollar transfer to use btc or monero instead, paying for pizza would be very cheap, and payment for 1 kilowat-second of electricity would be practically free of fees?
Wouldn’t it be automatically tied to storage price, as Native Token would be? Whether storage of 1GB costs 1000 ANTs or 0.001 ANTs, the boundary for transfer fee would also move – pizza would cost 10000 ANTs or 0.01 ANTs, so fee for transfering this amount of money would also be proportional, right?
My feeling is that the cost of any fee for native transactions should be determined by the cost to nodes of the resources needed to process & store the transaction.
Why bake in something to discourage use of the network for high value transactions?
The tech should be neutral for people to use as they wish in my opinion, and if it becomes useful for high-value store and transfer of value… fantastic!
I stumbled on this the other day. It seems to have everything we want, maybe Autonomi nodes could run the notary servers?: Open Transactions
I dug around in the forum, looks like this was talked about on here about 10 years ago, but haven’t heard much since. Figured I’d bring it up again if there something we can borrow from here.
On one hand I agree: the network shouldn’t charge more than it needs to. However, on the other, we’re competing with legacy crypto which typically have this ‘more value = more cost’ transaction pricing. In the long term, I have a feeling node payments for storage aren’t going to be enough for a healthy ecosystem, especially when you take mutable pointers/scratchpads that are basically freeloading no matter how many edits are made. It doesn’t cost any more to process a high value transaction over a micropayment, but charging a higher fee will incentivize running nodes, which helps everyone. Or put another way, charging a fee for transactions can help subsidize data storage.
Don’t Bitcoin and Ethereum etc charge for block space (resource use), not transaction value? Bigger value doesn’t always cost more to process than smaller.
If this becomes a significant burden on nodes, fees will need to be added to make this sustainable.
I don’t see why the network can’t be sustainable from data storage + fees for transactions & mutations.
I agree that getting more revenue streams for nodes beyond storing data would be better for strengthening the ecosystem, but in my mind this should be done by offering resources (e.g. compute) rather than artificially inflating fees above the market price nodes put on them based on resource requirements.
Healthy competition between millions of nodes means price likely won’t be far above marginal cost if the market is allowed to play. Monopoly pricing is only possible with one / few providers of a service.
I can’t imagine transaction fees becoming anywhere near as significant to node operators as fees for storing data, so putting people off potential high-value use cases for Autonomi in pursuit of boosting node revenue may be far more damaging than it is beneficial.
BTC is on transaction byte count. If you have 10 BTC in a single record/entry/whatever they call it then its the same cost as 0.001 BTC in one of those. Same number of bytes.
Also for Autonomi token transactions then the goals of the project is zero cost transactions (or at least almost zero if technically needed)
I like this idea. Definitely would strongly support micropayments … but because of that, it would also better support store-of-value because people don’t generally spend in large amounts (or otherwise move large amounts) when saving their wealth. Having a strong mechanism to foster micropayments on the other hand will attract a lot of people to use the token - also increasing it’s value and so also attracting those who want a store-of-value.
Of course fee-less transactions are ideal … but we know that the ideal isn’t always possible.
As for transaction cost calculation, I suppose this could be derived a few ways. Nodes compete in this regard so I think it’s doable.
I hope our best and brightest give it another hard re-assessment. Could be another potential libp2p-like savior. I heard about OT prior to MaidSafe, but had to Grok it to refresh my memory. Pretty confident it was a Let’s Talk Bitcoin recap of the Texas Bitcoin Conference of 2014. That or the Vegas ’15 conference. Either way, Odom is sharp and it was obvious at the time. OT had so many intelligent features that were suggested (cash, cheques, vouchers, etc) by OGs here in the early days that it would be foolish not to revisit. Smart contracts and digital bearer certificates get everybody excited. Good call, @Zettawatt.
work…